Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:36858) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RzbGk-00055G-IR; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:43 -0800 Received: by ggnm2 with SMTP id m2sf6544976ggn.16 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=N23fLPxKFS0PYibgdttChXBHxyhlCeNxVlF9gXFIy08=; b=euobcyjkGcW/WLHPN6j0pdbfcLzmhWNtPfZYfz/G8fsOniOY9F6hLYqM7HUeSdUGq2 gGFWoNzRMuund60ZRUB2Kf0P1s9YuNhpa9FmN5tX7aBOiwFUjCFor5vJRZwLPij+Xc33 nCbCUy+6SEp9zxQHvMGj6XemBWPVQ0797Xs1Y= Received: by 10.68.189.229 with SMTP id gl5mr4588962pbc.18.1329775169507; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.211.201 with SMTP id ne9ls2201517pbc.2.gmail; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.231.202 with SMTP id ti10mr15765352pbc.5.1329775169115; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.231.202 with SMTP id ti10mr15765351pbc.5.1329775169107; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f43.google.com (mail-pw0-f43.google.com [209.85.160.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p7si27970855pbq.0.2012.02.20.13.59.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.43; Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2so7399430pbb.2 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 10.68.217.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.217.67; Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.217.67]) by 10.68.217.67 with SMTP id ow3mr67994458pbc.125.1329775169081 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.217.67 with SMTP id ow3mr56075498pbc.125.1329775169035; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.19.74 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <22495153.974.1329738307546.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndy9> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:59:29 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] ka'e/kakne & mapti/sarxe From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / On 20 February 2012 18:13, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Luke Bergen wrot= e: >> It definitely falls under the category of "ok, I see what you're trying = to >> get at". =A0I'd hear "mi kakne lo nu do citka" similar to a kid saying "= I want >> to candy". =A0Cutely wrong, but I get what they're trying for. =A0I'd pr= obably >> correct them (though not by raging that "no, that doesn't make sense, I >> don't understand what you're even trying to say"). > > But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that be "I can be eaten by you= "? > > mi kakne lo nu [mi] citka > mi kakne lo nu do citka [mi] > mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise [gau mi] > > "kakne" requires its x1 to be a part of the event in x2, usually an > agent in x2, but there is no rule that the x1 has to be explicitly > repeated in x2, in fact it is common to leave it out. So I'm not sure > there's anything that needs correcting. > By the way, this inherent participation of kakne1 in kakne2 is something I always felt that should be reflected by the grammar of the sentence (as it is in English). Something like {mi kakne lo nu do citka [ce'u]}. I agree that this is odd and far-fetched. But it also reminds me of example 11-4.4 in CLL: {le ka do xunre cu cnino mi}, which I guess we all reject nowadays. More concretely, I'd really like to have a concise way of saying "I can love you but you can't (love yourself)" A traditional translation I believe to work is {mi .enai do kakne lo nu lo no'a cu prami do} (does it?), but it involves too much magic anyway. What do you think? mu'o mi'e .asiz. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.