From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 22 01:40:27 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E77r1-0006pj-1v for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:40:27 -0700 Received: from mailgw6.gedas.de ([139.1.44.12]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E77qw-0006pb-NP for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:40:26 -0700 Received: from mailgw6.gedas.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw6.gedas.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j7M8eLQR003554 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:40:21 +0200 Received: from blnsem08.de.gedas-grp (blnsem08.gedas.de [139.1.84.54]) by mailgw6.gedas.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j7M8eLwv003548 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:40:21 +0200 Received: by blnsem08.de.gedas-grp with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:40:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Newton, Philip" To: "'lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org'" Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: "If you can read this..." Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:40:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 1806 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org 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: Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners la xal. cu cusku di'e > Concerning {do kakne lenu tcidu ti semu'i lenu ko ckire la > lojbangirz.} > > I've been thinking about this a few days and I'm confused on > several levels. :) > > 1. First of all, surely something like {semu'i} can join > bridi? Just as, for example, we can say {la djan. nanmu > .ija la djeimyz. ninmu} -- {.ija} joins two bridi, does it > not? I think so, yes. Note that it's got an {.i} in it. If you want to do something similar with BAI, I believe you'll also need an {.i}, in the form of {.i BAI bo} -- in your case, {.i semu'i bo}. (Though ISTR that {A semu'i lenu B} and {A .isemu'ibo B} have reversed meanings, or something like that.) > Why then should I have to use an abstractor like nu? Because BAI are often related to gismu that take abstractions? In this case, {mukti}, which has "action/event/state" for x1 and "action/event" for x2 -- not "bridi". > 2. If I leave out the second {lenu} jbofi'e will still > translate it. Is there a real difference in meaning? Yes -- look at the parse. Without {lenu}, {semu'i} only has scope over {ko}, and you get a tanru composed of {nu tcidu ti semu'i ko} + {ckire}, with {la lojbangirz} then occupying x3 of {kakne}. In any event, I think you're missing a {kei} or a {ku} after {ti}, since the {semu'i} should apply to {kakne le nu tcidu ti}, not merely to {ti} -- {do kakne lo nu tcidu ti kei se mu'i lo nu ko ckire la lojbangirz.}, or similar. > 3. It bothers me a little that "I can read" must be rendered > using {lenu} -- {mi kakne lenu tcidu}. Is there another way? > Does {mi tcidu kakne} make any sense? IMO yes. Tanru are vague, but one possible interpretation for me is "I can read". > I wish there were cmavo for what in English we call > modal auxiliaries. Are you looking for {ka'e} or {pu'i}, perhaps? Though I'm not quite sure whether that's what you want; I don't think {ka'e}, for example, is completely interchangeable with {kakne}. mu'o mi'e .filip.