Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qy22I-00006WC; Thu, 20 Oct 94 20:16 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7949; Thu, 20 Oct 94 20:16:34 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7945; Thu, 20 Oct 1994 20:16:33 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0887; Thu, 20 Oct 1994 19:13:26 +0100 Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 18:07:51 +0200 Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Re: Apposed participials X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1291 Lines: 41 la kolin. cusku di'e > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 17:11:10 BST > From: Colin Fine > Subject: Apposed participials ... > I have a very strong intuition that it is not the event which is the object > of the seeing here. But as pc says the event is still part of the object. > > In many cases we can actually express it as > > mi viska da ca le nu da kelcrpuli > 'I saw x at the time x plays-pool' > > and I have a suspicion that expressions of this sort will always work, > but I'm not sure (they may not necessarily be temporal, but deciding > whether a temporal, spatial or other relation is appropriate will be > an example of the familiar process of being more precise when we translate > into Lojban. And we can always leave it vague with "va'o" or even "do'e". I thought of several similar expressions and came up with the following where it is quite difficult to say what is the actual object of the sensing 'I sensed someone had been in the room' The nearest translation I could think of was mi ganse leka le kumfa ba'o se zvati da but there may still be some quality of the original missing. -- co'o mi'e veion --------------------------------- .i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy. ---------------------------------