Received: from mail-da0-f59.google.com ([209.85.210.59]:39401) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U433b-00054s-5N; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:33:07 -0800 Received: by mail-da0-f59.google.com with SMTP id p8sf1530577dan.24 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:32:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=fLUKZ6GAmo5pGW5EatmkNG52UBSWuD3Ha3cr5lrfsV4=; b=mtl3Eaue74HGK/bNHiC172jMLLjubNvci4QPPgb8RhivpWDx4WUpJfHmlW2E/vddXV esrhf41DJD2SO8OvTsufsGDSr8zGiiun22vra+tN/cXtYj88QW5On5TfAEt/vRVwtCb7 RrSVV+eaV3zQ81ng9lmrvLfZgnYWdi+Bi4kdtklfiBOPIu0SZfmfWLoDyX6L827goCxa S34ywt699UhKFb65UkKvNebbSdn8DHtsozHAbhXqGIxGTEY0j5oa1+B+kidRCOtPZi3k tus9P+I/qcrPf6Yln9JeazJTm12KceWYM1BurOfRzW6e6fhZaibCKpXjZLiS/faGLyHg ZQVQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=fLUKZ6GAmo5pGW5EatmkNG52UBSWuD3Ha3cr5lrfsV4=; b=rOaYtbTk8rxQ6tBrNKet5YaaB7+Zv5N6SDyIlDGJaJxYy1OTI7wuKKtcwOrtxG1oPk 3Zjw6wGNe1d/5FeIlOMVrcb0iZPieUSIAJQlliom7bTXkXJgF6GYCxrbtk6vTAFav7wj sMZ9SWEjtskP6VdyoIzWpOJbNgJIoPupVHxEMwHSikKTZBHm7rHY8r6jS3V/GX6kQSqV 1jXIBLFviLH/rUOorbNjkUYIl4gJO3gTkDQ85DmyVc+xBj/sce17DUEEfXl316BgWooO IjXfWMr1a47DWqM72IafEckq+XAuXnBUExatCMesruXhRF25Wv/s+So/s/K4PJL/WgVx 5c3w== X-Received: by 10.49.4.231 with SMTP id n7mr641438qen.34.1360387971780; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:32:51 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.116.139 with SMTP id jw11ls1331761qeb.37.gmail; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:32:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.24.164 with SMTP id v4mr653398qef.6.1360387970507; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:32:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 21:32:50 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <84d88820-8c7d-436b-a0cc-222666747afd@googlegroups.com> <2625542.LcrIRrlWQu@caracal> Subject: Re: [lojban] strange behaviour of {cortu} MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1367_20489082.1360387970107" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_1367_20489082.1360387970107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Saturday, February 9, 2013 7:17:48 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote: > > On 8 February 2013 02:21, la gleki >wrote: > >> >> The "problem" appeared when i tried to translate the following sentence >> from Tatoeba. >> >> "My back hurts." >> >> If we assume that back is {bekpi} (cuz Robin needed a gismu for it) >> then we have three options. >> >> 1. mi cortu lo bekpi >> 2. cortu lo bekpi be mi >> 3. mi cortu lo bekpi be mi >> >> The third solution is verbose and therefore doesn't reflect relations >> between sumti in a nice way. >> I guess Lojban is just unable to express this in a more concise way. >> May be >> 4. bekpi je selcortu mi ? >> >> I wish I could bind {bekpi} and {selcortu} with {du} but I can't. >> >> > I created a semi-serious solution to this problem when it first occurred > to me too. I propose using a property + an indirect question as a verbose > albeit consistent system: {.i mi cortu lo ka [makau] bekpi [ce'u]}. > cortu2 becomes an abstraction? well,..... then indeed it would work. stevo, you might think of tsani's solution as of the solution to the issue. Whether it's compatible with the current lojban or not is another question. My rationale for disapproving of concrete sumti in this case is the same as > my rationale for disapproving of events in kakne2: you should be able to > use any concrete sumti (or event in the case of kakne2) but you can't > because bullshit. (Indeed {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} is nonsense.) > This extends to any case where you have a concrete sumti with the > restriction that it is intrinsically tied to another sumti. > e.g. {mi bajra fi lo ka makau jubme ce'u} > Naturally, we can use tanru (and jvajvo!) to make these formulas shorter. > {mi bekpi cortu}. > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ------=_Part_1367_20489082.1360387970107 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 7:17:48 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:On 8 February 2013 02:21, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

The "problem" appeared when i tried to trans= late the following sentence from Tatoeba. 

"M= y back hurts."

If we assume that back is {bekpi} (= cuz Robin needed a gismu for it)
then we have three options.

1. mi cortu lo be= kpi
2. cortu lo bekpi be mi
3. mi cortu lo bekpi be mi<= /div>

The third solution is verbose and therefore doesn'= t reflect relations between sumti in a nice way.
I guess Lojban is just unable to express this in a more concise way.
May be
4. bekpi je selcortu mi ?

I wish I could bind {bekpi} and {selcortu} with {du} but I can't.


I cre= ated a semi-serious solution to this problem when it first occurred to me t= oo. I propose using a property + an indirect question as a verbose albeit c= onsistent system: {.i mi cortu lo ka [makau] bekpi [ce'u]}.

cortu2 becomes an abstraction? well,..... then= indeed it would work.

stevo, you might think of t= sani's solution as of the solution to the issue. Whether it's compatible wi= th the current lojban or not is another question.

My rationale for disapproving of concrete sumti in this case is the sa= me as my rationale for disapproving of events in kakne2: you should be able= to use any concrete sumti (or event in the case of kakne2) but you can't b= ecause bullshit. (Indeed {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} is nonsense.)
This extends to any case where you have a concrete sumti with the rest= riction that it is intrinsically tied to another sumti.
e.g. {mi = bajra fi lo ka makau jubme ce'u}
Naturally, we can use tanru (and= jvajvo!) to make these formulas shorter. {mi bekpi cortu}.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
------=_Part_1367_20489082.1360387970107--