From iad@math.bas.bg Thu Feb 3 07:48:25 2000 X-Digest-Num: 353 Message-ID: <44114.353.1907.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 17:48:25 +0200 From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Re: 3 loafs Jorge Llambias wrote: > la ivAn cusku di'e > >sklyanin@pdmi.ras.ru wrote: > > > [1] lo pa nanmu cu xagji > > > [2] .i te vecnu lo pa barda bliku be lo nanba gi'e citka > > > [3] .i ku'i ca'o xagji > > > >I'd abbreviate {lo pa} to either just {lo} or just {pa}. > > Actually, {lo pa nanmu} is "at least one of the one and > only man that there is", so it should be {pa nanmu} or > {pa lo nanmu} (or {lo nanmu}). How much does it matter that it was one man? Come to that, his sex matters even less. Let's try {pa prenu}. > Also it should be {pa barda bliku}, > or {pa lo barda bliku}, not {lo pa}. Or {lo barda nanba}. One kalach is simply a large quantity of good white bread. > On the other hand, I think this is one of those rare cases > where we should use {le} in Lojban even though "the" is not > used in English. Ah, yes. > >{ca'o xagji} `he is continuously hungry': > >doesn't {co'unai} get the point across better? > > I think {co'unai} is not currently grammatical > (though I think it should be). You mean {nai} can't be attached to everything in Lojban? > Another possibility is {za'o xagji}. > He continues to be hungry even though (presumably) > he should no longer be hungry. I did wonder if {za'o} could be used for a state holding beyond a would-be {co'u} point, as opposed to a process going on beyond its {mo'u} point. > >How do we say `one more' (English `another one') in Lojban? > > {lo drata}. > > You mean as a number? I don't know. I mean that if the English sentence _He ate another loaf_ is translated word-by-word into Bulgarian or German, it will come across as putting undue emphasis on the fact that the second loaf was different from the first one (as if it could have been the same one). > > > [11] .i .uinai mi pu fesygau le ba'e so'i nanba ki'u ma > > > >A rhetorical question in the original. It may not be a > >good idea to phrase it as a question in the translation. > >All he's doing is state that he's eaten (too) many loaves > >in vain. > > Should rhetorical questions be banished from Lojban? > The idea is, I suppose, that the answer is so obvious > that it need not be given. No, the idea is that it's obvious that no answer can be given, because his eating of the loaves has done no good (he thinks). > Is this so illogical that it doesn't belong in Lojban? > They could be marked with {paunai} if necessary. The existence of {paunai} seems to imply that rhetorical questions are not banished as a matter of principle, but I still wouldn't use them for things that can be said in more Lojbanic ways. {.i'enairo'e .i.u'acu'i mi citka le barda nanba}, perhaps? -- <'al-_haylu wa-al-laylu wa-al-baydA'u ta`rifunI wa-as-sayfu wa-ar-rum.hu wa-al-qir.tAsu wa-al-qalamu> (Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi) Ivan A Derzhanski H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences