Received: from mail-qa0-f56.google.com ([209.85.216.56]:59512) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SQDJM-0007eW-Vo; Fri, 04 May 2012 00:52:34 -0700 Received: by qauh8 with SMTP id h8sf1282286qau.1 for ; Fri, 04 May 2012 00:52:14 -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=fURDiY+wgSDVkjFxi8gdJdvMpFZLe9SatS00pK1SKEk=; b=CJm/4XyU3ddrR3W7512yvbryAKv/nR9t1P0WSAJnoSspJflMfWWVY6oHBKRJj3qhUp pdRXQxvRJrA8o7sWzteCCzcgvl1KQhsJZE9mY+E5kvpK/jR5rPchSReHA4HIAqrc6sxz pEuCr7rbXwipN3cAO+Cbv4HW4D8b+2FIUDy5o= Received: by 10.224.182.14 with SMTP id ca14mr332601qab.17.1336117934012; Fri, 04 May 2012 00:52:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.182.133 with SMTP id cc5ls2073412qab.6.gmail; Fri, 04 May 2012 00:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.217.200 with SMTP id hn8mr706619qab.4.1336117932804; Fri, 04 May 2012 00:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.217.200 with SMTP id hn8mr706618qab.4.1336117932793; Fri, 04 May 2012 00:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmfepo101.cox.net (eastrmfepo101.cox.net. [68.230.241.213]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id b22si2998211qcs.3.2012.05.04.00.52.12; Fri, 04 May 2012 00:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.213 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.213; Received: from eastrmimpo110.cox.net ([68.230.241.223]) by eastrmfepo101.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20120504075212.KXOY18243.eastrmfepo101.cox.net@eastrmimpo110.cox.net> for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 03:52:12 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo110.cox.net with bizsmtp id 5jsB1j00J2AfMYu02jsC45; Fri, 04 May 2012 03:52:12 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020208.4FA38AAC.0017,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=CYya90xMJmhdzLh3tvutbK6t+plSfedX6DdwjXLSCKc= c=1 sm=1 a=dYDkaTZZu5wA:10 a=IuKDai0ExcoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=0I9udtAMPB9o99vYRSAA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4FA38AAA.2010808@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 03:52:10 -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> <4FA1BB56.5080801@lojban.org> <20120503052611.GT30708@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20120503052611.GT30708@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.213 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: > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 06:55:18PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG wrote: > >>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). > > > That exactly doesn't work, though; look at kajde. > > x1 (event/experience) warns/cautions x2 (person) of/about danger x3 (event/state/property). Good catch. > > {kajde} describes that something happened/happens that warns someone > about a danger. It is the mention, not the use. tu'a/jai doesn't > fix this; I'm not sure why not. After seeing the place structure, I would just modify my response to "tu'a mi kajde ..." "Something I do warns you about ..." (Though I'll admit, I'm getting a bit rusty on such complexities.) 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.