[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: A problem with cu
At 03:35 PM 2/12/03 +0100, lojban@65536.org wrote:
Let's see whether I understand it.
{le cilre cu xamgu} - learning is good
The learner is good
{le cilre xamgu} - (a tanru I cannot translate)
The learner-type-of-good-thing (perhaps "the good learner")
{lenu mi cilre cu xamgu} - the event of my learning is good
Excellent! An alternative and more likely English equivalent would be "The
lesson is/(was) good". I presume that a specific event of learning is a
"lesson" in an example below.
{lenu mi cilre xamgu} - the event of my doing (tanru)
The event of my being a "good learner"
{lenu mi cilre zo'e cu xamgu} - the event of my learning something
is good
In the last sentence I need {cu} because {lenu zo'e (selbri)
zo'e ...} is always another selbri.
Almost
{nu zo'e (selbri) zo'e ...[kei]} is a selbri.
Thus
{le (nu mi cilre zo'e [kei]) xamgu}
is
the learning-something-event type of good thing
or possibly
"good lesson"
But this selbri doesn't have
x1, x2, ... like gismus. (?)
"nu broda [kei]" does have an x1. The place structure is the simplistic
"x1 is an event of broda-ing". When you say "lenu broda [kei]" you are
referring to the x1 of this selbri, since that is what x1 does.
At this point among the abstractors, I believe that only "ni" abstractions
have an officially defined x2
mu'o mi'e .iens.
(Is {ki'e mu'o mi'e .iens.} something like {Thanks, ...}?)
Yes.
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org