''pe'' necessary for ''sumti'' plus (BAI-type modifier) Gotcha

A sumti to be attached to another sumti with a sumti tcita (BAI) must be attached using be or pe. Otherwise the phrase modifies the entire bridi.

Do you have some examples of what you're referring to? I'm fairly sure the pe can only attach a sumti to a sumti... -jay

No, he means without the "pe", BAI + sumti applies to the whole bridi. — nitcion

Since BAI opens a new place, be is preferred to pe, unless I am completely misunderstanding you, which is very possible without any examples.

mi klama le zdani be fi'e do
I go to the place created by you

mi klama le zdani pe fi'e do
I go to the place associated in some way with...something created by you?


mi klama le zdani pe fi'e do is defined to mean mi klama le zdani poi do finti [ke'a]. See The Book, chapter 9.10 — Adam

  • Sorry, Adam, but 9.10 does not say that. It only implies mi klama le zdani poi do finti - the ke'a is not explicitly defined, and in fact in some instances, such a definition has been rebutted. See http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9105/msg00053.html nitcion
    • It says: "Example 10.5 and Example 10.6 have the full semantic content of Example 10.1 and Example 10.2 respectively." (I accept that the ke'a might not necessarily be in the x2, though it's quite likely.) I suppose "defined to mean" wasn't quite the best way to put it, but there isn't really another way to understand it.
      • Sure; I'm just issuing the caution that such a transformation does not hold in the general case for all sumti tcita, as polemicised by Bob LeChevalier. In the particular case you mention, of course it holds. (Furthermore, it's a transformation I also believe holds in general, per the Gismu Deep Structure Hypothesis. But that hypothesis is only that; it's not baselined, or even mentioned in the Book.) — nitcion

10.1) la .apasionatas. poi se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.
cu se nelci mi
The Appassionata which is-expressed-by Artur Rubenstein
is-liked-by me.

10.2) la .apasionatas. noi se finti la betovn.
cu se nelci mi
The Appassionata, which is-created-by Beethoven,
is-liked-by me.

10.5) la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain.
cu se nelci mi
The Appassionata expressed-by Artur Rubenstein
is-liked-by me.

10.6) la .apasionatas ne fi'e la betovn.
cu se nelci mi
The Appassionata, invented-by Beethoven,
is-liked-by me.

pe BAI looks very clumsy to me. --xod

Yes, it's an attempt to imitate natlangs' adpositions, and doesn't add anything new. The best that can be said in its defense is that its slightly shorter, and doesn't introduce a subordinate bridi. — Adam

wow. thats disgusting and confusing as all hell. does anyone actually use that regularly? --jay

People, people, why aren't you reading the [latest version of the] lessons? :-)

  • ne fi'e and pe fi'e are explicitly advocated for cmene; the standard example from the Refgramm (p. 203) is (10.5), (10.6), above.
  • Somehow I, and maybe others, got it into our heads that sumti tcita are usually attached to other sumti using pe, not be, because the cmene example stuck, and we thought all sumti must behave like this. (Or, more precisely, we thought everybody else thought like this, so we'd better do the same. :-) )
  • I said as much in the lessons.
  • Robin Lee Powell, like any sane New Growth Lojbanist, said "Huh?"
  • I double checked, and the Refgramm only talked about doing this for cmene.
  • You can do this for other sumti. (It is neither ungrammatical nor nonsensical. It does, of course, mark you of being of a certain generation...) But for other sumti, you can also do this with be, which of course makes much more sense, since it makes it completely parallel to default internal sumti.
  • The Lessons are now changed. Whatever bad habits we 'Tweeners (or I 'Tweener) may have gotten into, be is canonical for sumti tcita as well as normal sumti attached to other sumti. (Proving old habits die hard, I posted a translation to the List an hour before this, using pebau.)
  • Finally, I don't think you can use be instead of pe for semau and seme'a (also p. 203). But this, the original 'modal relative phrase' construction (see the original Textbook draft, in which it used to have a cmavo all of its own), has not prospered in Lojban. See Frank likes Betty more than Mary.

So much for history. Can I ask though, are people objecting to pe as opposed to be, or to internal sumti tcita in general?

-- nitcion

internal sumti tcita are my bestest friends... but only when used with be. i'm ill at the thought of connecting them to a sumti with pe. the fact that the grammar even allows anything except a sumti to follow pe boggles my mind. if i ever had a reason to attach a sumti tcita to a cmene, i wouldn't. i know where to find NOI cmavo, and i know how to use them. :-) --jay

Created by admin. Last Modification: Monday 22 of September, 2003 19:52:23 GMT by admin.