From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jun 27 00:08:04 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I3Rd9-0006r3-O1 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:08:03 -0700 Received: from web56409.mail.re3.yahoo.com ([216.252.111.88]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I3Rd3-0006qo-ID for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:07:58 -0700 Received: (qmail 31564 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Jun 2007 07:07:45 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=wMBnXuguD/evH+fOubHIeL/t/cHkS7My/9UXSOS4XYKIBr3ldW8kQsFEN+oKEEaq7ssKdvi58LhSkFeesBAE6eIVkcpTbl4SVA0A+UZ23xHTnYqIvVKDfVNFjHqoyWF3zmzhsoqC7qwOdRlOoEuDrDWnIk5d0e5rAihMa2h1pc0=; X-YMail-OSG: V5kSYccVM1k.PJgeYrBnMVgJBX4aqXopvy7jStWm0b3JrdXLgEbjoK3y2BGz8WCxZTBJieyDVT9F7GJMx0hvMu42GYCgSC5v.mcQiI3X2p0pphdDhJ.bePUdILPKFw-- Received: from [75.0.145.177] by web56409.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:07:45 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:07:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Nathaniel Krause Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: I'm... My name's... To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7E05@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1607752107-1182928065=:31374" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <694048.31374.qm@web56409.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Score-Int: 7 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5160 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nathanielkrause@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0-1607752107-1182928065=:31374 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yes, you are right. Actually, I misunderstood the meaning of "mi'e" considerably, so my views on the subject should be ignored (possibly on other subjects, too!). The meaning of "mi'e .brodas." seems to be closer to "mi du la .brodas." than to "mi se cmene zo .brodas." mu'o mi'e .sen. "Turniansky, Michael [UNK]" wrote: Nathaniel: > {zo .tim. cmene mi} is the same assertion as {mi'e .tim.}. Careful. While they might refer to the same facts, "mi'e" has a second, very important purpose. It assigns the value of "mi". It's the first-person equivalent of "doi". It says, "This is the one who is talking. >From now on, when I say, "mi", that's who it is". > In terms of emphasis, one might suppose that {zo .tim. cmene mi} is closer to "Tim is my name", rather than "I'm Tim". > The word {mi'e} implies the subject {mi}, so it cannot be used to give the names of other people. I'm not completely sure whether {mi'e >.djein. .e .tim.} is correct, but I suspect not, since the equivalent {mi se cmene zo .djein. .e .tim.} (I guess the equivalent could be {mi se > cmene lu .djein. .e .tim. li'u}, which is not grammatically wrong but doesn't mean what you want). You could say "mi'e [lu'o] la djein joi la tim". I'm not sure if the lu'o is necessary or not (it's not from a grammatical standpoint, but I'm not sure how/if the meaning changes with/without it). --gejyspa --------------------------------- Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. --0-1607752107-1182928065=:31374 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yes, you are right. Actually, I misunderstood the meaning of "mi'e" considerably, so my views on the subject should be ignored (possibly on other subjects, too!). The meaning of "mi'e .brodas." seems to be closer to "mi du la .brodas." than to "mi se cmene zo .brodas."

mu'o mi'e .sen.

"Turniansky, Michael [UNK]" <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:
Nathaniel:
 > {zo .tim. cmene mi} is the same assertion as {mi'e .tim.}.
 
  Careful.   While they might refer to the same facts, "mi'e" has a second, very important purpose.  It assigns the value of "mi".  It's the first-person equivalent of "doi".  It says, "This is the one who is talking.  >From now on, when I say, "mi", that's who it is".
 
> In terms of emphasis, one might suppose that {zo .tim. cmene mi} is closer to "Tim is my name", rather than "I'm Tim".


> The word {mi'e} implies the subject {mi}, so it cannot be used to give the names of other people. I'm not completely sure whether {mi'e >.djein. .e .tim.} is correct, but I suspect not, since the equivalent {mi se cmene zo .djein. .e .tim.} (I guess the equivalent could be {mi se
> cmene lu .djein. .e .tim. li'u}, which is not grammatically wrong but doesn't mean what you want).

  You could say "mi'e [lu'o] la djein joi la tim".  I'm not sure if the lu'o is necessary or not (it's not from a grammatical standpoint, but I'm not sure how/if the meaning changes with/without it).
 

             --gejyspa

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. --0-1607752107-1182928065=:31374--