From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Apr 13 04:07:12 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DLfhu-0008Ga-1O for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:06:54 -0700 Received: from imo-d21.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.207]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DLfhn-0008G2-7j for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:06:53 -0700 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-d21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38.7.) id d.144.436a3b81 (16930) for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:06:14 -0400 (EDT) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: <144.436a3b81.2f8e5725@wmconnect.com> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:06:13 EDT Subject: [lojban] being talked to vs. doing nothing To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_144.436a3b81.2f8e5725_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 52 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 9818 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_144.436a3b81.2f8e5725_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/2005 5:21:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, opi_lauma@yahoo.com via ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > > > {melbi tavla} and {melbi se tavla} are tanru, and as > > such are ambiguous. > > Now we can reason that {le se tavla} is an audience > > so {le melbi se tavla} > > is a beautiful audience. > > > In the reference grammar the following is written: > > 9.10) la tam. [cu] melbi tavla la meris. > Tom beautifully-talks to Mary. > > "beautifully" and "talks" are connected by "-", it > means that "beauty" is property of "talk". So I would > conclude that {le melbi tavla} is {beautiful speaker} > in the sense that he is beautiful as speaker, and in > the same way {le melbi se tavla} I would translate as > {beautiful audience}, BUT as earlier I would say that > beauty is a property of "being talked by", i.e. {X cu > le melbi se tavla} means that X is beautiful in being > talked, i.e. X is beautiful in doing nothing. > "Being talked to" is not the same as "doing nothing". There is a situational context that is all-important when being talked to, namely of someone talking to someone or something. "Doing nothing" implies a completely different context. stevo --part1_144.436a3b81.2f8e5725_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/13/2005 5:21:44=20= AM Eastern Standard Time, opi_lauma@yahoo.com via  ecartis@digit= alkingdom.org writes:


> {melbi tavla} and {melbi se tavla} are tanru, and as
> such are ambiguous.=20
> Now we can reason that {le se tavla} is an audience
> so {le melbi se tavla}=20
> is a beautiful audience.


In the reference grammar the following is written:

9.10)    la tam. [cu] melbi tavla la meris.
   Tom beautifully-talks to Mary.

"beautifully" and "talks" are connected by "-", it
means that "beauty" is property of "talk". So I would
conclude that {le melbi tavla} is {beautiful speaker}
in the sense that he is beautiful as speaker, and in
the same way {le melbi se tavla} I would translate as
{beautiful audience}, BUT as earlier I would say that
beauty is a property of "being talked by", i.e. {X cu
le melbi se tavla} means that X is beautiful in being
talked, i.e. X is beautiful in doing nothing.


"Being talked to" is not the same as "doing nothing".  There is a s= ituational context that is all-important when being talked to, namely of som= eone talking to someone or something.  "Doing nothing" implies a comple= tely different context.  

stevo --part1_144.436a3b81.2f8e5725_boundary--