From C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Ukn Aug 4 05:18:58 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 4 Aug 1993 05:18:57 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0545; Wed, 04 Aug 93 05:17:49 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1823; Wed, 04 Aug 93 05:19:14 EDT Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 10:16:05 +0100 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: Jorge's text (Was: On the tense system of ZAhO) To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: Jorge, you said: >i uunai mi na fanva sebai le nu rodo se nandu le nu jimpe dei >du'i le nu mi ciska dei After a little effort I realised you meant "I'm not translating this so that you have the same difficulty understanding this as I have writing it" Unfortunately, that's not what it means. The problem is that 'na' is a bridi-negator, and 'sebai' is inside the bridi. Furthermore (as I said to Rob) I don't believe ciska is appropriate. What you've said is: (non-regret) it is not the case that I [translate this forcing all you to find it difficult to {understand it equally with me inscribing it}] In order to get the tcita sumti out of the scope of the bridi nu natfe you need either 1) use na'e, whose scope is the selbri only or 2) put the bai clause in a separate sentence: '.i bai bo' For myself I would use mu'i rather than sebai anyway - I believe your intent is to explain WHY you're not translating it, whereas what you' ve said is that you're not translating it, compelling .... Colin