Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rXIlI-00007VC; Thu, 26 Jan 95 03:12 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id DAA11597 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 1995 03:12:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HMA8FII6LC0005RW@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Thu, 26 Jan 1995 01:08:08 +0200 (EET) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5603; Thu, 26 Jan 1995 02:09:03 +0100 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 00:46:31 +0100 (MET) From: Goran Topic Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: Goran Topic Message-id: <01HMA8FIIXWY0005RW@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: Lojban Listserv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1848 Lines: 42 > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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". 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. That which is not easily expressible and cannot collapse is the sentence "I saw (mass of) x's and a's grandmothers (together, as one entity)" lo mamta be lo patfu be la .and. kukukujoi lo mamta be lo patfu be la xorxes. ^^^ co'o mi'e. goran. -- Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi