From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Sep 05 18:43:53 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19vS7F-0005W1-00
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:43:53 -0700
Message-ID: <20030906014322.48601.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.69.6.9] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:43:22 PDT
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: le darlu
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <opru1hb2zsw3ngr4@smtp.hotpop.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 430
X-Approved-By: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners


la iuvál cusku di'e

> 1) "Good morning"
> I didn't really know how to tackle this. The {a'o nu xamgu cerni} I've used 
> still doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't it in fact say "[I am hopeful], 
> something is an event of something being a good morning", which asserts 
> that an event of good morning occured, occurs, or will occur, instead of 
> wishing for it? 

In my opinion, it is a misconception that a'o plus something is an 
assertion plus a feeling of hope. It is rather the expression
of a hope. The {nu xamgu cerni} is hoped for, not asserted.

>Another option I thought of is using {a'o le xamgu cerni} 
> or {a'o lenu xamgu cerni},
> but that raises two quostions: Firstly, is this grammatical at all, though 
> it contains
> no selbri? And secondly, does it make sense to use {le} for a morning whose 
> existence
> is not asserted, only imagined?

It is grammatical, but I don't think it makes much sense here.
It can serve as the answer to a question, for example.  
 
> 2) {mi djica lenu mi darlu}. The {le} does not seem right for the same 
> reason I've mentioned earlier - that the event of arguing does not (yet) 
> exist. 

I agree.

> Using {lo} seems even worse in that respect (though the
> English uses "a"). {le'e} seems appealing, since it refers to imaginary 
> things, but the man does not say that he wishes the argument to be like 
> other arguments he had - more probably having the best argument he had ever 
> had would be at least somewhat satisfactory.

I would have used {lo'e} until recently. Now I would use {lo}, but with
a more general sense than {su'o lo}. See 
http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/XS%20gadri%20proposal
and discussion thereof if you are _really_ interested. Also there is lots 
of discussion in the jboske@yahoogroups.com list.
 
> 3) {le rinsa}
> That's just "The greeter", isn't it? Is there anything better for 
> "receptionist"?

Maybe {le rinsyseljibri}, the one whose job it is to greet, if you want
to be more precise.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com