Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:45762) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SPiSE-0002NY-HC; Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:32 -0700 Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3sf1345669yen.16 for ; Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:organization :user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-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; bh=03vBqaeWoYxxLw6N+bi3BovBZ59xsEa9P0CBq6cxCxI=; b=6JCrxbqfE3Ck1CwgidklM8RTXrwVZ4Yo0pXx4JZanCu+wS9mft2a7IR0e/geASj2sM HIeA978GkSXkkL+5az8YyFKtkK6QQFExR+qzwm+gJK1yNdhSU/wxkml3nj9Kmqek8PnY U+D4sQqSIoAVf0l0O+wHBMSlTT29ZU/wmBCFE= Received: by 10.224.219.144 with SMTP id hu16mr27998qab.9.1335999319929; Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.179.6 with SMTP id bo6ls844777qab.9.gmail; Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.181.69 with SMTP id bx5mr370857qab.1.1335999319282; Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.181.69 with SMTP id bx5mr370855qab.1.1335999319271; Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmfepo203.cox.net (eastrmfepo203.cox.net. [68.230.241.218]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id ez28si1159225qcb.1.2012.05.02.15.55.19; Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.218 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.218; Received: from eastrmimpo109.cox.net ([68.230.241.222]) by eastrmfepo203.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20120502225518.HBWP18532.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo109.cox.net> for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 18:55:18 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo109.cox.net with bizsmtp id 5AvJ1j00C2AfMYu02AvJ2q; Wed, 02 May 2012 18:55:18 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.4FA1BB56.0083,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=oCnpYUhdmvqPuxLMq7fsn3FqY3je+Ql30gwju2dxGGE= c=1 sm=1 a=dYDkaTZZu5wA:10 a=IuKDai0ExcoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=oVJLrmurzG4E-1LgmN4A:9 a=47Kw7TvC6MzM2wVIY70A:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4FA1BB56.5080801@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 18:55:18 -0400 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Baby words: "be careful of X" References: <20120502050927.GH30708@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20120502050927.GH30708@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.218 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org 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; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Robin Lee Powell wrote: > I don't see a good way to do this as a bridi. {kajde} isn't use, > it's mention; that is, {kajde} isn't warning someone, it's talking > about someone having been warned. I don't see anything else good. > > Ideas? The problem seems to be that people are insisting on translating "Be careful" as an imperative based on "careful". That is English idiom. I am pretty sure that not all languages express warnings in terms of "being careful". You can indeed use kajde, just not as an imperative. Statements about events are not necessarily in the past tense. mi kajde do lenu ... (which event you can mark with pu'o to warn of an impending catastrophe). You can of course also add .e'unai at the appropriate point for emphasis > The specific example was "Be carefull pulling on that toy; it's > going to spring back and hit you and that will hurt". With two sentences in English, what you are warning is ambiguous. The caution statement (x3 of kajde) would be "if you pull on that toy, then it will spring back, and hit you, and you will be hurt", possibly with a nice strong attitudinal expressing (empathic)-pain on the last clause. But some would express it as imperative "Don't pull on that toy, or else ..." in which case it is expressed as a negative imperative, perhaps with an afterthought causal connective. lojbab -- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.