Message-Id: <199501261935.AA27966@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:39:15 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Thu, 26 Jan 95 00:46:31 T.)
Status: RO

Goran:
> > 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".
> so'e glipre cu pu'o ja noroi vusnei la .uiskis.
> or, more precise, and using nice sexist zo'o word:
> so'e gicnau cu pu'o jonai noroi vusnei la .uiskis.

It appears to me that your versions are claims about most englishmen,
whereas the claim I have described is not about most englishmen.

> > 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".
> Yes, you are quite right here. {joi} version is definitely much shorter,
> but is also certainly semantically different than full one. But the
> sentence you just gave *can* collapse into
> lo mamta be lo patfu be la .and. .e la xorxes.

Are you sure? Wouldn't your version instead expand into {lo mamta be
lo patfu be la and beho .e  lo patfu be la xorxes} (meaning A & X have
the same grandmother)?

----
And