--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Hm, I don't really {sutra je jipci je mencre} (but thanks for the compliment!), and I'm still not sure what to make of this. But it seems to me that {ti blanu je zdani} is *not* a good example sentence in the reference grammar.
(Since 'the x2 of a one-place brivla' is a separate issue, separately discussed, that need not distract us here, I'll stick to the {sutra je jipci} example.)
la gejyspa ku cusku di'e
> "mi sutra je jipci" is a perfectly fine sentence to say
I agree that 'I am fast, and a chicken' is what that sentence is probably supposed to mean, and what will be understood by a co-operative listener. But then, the speaker should have said {mi sutra gi'e jipci} or so. I don't think {mi sutra je jipci} makes sense. If it did, that would mean that places could be pragmatically cancelled out/filled with {zi'o} … or {no da}, whatever. But I think a legitimate Lojbanic reaction (besides {ki'a}) to {mi sutra je jipci} would always be {sutra je jipci ma}—the second argument is still there and can always be made explicit. Otherwise, we'd end up with place structure ambiguity in ellipsis sentences, wouldn't we?
My tentative conclusion is that CLL #12.12 might better be listed as an erratum. Opinions?
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
On 11.11.2013 01:58, Michael Turniansky wrote:Okay, now I at least understand what you are saying. I find this problematic, as tanru are by their very nature ad-hoc, and figuring out such eliminated places on the fly is likely impossible (assuming for a second that it's sensible).
Simple... the compound selbri "sutra je jipci" doesn't HAVE an x2
place (but it does have both an s2 and j2 place which have to be
internally linked with be), similar to the way that a lujvo may not
have all the places that the underlying veljvo seltau jonai tertau
have.
If you say it has no x2, then I assume you would say that in:
mi klama je sutra lo tricu
{lo tricu} actually fills klama3 and it fills neither klama2 nor sutra2. How can this be practically used? In which case it would mean:
mi klama je sutra lo tricu
"I go [and-am-fast] from the tree."
Is this not weird?Apart from the aforementioned practical problems your idea presents, I think it's also strange for places to disappear from a *tanru*. In my opinion, when you join two things with {je} (in this case the sumti places), then you claim that they both apply, not that the places disappear when nothing can satisfy the claim. It seems somewhat backwards.
I don't know why this is a such a problem for you.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i