Received: from mail-wg0-f57.google.com ([74.125.82.57]:63719) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1W7P8c-0001Zv-15 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:49 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f57.google.com with SMTP id l18sf697314wgh.12 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=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:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=45Fr06qXKFk561THtT0GS7CfW0k2wvO7iCnkY2okDBs=; b=mWMIGIIDhaktiUjgvNCrE8nUK1a2cKodMyBSQ14KvASTOjZU3BV3UG2ZQAMofBlp2o EqoSWdCBwtMM4EDknDBWVqgwdz44LfeJZVgcYwxNbrHCF2MGp6pmbDagexO6R4qf7fvQ kTodsmxpTyHFAG0nqfcrC+TUGZNfqmtSGrXgdO2m/gjzkGM21AlIl/9XQScHqI6RnESi VjwVV5rhbSlKWdjjV8lSJpDwncC9wsZxy5g+tDjrM08JQft32te41Eyh3OfJ73IuKar1 B28+yUXKgWxcfAotfKEgwTv+uoyWGHkkCMgaFHwpLFsYl55D2JGk9kBu359FyI2MAAnm tpkA== X-Received: by 10.180.206.164 with SMTP id lp4mr172170wic.2.1390740506637; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:26 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.87.231 with SMTP id bb7ls720268wib.3.gmail; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.14.48.11 with SMTP id u11mr12702956eeb.0.1390740505969; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id th6si3154504bkb.1.2014.01.26.04.48.25 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:25 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f; Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ar20so4720585iec.20 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.154.102 with SMTP id vn6mr12872748igb.1.1390740504570; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.223.168 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:48:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52E50068.7030804@gmx.de> References: <52E50068.7030804@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:48:24 -0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] {ka'e} vs. {su'o mu'ei} 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 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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=047d7bd7581ebff18704f0df01d7 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --047d7bd7581ebff18704f0df01d7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok. I didn't understand the link you sent. Is it the correct? On 26 January 2014 10:32, selpa'i wrote: > la .asiz. cu cusku di'e > >> You use {mu'ei} exactly once in the whole translation: >> {no da po'u na'e bo lo tolv=C4=97rnu be mu'u mi cu su'o mu'ei p=C4=8D= nsi lo nu >> b=C4=81tci lo tai cm=C4=81lu} (lion speaking) >> >> >> Is it purely stylistic (more syllables can be more emphatic, or it may >> be the lion's style), or do you by any chance make a distinction between >> {ka'e} and {su'o mu'ei}, or between {bi'ai} and {ro mu'ei}? >> > > I know that {su'o mu'ei} and {ka'e} are suppposed to be the same, but I > think I do see a difference in emphasis. In this case the difference is > between "nobody would ever" and "nobody can", sort of. For me: > > ka'e X broda =3D=3D lo nu broda cu cumki X > > So it's a much simpler statement than "there exists at least one possible > world where broda happens" even if they are truth funtionally the same. > > Replacing {su'o mu'ei} with {ka'e} in the Oz sentence makes it sound > different to me for some reason. It probably shouldn't. Or maybe they > *aren't* equivalent. I'm not sure. All I know is that I don't seem to use > them interchangeably myself. > > mi'e la selpa'i 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > --=20 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 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --047d7bd7581ebff18704f0df01d7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok.

I didn't understand the link you sent. Is i= t the correct?


On 26 January 2014 10:32, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
la .asiz. cu cusku di'e
You use {mu'ei} exactly once in the whole translation:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0{no da po'u na'e bo lo tolv=C4=97rnu be mu'u mi cu= su'o mu'ei p=C4=8Dnsi lo nu
b=C4=81tci lo tai cm=C4=81lu} (lion speaking)


Is it purely stylistic (more syllables can be more emphatic, or it may
be the lion's style), or do you by any chance make a distinction betwee= n
{ka'e} and =C2=A0{su'o mu'ei}, or between {bi'ai} and {ro m= u'ei}?

I know that {su'o mu'ei} and {ka'e} are suppposed to be the sam= e, but I think I do see a difference in emphasis. In this case the differen= ce is between "nobody would ever" and "nobody can", sor= t of. For me:

ka'e X broda =3D=3D lo nu broda cu cumki X

So it's a much simpler statement than "there exists at least one p= ossible world where broda happens" even if they are truth funtionally = the same.

Replacing {su'o mu'ei} with {ka'e} in the Oz sentence makes it = sound different to me for some reason. It probably shouldn't. Or maybe = they *aren't* equivalent. I'm not sure. All I know is that I don= 9;t seem to use them interchangeably myself.

mi'e la selpa'i 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--047d7bd7581ebff18704f0df01d7--