From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Oct 03 08:50:10 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EMSZk-00023Z-7G for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:50:00 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.78]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EMSZh-00023O-RR for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:49:59 -0700 Received: (qmail 71733 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Oct 2005 15:49:56 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VsORTqRMSFwd4kiwsDlT4Io4hyy89I1eGww7wXz6i7xUrXRFvmbVZOiS5woFZAA9I93EjskR8E9uK3/DFviO23lktUWyIZ1Rdl1gOgxpF8xiOxwKMZpK7SCA7nh+HtY2ksWGxcf63xnORYVk9LI3AXTm2Ks2ReAKHQ9Mvyww8rM= ; Message-ID: <20051003154956.71731.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.34.50] by web81303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:49:56 PDT Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:49:56 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: lo tumla ne'i lo xamsi To: jjllambias@gmail.com, lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560510011647o7d5f852fxb037e98c5f5e5aff@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-archive-position: 10708 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 10/1/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > lo tumla ne'i(1)lo xamsi > > > > > > > > ni'o lo tu tumla cu simsa lo puzu munje > .i tu > > zo'u lo solji cu gacri > > > > lo klaji gi'e drudi lo dinju .i do nu'o > > dable'a fi'o temci lo masti > > > > .ija'e turni lo brabra gi'e ponse ro se > vamji > > no'u mu'a loi tricu joi > > > > sunla joi cicnyjme joi ke solji je zmadu > be > > ro solji je terju'o .iki'u > > > > u'u lo mutce se vamji pe tu ba'o se cirko > > > > > > Nice! Is that {ki'u} or {ku'i}? > > > > Oops, {ku'i} of course. > > > > A Land within a Sea > > > > [new topic] A far-away land is like a > long-ago > > world. That [land](2), gold covers streets > and > > is roofs buildings. You fight-gain (3) > > time-interval (4) months and, as a result, > rule a > > colossal [place, country] and possess all > > valuables (things of value) which are, for > > example, trees (5) and (6) wool and > blue-green > > gems (turquoise?) and (7) gold and more than > all > > the gold and subject known (8). But alas > > [repentance](9) many valuables of that place > have > > been lost. > > > > > > 1) "Within" sounds more like Atlantis: > {se ru'u}? > > I understood this land to be something like > Atlantis. *Under* the sea? That is enclosed in all dimensions by the sea? > > 2) How does this function? The pronoun > is never > > picked up. Presumably we want something > about > > "in this place" (which wouldn't take {zo'u}) > or > > a modifier on the {lo}s or something. > > As for that thing far away, gold covers the > streets and the tops > of the buildings. > > I get the impression that "that thing far away" > (the city, the place, > whatever) is not in sight of the speaker, so > {tu} may be somewhat > figurative, but it is the same {tu} as in the > previous sentence. My point is that is totally isolated: it has no role in the sentence, a fronting with no place indicated. I understand it but don't see how to parse it meaningfully. > > 3) Not at all clear: "win" (as spoils of > war), > > "take over by force"? > > Yes, I took it to mean something like "pillage" > or "plunder". Thanks; that was the word (or those the words) I was looking for. > > 4) Time interval of the fight-gaining, > i.e., "for > > months"? Or "after"? > > Notice the {no'u}: "you could plunder for > months" (I suppose > because there are so many riches). I would have > used {ze'a} > or {ze'u} instead of {fi'o temci}, but {fi'o > temci} is of course > available too. Missed {nu'o}, which clarifies matters. > > 5) Why collective? Is this to get the > effect of a > > mass noun, which mass is mixture of things? I > am > > not sure this is what is wanted, especially > after > > {mu'a}, which anticipates a list, if more > than > > one thing. > > Possibly not the best way of saying it. But it > is > not wrong as far as I can tell. You can > describe a > collection of things as together constituting > an example > of a thing of value. > > > 6) Why {joi} rather than the appropriate > form of > > {e}? See 5. > > I might have said {mu'a lo tricu jo'u lo sunla > jo'u lo cicnyjme > jo'u lo solji je zmadu be ro solji je terju'o > > > 7) Why the grouping? See 8? > > > > 8) What does the last bit mean? "more > gold than > > all known supplies"? But then why {je}? > > It is both gold and more than all which is both > gold and > known about. > > He uses {je} quite correctly, I would say, in > places where > we would tend not to use it. For example {lo > drata je prenu} > for "another person", in the other piece. > > > 9) Why repentance? Because the closest > we can > > come to sorrow, a heartfelt "alas," is > {uinai}, > > "unhappiness"? Oh, because of "regret" – but > I > > think that is for the regret for what one has > > done not for what happens outside one's > sphere. > > It doesn't appear that the speaker is who > lost > > the goodies; he's just sad that they were > lost. > > I took it to mean "I regret to inform you", > i.e. if my > description got your hopes up, I'm now sorry to > have > to tell you that all that is now lost. Still not exactly repentance, but there is nothing better. > > I would still like some context. The title > could > > be about a general situation "Sea Islands," > say, > > or about a particular one or some such. > > I would say something like "The land in the > sea" > > > The > > first sentence could reasonably be taken to > opt > > for the general – and a very nice thought it > > would be. > > {lo tu tumla} would be the land(s) associated > with that > far away thing I'm pointing to. I believe it's > not a literal > pointing though. > > > But the next sentence seems to get > > down a particular case (we don't expect that > all > > islands have golden pavements, etc.). This > is > > confirmed by the next sentence, since you > don't > > generally conquer islands (Do we know who you > > is?) > > The reader? > > > What role does this play – recounting an > > adventure, making a prophecy, laying out a > > possible course of action? > > Telling a story, I would say. Yes but a story in which the reader apparently plays a role, which role he has not nor is now playing. > > Recounting an > > adventure seems most likely, given the last > > sentence (and, of course, in that case it may > be > > repentance since the teller – a sidekick of > some > > sort? – may actually have lost the goodies. > > > > In any case, the fact (apparently) that the > > speaker has a particular island in mind would > > move one toward using {le} with {tumla} and > then, > > a fortiori, with {xamsi}. > > === message truncated === <> Yes, {lo} is always correct (provided the so-called broda really is a broda) but here a{le} would have been nice for the reason noted. > Not required but > appropriate (and it clarifies the first issue > nicely). OK, it's arguable. > The first two {lo}s in the text look > generic but at least the first may be for a > particular case (so might be {le}) or about some > more restricted bunch; the second is probably > generic. Most of the rest are unproblematic: a > bunch of bits of gold pave a bunch of streets > (problem generally on this island) and another > bunch roof a bunch of houses (ditto). The same > goes for the rest – other than the questions > above. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.