From iad@math.bas.bg Wed Feb 9 08:16:04 2000 X-Digest-Num: 359 Message-ID: <44114.359.1962.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:16:04 +0200 From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Re: 3 loaves Jorge Llambias wrote: > la ivAn cusku di'e > >The Codex says: `The span of time between the natural and the > >actual end points is represented by "za'o": {le xirma ca za'o > >jivna bajra} [...] which means that it ran past the finish line > >[...]'. That doesn't say if the same sentence could mean that > >the horse ran after a potential (though unnatural) end point -- > >something that could've made it stop (injury, loss of a shoe, > >loss of jockey, whatever). > > I don't see the finish line as much more natural than an > injury or a lost shoe/jockey, At least it is inherent to the race; anything else is accidental. Can you say {mo'u bajra} if the horse drops dead on the track? (Has anyone translated `The horce raced past the barn fell' into Lojban yet?) > what could be more artificial than a finish line? It is artificial on an absolute scale, but that is only because it is a natural part of the artificial concept of running a race. > >Or maybe {drata} means `another' (not the same one) > >and {frica} means `different' (not of the same kind). > >That is another parameter on which natlangs vary. [...] > Your lemonade example I think made it clear. Your mother > didn't want _another_ lemonade, to replace the one she had, > but _an additional_ lemonade, right? Right. One more of the same kind. In English you can say _another lemonade_ for that, but the literal (etymological) German counterpart suggests a different kind of lemonade, and that was in the sort of place where they serve one kind of beer (the local brew) and one kind of soft drink for those who don't care for beer. > >Then there's a language-related stylistic thing: when talking > >of a recurring situations, some languages prefer to count > >(`ate a loaf ... ate a 2nd one ... ate a 3rd one') and others > >prefer not to (`ate a loaf ... one more ... and one more'). > > Really there are languages that prefer the first method? Languages and styles thereof. Evgueni's tale is an example (it is written in the style of Russian folk tales, although it is not one). > It seems like more effort is involved for no obvious gain. Think of it as a rhetoric device. sklyanin@pdmi.ras.ru wrote: > Ivan Derzhanski wrote: > >Or {lo barda nanba}. One kalach is simply a large quantity > >of good white bread. > > It was my first choice too. However, after that I reread the definition > of the gismu {nanba} and noticed that it is expressed precisely in the > same words as that of e.g. {djacu} or other uncountable substances. Compare: > > {nanba}: x1 is a quantity of/contains bread [...] > {djacu}: x1 is made of/contains/is a quantity/expanse of water [...] > From this parallelism I concluded (prematurely?) that bread > is treated in lojban as a substance, like water, milk, air etc. Your conclusion was correct. But note that both definitions contain the word _quantity_, which is a count noun. > By the way, can we say {pa djacu}, or {pa cidro}? > Does it have any reasonable meaning? Evidently so: `one quantity/expanse of water', etc. Context will specify the size of the quantity/expanse (a natural body of water, a bottle, a glass, a molecule) if you do not. -- <'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