From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Dec 16 21:28:15 1994 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA15643 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 21:28:11 -0500 Message-Id: <199412170228.AA15643@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1512; Fri, 16 Dec 94 21:28:03 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3014; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 21:28:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:26:12 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TEXT: advert To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 16 Dec 94 17:33:02 EST.) Status: RO Xorxe: > > > > Suho buha cei ka da kau vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe > > > > zohu > > > The prenex is grammatical: > > > There is at least one predicate bu'a = "is the property > > > of who likes whisky", such that: > > Why not "is the property of being a liker of whisky"? That's > > what I wanted. [You would want "ka keha vusnei", but this > > isn't official, is it?] > {ke'a} is not official, but {dakau} certainly does not work for that. > Didn't you read the example where I contrasted {dakau} with the lambda > variable? Do you disagree with that? Unfortunately I've deleted your message. I read that bit and did not understand you to be saying that dakau has some other meaning. But forgive me if I read it in excessive haste. Is there at present any offical way of indicating which sumti the ka is the property of? Lojbab has opposed your keha suggestion. You mentioned a while back that it was discussed at the last lojfest, and that some proposal involving kau was made (I forget the details). > > > naho ku ge loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu gi > > > lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda > > This part is not grammatical. > I want: > naho ku loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu > .i naho ku lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda > Still ungrammatical. > > I thought NU is a selbri that optionally takes a bridi as its > > complement. > No. NU is a selbri, and the part is not optional. Oh dear. Any idea why the is obligatory? > > Here I meant puhu to be a selbri without a bridi > > complement. If that's ungrammatical, then I guess I'd want > > naho ku puhu buha be lo gligicnau > You don't need the {be}. > That would be something like "typically there's a process of some > Englishman having such property". Yeah. I'll have to think about it. Do you reckon it means "Typically, the Englishman having such property is a process"? If so, this is what I want. Revise to: naho ku ge puhu buha lo gligicnau kei gi lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda > > > From the prenex bu'a doesn't have an x2 > > If buha = ka ... kei, shouldn't x2 be the possessor of the property? > > "Lo se ka"? > I suppose it makes sense, just like {lo se li'i ...} is the experiencer, > but my cmavo list doesn't have it. Mine does. > > I will post the original text in due course, but I would like to see > > if I can get across its meaning independently. > Let me guess: > le ka vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zo'utu'e lo'e gligicnau ra prucycpa > ije lo'e kotnau ra cerda tu'u "lohe ka vusnei" my intuition says. The "zohu" here I can't fathom. But yes: you have it. So I think I may give you the original: "An Englishman's taste for whisky is acquired. A Scotsman's is hereditary." [Or it might have been "inherited".] Now what originally caught my attention about this is precisely that "lohe gligicnau/kotnau" is not appropriate here - or at least "lohe gligicnau" is not appropriate. The typical-generic Englishman does not have a taste for whisky - or at any rate, the ad doesn't imply this. Rather, the ad is saying that if the Engman has a taste for whisky than the taste is acquired. And the best way to do this, I felt, is to have "lo gligicnau" within the scope of "naho". On reflection, I am far from convinced this is adequate, but it is too late at night for me to get my head round a solution. I welcome suggestions. ----- And