--gejyspa
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
Yes, I think that's the reason. Since commands were marked by the
absence of x1, for "dunda ta mi" to mean "give that to me" the
arguments to the right had to start from x2.
The other justification I heard is that you usually want ko'a in "lo
broda be ko'a", or in "da poi broda ko'a" to fall in the x2 place.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
(i.e., in modern lojban "broda" would have equalled "ko
broda"). It's just a design choice.
--gejyspa
That's the reason I like, even if it's not the historically correct
one for how it got that way.
But I personally think of selbri-last as the "default" order (with
lots of variation possible, either to make for less tangled syntax or
for pragmatically marked reasons) precisely because it makes x1 feel
less privileged.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Frank <frankdm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 November 2010 13:59, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (i.e., in modern lojban "broda" would have equalled "ko
>> broda"). It's just a design choice.
>>
>> --gejyspa
>
> However, in lojban, does not the absence of an argument to a selbri simply
> mean that argument is unspecified? In such case, "prami mi" means "Someone
> unspecified Loves Me" and is not the command "Love Me". In order to make it
> a command, if I recall correctly, One is required to use "ko", so as to make
> the statement, "You (imperative), Love Me." Such an idiom ("absence equals
> unspecified") is seen in the former Google Wave lesson where the Student is
> instructed the phrase "zdani mi" means "something houses Me" or "I have a
> house" and is not told "You (imperative), house Me." Is there actually an
> updated version of lojban, this "modern lojban", I have missed? Or are You
> just saying, "If We were to start from scratch, We might make 'broda' equal
> 'ko broda'."?
> Just wanting to make sure I have read materials correctly.
> mi'e xuinkrbin.
Yup, you've got it right. Loglan did it differently, but Lojban works
exactly as you think.
- mi'e .kreig.daniyl.
Yup, you've got it right. Loglan did it differently, but Lojban works
exactly as you think.
- mi'e .kreig.daniyl.
That's right. gejyspa just didn't want to use Loglan words, because many
people here probably don't know them. What he meant was: If Lojban now
was the way Loglan was back then, {broda} would equal what we now know
as {ko broda}.
mu'o mi'e timos
Lojban can do SVO and SOV equally well. Unlike natlangs, however, it doesn't
have a small number of places for arguments that are usually assigned to
subject, direct object, and indirect object; rather, it has an indefinite
sequence of places. x3 of dunda corresponds to the indirect object, but there
is no way x3 of mlafi'e (the side that has two eyes) could be called an
indirect object.
Pierre
--
When a barnacle settles down, its brain disintegrates.
Já não percebe nada, já não percebe nada.
And there are even some words they might think they recognize but are
false friends, like "cidja" (means "awake" in Loglan) or "barda"
(means "rewards" in Loglan).