From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMB.BITNET!LOJBAN Mon Jun 29 13:56:21 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 29 Jun 92 13:56 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA17042; Mon, 29 Jun 92 12:33:38 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA19247; Mon, 29 Jun 92 10:36:57 -0400 Message-Id: <9206291436.AA19247@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5734; Mon, 29 Jun 92 10:36:32 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf027) id 0352; Mon, 29 Jun 92 10:36:19 EDT Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 10:33:59 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Phone game: TV X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Cc: lojbab@grebyn.com, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk, fred@wam.umd.edu, nsn@ee.mu.oz.au To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU's message of Fri, 26 Jun 92 15:04:08 +1000 <199206260504.AA25589@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU> Status: RO X-Status: >Mark's starting sentence was: >Until you start sitting up straight and stop playing with your food, young >man, there'll be no television for you --- that's for sure! >He handled this as: >pu'o le mu'e do co'a xagysirji zutse gi'e na'e kelci le do sanmi doi citno >nanmu kei .i'enairo'a do cu .e'anai catlu le se tivni vau ju'o Yeah, that {e'anai} caused many problems in the TV sentence. I'll concede that what I wound up saying was probably not the right way to convey the meaning, but it's interesting to look at why I did. I had {do cu .e'anai catlu le se tivni} for "There'll be no TV for you." This led Ivan to get "here you are watching TV." I had been thinking along the lines of Lojban's non-tensed nature; so {do catlu} means "you are a watcher" -- not necessarily at this instant, or even in actual fact yet, as in the "ducks are floaters" discussion I saw on here a while back. The UI would then modify it to "you are a watcher (forbidden!)" or something like "you are a watcher without permission," thus "you are forbidden from being a watcher" (or more accurately "your being a watcher is forbidden"), without implying necessarily that the watching is actually takiing place. There could probably be much better placements for the UI to get that meaning across, and a {da'i} would not go amiss at all, but I think you can see where I was coming from. So, Nick, you think that a UI cannot negate a bridi? OK, I'll accept that; I couldn't tell if it could or couldn't myself. But it need not have to in order to use {.e'anai} as I did; not necessarily. As to whether {pu'o} is the right word or not, perhaps causal links would have been better, but I'm not sure they're critical. The English had no causality (though it relied on implied post hoc reasoning). I was thinking very much along the lines of the original sentence: "In the time before you start sitting up and not playing with your food, you're a forbidden watcher of the TV." You don't really need the causality; I don't think it's cultural bias to allow this kind of implication. ~mark