From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Sat Mar 7 00:32:55 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Sat, 7 Mar 92 00:32 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA11441; Sat, 7 Mar 92 00:09:18 EST Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA00567; Fri, 6 Mar 92 22:36:08 -0500 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA13308; Fri, 6 Mar 92 12:17:14 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA09402; Fri, 6 Mar 92 12:07:31 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (via uunet.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA18855; Mon, 2 Mar 92 09:55:53 -0500 Message-Id: <9203021455.AA18855@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 1201; Mon, 02 Mar 92 09:53:45 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 4063; Mon, 02 Mar 92 09:52:50 EST Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 09:51:45 -0500 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Wallops #7 X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU's message of Sat, 29 Feb 92 14:46:19 +1100 <199202290346.AA10774@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU> Status: RO >Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 14:46:19 +1100 >From: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU >>>la men. lu .i mu'i la'edi'u ko stagau le greblo gi'e denpa .iku'i da poi na se >>>ponse mi cuka'e se lebna do tai ma.ianai li'u >>Does this {gi'e} imply a temporal sequence? >Actually, um, er, {.ije} *is* taken to imply a temporal sequency in >"storytelling time", so I assumed {gi'e} can too. If this doesn't convince >"the people", then {gi'ebabo} isn't that hard... Yes, {.ije} implies story time, but I think that {gi'e} doesn't. Consider the "when Adam dolve and Eve span" line we had before. Granted, that was done in forethought, but that shouldn't matter. The implication was that Adam was delving and Eve spinning at around the same time, not one after the other. You need {gi'ebabo} or {ce'o}. >>>la men. lu .i loi dembrlupino. do'a kujo'u le sanmi pe la xekates. tosa'a >Um, {loi} does mean "at least some of the whole mass of", so I don't see the >problem with its use here. Yes, but. Granted, it's only part of the whole, but doesn't {loi} usually imply the the part on behalf of the whole? Not all of the mass of birds fly, but most do, and so the whole can be considered to, and even a minority can be considered to, so long as there's some implication to the whole? I'm really shaky on this whole "mass" thing in the first place, but I remember lojbab and jimc mumbling some stuff about this at some point. >>>la xar. lu .i.e'unai ca lenu mi krecpa do; li'u >>Some indication of the trailing-off threat that the English has would be >>nice. >Like the, um, semicolon? (Which means a pause longer than a . , but which >not many people seem to be aware of. I suppose I'll just have to go back to >"...". I could stick in a {po'o}, but don't want to. Yeah, but you can't trust that. Hell, I though it was a typo of some kind. Beside, even if you see it you may not realize that that's the implication. An {.y} wouldn't go amiss, but I'm not sure that even that would suffice. ~mark