soi

17 views
Skip to first unread message

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Oct 8, 2010, 7:31:27 PM10/8/10
to lojban
Just checking the grammar, I find that 1) a soi-phrase is the same kind of
free modifier as a sei-clause, 2) "soi" can itself be followed by a free
modifier, and 3) "soi" can be followed by one or two sumti. So the following
sentences are grammatically correct:

.i soi xi re li pai li te'o mi klama le zarci
.i mi simtavla do soi soi le tirxu le cinfo do mi
.i mi klama le zarci soi do

What do such constructions mean?

Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Oct 8, 2010, 7:37:04 PM10/8/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Reading your post, I find that 1) I hate {soi}, 2) I don't understand {soi}, and 3) 2) is the cause of 1).

Just taking a guess, I'd say the third jufra is equivalent to {.i mi klama le zarci .e do}, but given 2), I'm probably wrong.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Oct 8, 2010, 7:52:05 PM10/8/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Reading your post, I find that 1) I hate {soi},

That's a sane attitude.

> 2) I don't understand {soi},

Can't blame you.

> and 3) 2) is the cause of 1).

That's not so good. You shouldn't hate things just because you don't
understand them.

In my opinion SOI should be deprecated.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Oct 8, 2010, 8:32:40 PM10/8/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Friday 08 October 2010 19:37:04 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Reading your post, I find that 1) I hate {soi}, 2) I don't understand
> {soi}, and 3) 2) is the cause of 1).

I understand "soi", in its normal usage. It's followed by two sumti which
occur elsewhere in the sentence, or sumyma'o which refer to them, and means
that the sentence remains true when those two sumti are exchanged.

What I don't understand is why it can be followed by only one sumti, and
why "soi" can be attached to words, including "soi" itself, in the manner
of "xi". ("soi xi PA" presumably can indicate which bridi is being
reciprocated, but I'd rather put "xi" on "vo'a" to indicate which bridi's
sumti is being exchanged.) Such sentences I regard as syntactically valid
nonsense, like "mi du ra'o do te.u ko'a .ibi'ibo lo finpe be naku cu rodbo'e
xi pai".

Pierre
--
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.

Michael Turniansky

unread,
Oct 11, 2010, 10:41:36 AM10/11/10
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> Just checking the grammar, I find that 1) a soi-phrase is the same kind of
> free modifier as a sei-clause, 2) "soi" can itself be followed by a free
> modifier, and 3) "soi" can be followed by one or two sumti. So the following
> sentences are grammatically correct:
>
> .i soi xi re li pai li te'o mi klama le zarci
...

> What do such constructions mean?

Well, DUH! Jbofi'e tells you! It means "reciprocal sumti-sub 2 [
pi, e] I is going to the trading place." All you have to do is read.
QED

--gejyspa

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages