From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Thu Dec 5 15:40:35 1991 Return-Path: Date: Thu Dec 5 15:40:35 1991 Message-Id: <9112051938.AA03733@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: drata lisri fi'eka'u la .AISopos X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu's message of Thu, 5 Dec 1991 14:35:18 +1100 Status: RO Um, I have a question with something Nick did in his translation. I'm not positive about either point of view. Consider the first sentence of the first fable (not counting its title): .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanyjba noi dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu I dunno. It looks to me like maybe those "noi"s should be "poi"s. After all, you use "lo lorxu", just "something-that-really is-a-fox". If you meant a specific one, namely, one that incidentally was hungry, shouldn't you have said "le lorxu"? But since you are now adding restrictions about which fox, i.e. one that was hungry, ought not the specifier be "poi"? Similarly with "loi vanyjba noi dandu". You're being specifying here; not all grape clusters are hanging, but theese are. And incidentally, is there an advantage to using "naka'e" here instead of "ka'enai"? Is there a difference? (I made the mistake of re-reading the negation paper today and almost fried my mental circuitry.) Just a random thought. ~mark