From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Aug 17 09:10:55 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GDkSN-0003yQ-Mh for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:10:55 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GDkSK-0003yH-Qe for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:10:55 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id z74so1485965pyg for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:10:51 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=aWoQ9vdtvPLEPuQd0oPu4kvPe8o7yeDikvzeCkMzkXxFEPHU49aUu8mrOku9OrrUfu2lmksGRXmPfEeyFsfBhmPhNy0f5vIO8ZMj4kdB/7sKo/It5Hnkxmttpob9t1mVdgkXjSRqPSH19gwaD3b7w2RhEzVgAcsZqHGkPvqXhzc= Received: by 10.35.61.14 with SMTP id o14mr3853521pyk; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.22.14 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560608170910qfb2cf4fkf15ab66a07c3a4c9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:10:51 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: ti/ta/tu, zo'e, da In-Reply-To: <44E48545.9090001@freenet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44E48545.9090001@freenet.de> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 3518 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 8/17/06, Michael Graff wrote: > Is {ti/ta/tu} just an (indeed practical) abbreviation for {lo vi/va/vu > se jarco be mi} for the sake of brevity and lucidity? More or less, yes, but not exactly. {lo vu se jarco be mi} could refer to "what I showed you over there yesterday" for example, it has no (temporal) tense and it does not necessarily refer to something I'm showing you right now, like {tu} does. Also {vu} does not really indicate the place where the shown thing is, but rather the place where the showing occurs. Perhaps {tu} could be more precisely expanded as {lo nau se jarco be mi be'o poi zvati lo darno be mi'o}. (I ignore the "(property)" that the gi'uste has for of the x2 of {jarco}, I take it to mean just "x1 shows x2 to x3".) > I was surprised to read that {zo'e} seems to be a kind of definite pronoun: > "[zo'e] viska mi" means "'You-know-what' sees me." (see Chapter 16, > Section 2, "Lojban Reference Grammar"). > So {mi viska} means the same as {mi viska zo'e zo'e} which means "I see > something, and you know what I see and under which conditions I see." Right. If I ask {xu do viska le se viska be mi}, you can respond {mi viska}. "Do you see what I'm seeing?", "I see (it)". That would not normally mean that you just see anything, but rather that you see the obvious thing being referred to (what the obvious thing is will depend on the context, of course). In some context, {zo'e} might turn out to be as vague as {da}. > I have read the passage about {zo'e} because I've been interested in the > difference between {da} and {zo'e}. {da} has the minimal meaning of a > sumti. {da terpa mi} just means "There exists something which terrifies me." > 1. Question: Could this source of fear be an illusion, or is {da} used > only for physically existent somethings? No, there is no default restriction on the values that {da} can take. > 2. Question: {da terpa mi} means "Something terrifies me." {[zo'e] terpa > mi} seems to be used interchangebly - in contradiction to the quoted > explanation in the "Lojban Reference Grammer". And why two different > wordes for the same meaning? {[zo'e] terpa mi} says that whatever is obvious from context terrifies me. mu'o mi'e xorxes