From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sun Nov 8 14:28:11 1998 X-Digest-Num: 2 Message-ID: <44114.2.14.959273823@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:28:11 -0300 From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" ({le } cu {stidi }) > >Translation: Your explanation suggests there is an answer. > > I don't understand the use of "ka'e" in this position. {lo ka'e danfu} is "something that can be an answer". I did not want to assert that it was necessarily the answer he was after. > I'm also a little confused by "le do velcki". > Now, what does "le do velcki" mean? Clearly the "do" is intended > as a possessive, but "do velcki" means "you are an explanation", > so why should "le do velcki" mean "your explanation", which is, > semantically, clearly the intent? {le do velcki} has the same meaning as {le velcki pe do}. {do velcki} does mean like you say "you are an explanation", but what follows {le} is never a whole bridi. Think of it as inserting {do} into the sumti {le velcki} as a modifier. This is explained in chapter 8 of the grammar. > (mu'a { cumki}) > > Does "xoda xadni" mean "xo xadni" with the "da" taking > the value of the answer? No, {xoda xadni do} means "How many things are the body of you?" {da} is a sumti and {xo} quantifies it (or rather asks for a quantifier). > ja lu xoda xadni le pa sezvi be do li'u > > Again, I'm confused by the "pa". Here, the x2 of "xadni" > is "(le {pa })", and I'm lost in trying to > translate "pa sezvi be do" You can't translate it by itself without the {le}. {le pa sevzi be do} means "the one and only self of you". Here it was important to emphasize that we were talking of a single self. > Translation: As an aside, in my opinion no human language > limits the expression of ideas. > > Personally, I disagree. I believe that *all* languages > limit the expression of ideas, but are generally flexible > enough to permit a back-and-forth to communicate meaning. If the meaning can be communicated, in what sense can the ideas not be expressed then? > co'o mi'e kolin. co'o mi'e xorxes