Return-Path: Message-Id: <9208311420.AA04037@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Mon Aug 31 18:03:47 1992 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:34:45 -0500 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Aug 31 18:03:47 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN >Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:34:45 -0500 >From: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu >>Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:25:18 -0400 >>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >>In-reply-to: CJ FINE's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST [ ... ] >>Those work. I'm not dead-set on changing what's there, since that >>works well for me also, but if we really wanted to avoid selbri-less >>jufra (which I think are to be avoided in general, though not >>necessarily to the point of fanaticism), > I agree. I think in belles-lettres we'll have to flex a little bit. Yes. [ ... ] >>>>>.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da >>>>I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time- >>>>interval past)"..? Oh, "it's now a long time that..." Hrrrm. I >>>>let John >>>Cowan be the judge of that, if he gets a free moment. >>> Was built along the lines indicated in 'Imaginary journeys' >>Yes, tense probably works. Though I've been thinking that {na'e} >>might not be the right negator. "I was other-than-a-smeller-of it1 >>(the smell of coffee)" --- well what were you of it, then? Maybe an >>emitter? {na'e} usually implies negation to somewhere else on the >>scale, but there's not much of a scale in {sumne}. Really what >>you're saying is that the relationship of {sumne} didn't hold for you >>and {da} (in whatever tense). You smelled other things, and {da} was >>smelled by others, and you had other relations with {da} (you thought >>about {da} perhaps), but that particular relationship didn't hold. >>That's precisely the sort of negation provided by {na}, if I remember >>the negation paper properly. I think {na} might be a better negator >>here. Any other notions? Is {na'e} really better? > The tense was the reason I used {na'e}. If you put in {na} and > export it to the prenex you get: >naku zo'u mi ca ze'upu sumne da > which isn't the meaning I want (?). Now afterwards reading the > negation paper, I think I ought to have had {nai} instead of > {na'e}: I dunno. It looks to me like that *is* the sense you're trying to get across. But you're right, though: the {nai} is definitely better. >>>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au >>>>Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le >>>>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not >>>>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. >>> >>> Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of >>> drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the >>> stuff. >> >>I dunno. I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}. >> >>~mark, tea-drinker. >Now about {loi selpinxe ckafi}. Does it bring to mind the beverage or >the coffee beans/powder the beverage is made of? I had the beverage >in mind and I want to have the gismu {ckafi} in a position where I >can tack the attitudinal on it. Well, now I have it : {loi selpinxe >co ckafi.au}. What do you think? Better? Or was it you just couldn't >imagine someone thinking more the beverage than the actual act of >drinking? Many a time have I been sitting and enjoying the fragrant >smell of tea, this being an essential part of the total enjoyment >when the tea isn't just something nondescript. Same goes for coffee. >There are brews and BREWS. And think of the Japanese tea seremony, >to take an extreme example. In the seremony the act of drinking is >really almost superfluous. I think the problem is that I was interpreting {pinxe} wrongly, or at least too narrowly. I didn't take {se pinxe} as "beverage", but rather as "thing drunk", if you see the distinction. Hmm. You may not. That is, I was considering {loi selpinxe ckafi} as (probably) expanding to {loi ckafi poi selpinxe} --> {loi ckafi poi zo'e pinxe ke'a}: coffee which is drunk. This isn't quite the same as "beverage coffee", and I couldn't figure out why you were thinking about drunk coffee, sliding down someone's throat. Your interpretation is likely more correct than mine. >------------------------------------------------ ~mark