Return-Path: Message-Id: <9112020646.AA12033@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Mon Dec 2 05:29:10 1991 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: response to Mark Shoulson 11/30/91 - Aphorism X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 2 05:29:10 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Mark writes: >I worked out the meaning of John's algorithm early on, but it did me no >good at all, having never heard the English version before And posted >it: > >> paunai ca le nu ge la .adam. kakpa gi >no-question during the-event: both: Adam digs and > >> la .evas. cilta zbasu kei ma nolpre > Eve thread make (close-event) who/what noble-person > >I *still* don't understand what it means, but I can clear up things that >And marked as troublesome: This is an example of why aphorisms make poor translation targets, unless you are also supplying the cultural context in the Lojban. Thus I would, if pedantically, say: ca lenu ge lo pa nanmu po'u la .adam cu kakpa nalno'i gi lo pa ninmu po'u la .evas. cilta zbasu nalno'i kei ma .ianai nolpre When the one man, Adam, unnobly digs, and the one woman, Eve, unnobly makes thread, who (I doubt if any) is noble? >I'm not positive about this sentence. As I understand it, "ge" conjoins >bridi-tails, which must start with *selbri*, no leading sumti. John, >wanna check on that? Did I miss something? These bridi have leading >sumti. ge connectives can join sumti, bridi-tails, AND sentences. The grammar can tell these appart within the constraints of LALR!. But you have to have both sides match. Thus you cannot join a sentence with a leading sumti to an observative, which grammatically is a 'bridi-tail' - a predicate with trailing sumti. >This leads me on to a tangent. "ca" is used to denote "when", right? >(broadly speaking). So "ca le nu mi tavla do kei do cliva" (at-time >event: I talk-to you [close-event], you leave) "when I spoke to you, >you left" (giving a past tense here because it makes a little more >sense). This seems okay, but now with the new "jai" conversion, it's >tempting to demand: "ca le jai ca tavla be fa mi bei do do cliva" >(at-time time-of talk [by] me [to] you, you leave) for the same meaning. >Not that I necessarily think this is necessary, but suddenly it seems >that it might make sense. Doesn anyone else notice this? It is "be do bei fai mi", not "fa mi". "jaica" switches the nonspecific tagged place with the x1 place, putting the time in the x1, and the "mi" in the unspecific "fai"-tagged place. In principle, you may be correct, but I don't think the expansion conveys any more information than And's use of explict "be" and "bei" and "fa" on every single place does. It is so basic to Lojban to undersatnd what it means to be 'ca lenu broda' (simultaneous with an event) that a long derivation will help not at all. The perfective tenses are not especially malleable by Marks' manipulation. lojbab