Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:57:19 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
In-reply-to: (Your message of Mon, 23 Jan 95 14:32:34 T.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HM77DG1N52000PSI@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1903
Lines: 37

Goran:
> > In general, if an Englishman likes whisky his taste is acquired. As I've
> > said {lohe glipre poi vusnei la .uiskis} or {lohe ka vusnei la .uiskis.
> > kei be lo glipre} would do the job. So there isn't anything I've been
> > saying is still unsayable.
> If you want for all Englishmen to be either non-drinkers of whiskey or
> acquirers of taste for it somettimes in their life, then [...]
> If your 'in general' means most of the people (all the normal Englishmen)
> satisfy the abovve clause, then [...]
> If you claim that ALL Englishmen acquire their taste for whiskey, so
> it is a regular fact about Englishmen that they like whiskey at one point
> in their life or another, then [...]
> All three of these variants have beeen in the mail before and you liked
> none of them. If you still cannot fiind  your intended (sentence, that
> is :)), then *please* be more precise. .e'ocai.

The claim is that most of the englishmen with a taste for w. acquire the
taste, or that most instances of the taste of an englishman for w. are
acquired. Is that precise enough? The translation originally appealed
(though it has palled) because of the use of "*an* englishman": I
wanted to see if it could somehow be translated by "lo gicnau".

> > > > > > > > How would you say "the mothers of Jorge and And"?
> > Wouldn't work for the siblings example, of course.
> Why don't you take lojbab's advice? I think he had theright idea
> (actually, I've thought of it myself, he beat me to the kbd :))
>   rolo mamta or whatever la .and. ba'e joi la xorxes.

Isn't {lo mamta be lo patfu be la .and. joi la xorxes} vaguer than
{lo mamta be lo patfu be la and beho beho .e lo mamta be lo patfu
be la xorxes}? Surely they're not synonymous? When I asked "how
would you say" I had in mind "how do you express the meaning", not
"how might you get across this meaning to a cooperative interlocutor".

---
And