Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0s9a0O-0009acC; Thu, 11 May 95 18:18 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id A03BBE05 ; Thu, 11 May 1995 17:17:58 +0100 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 10:15:10 -0400 Reply-To: Dylan Thurston Sender: Lojban list From: Dylan Thurston Subject: Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <01HQCOQSOEBMBHAQJ3@NETOP6.HARVARD.EDU> Content-Length: 8225 Lines: 186 On Thu, 11 May 1995, Goran Topic wrote: > coi fi'i ro do poi cnino .io coi ki'e ro do poi slabu (Wow, there are a lot of attitudinals.) so'ilo djuspu cu selvimcu > > > .i le gunse cu spusku lu lei me mi pu se jukpa .i mi glare jukpa ri > > > le nu nerpu'i rori le toknu .i e'u ko jukpa lei me do .i aupei mi > > > bregau le toknu sei le gunse cu cusku li'u > > Shouldn't the paragraph be marked with {ni'o}? > > Paragraphs can be marked with ni'o or no'i, but apart from resetting the > variables it does not have some great semantics in a logical context. > Simply - not often needed, except for convenience, IMHO... {ki'e ku'i ju'ocu'i} I was referring to the principle that all typographic distinctions (chapter headings, for example) should be reflected in the phonetics. I think this is a somewhat silly principle, anyway (for instance, while it's noble to try to make mathematical expressions speakable, it's totally infeasible for expressions of any complexity. I saw a Ph.D. thesis on speaking equations for the blind recently; see http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/aster/demo.html) > vi lo lalxe in the second sentence is one sumti, and it goes into its > own place, which vi opened up for it in the structure. See? And ti means > THIS HERE; not only for physical objects, but can also refer to anything > that is close to the speaker in space-time, including locations and > moments. > > > Can one person {klama ru'u le toknu} (come around the oven)? > > Think: Go, around the oven (circle the oven). klama does not mean come. > It means to go from/to/through/by. None of these were specified, so we > can translate is just nice with go. Come is a good translation if you > have the destination, but if not it is very misleading. (mi klama ti - I > come here (I go to here), but mi klama is just - I go.) OK, right. {klama ru'u le toknu} means "to go from one place to another in the area around the oven", to be pedantic. See my response to xorxes. > > > .i ki'unai le nu lei lorpanzi cu dunku klaku kei le lorxu na jundi ra > > > gi'e nerpu'i ra le toknu .ibabo ua co'a spoja fa lei betfu be lei > > > lorpanzi .i roroi ca le nu lo betfu cu spoja kei le lorxu cu sruri > > > klama gi'e gleki cusku lu paboi li'u fa'ubo lu reboi li'u fa'ubo > > > lu ciboi li'u fa'ubo lu voboi li'u fa'ubo lu muboi li'u > > > > Now's a good a time as any to inquire about the distinction {lo} vs. > > {le}. Why is it, e.g., {lei betfu} in the second line but {lo betfu} in > > the third? > > co'a spoja lo betfu means For each of the stomacks, it began > exploding. That depicts five separate processes of exploding, each of > which is at the beginning point. > > co'a spoja loi betfu means The stomacks began exploding. That means > there is one process, which is really a series of explosions of various > stomacks, which is now beginning. Very good. I like this explanation for the difference between {lo} and {loi} (which was also confusing). But I was asking about the difference between {le} and {lo} (which seems to parallel the difference between {lei} and {loi}). I didn't quite follow xorxes' explanation: > In the other case, I could have said {pa le betfu} instead of > {lo betfu}, but I preferred the shorter one. In any case, I want > to individuate them: Every time, that _one_ of the belies explodes... Does {lo} imply singularity? I would think that either {le betfu} or {lo betfu} could refer to one or more than one stomach, the only difference being whether the things actually are stomachs or only described that way. > The focus of the narrative here is not IMHO on the series of explosions > of each of the stomacks, but on the point in time when the heat reached > the level when the stomacks began exploding. (Umm, this got much more > muddled than I thought. I think I'll let somebody else explain this > one.) Yes, I don't follow. It seems like {co'a spoja fa le betfu} would be slightly wrong, since the explosions don't all happen at once. Is this what you're trying to say? How does {co'a spoja fa lei betfu ba le lorpanzi} stack up? > lo is veridical and indefinite (more or less, I think that's the > consensus, right?), meaning that it roughly works like indefinite article > in English, and also says "this thing that is REALLY...". So, you can't > really say lo crida because there aren't any around. (Well, this is also > more complicated than that... But we have been arguing about it for months > and it cant well be explained in one post... least of all by me.) Let me voice a premature opinion. Saying {lo crida} makes just as much sense as {le fetygunse ku joi le fetlorxu cu tavla simxu}; neither can be true in this world, but could be used in a story (or, I suppose, by someone that believes in the referents). {le crida} would be used to refer to actors playing fairies, but if you're going to write about fairies, you might as well use {lo crida}. ke'u so'ilo djuspu cu selvimcu > > > .ibabo ly tcefengu gi'e cusku lu ai mi ba sudgau le lalxe li'u .i ly > > > pinxe ce'o pinxe mu'i le nu sudgau le lalxe .i ku'i ki'unai le nu > > > mutce pinxe na snada le nu sudgau le lalxe .i le ly betfu ba'o plana > > > binxo .i ly darkla ca'o le nu cirko lo djacu ra'i le trixe .i ly > > > jdesku lu o'i e'u ju'i kinli pezli ko na batci mi li'u > > > > Could {le ly betfu ba'o plana binxo} also be written {le ly betfu ba'o > > plana} or {le ly betfo ba'o binxo (lo/le) plana}? > > le ly. betfu ba'o plana binxo means The fox's stomack finished > getting bloated (and the fox is fat). > > le ly. betfu ba'o plana means The fox's stomack finished being > bloated (and the fox is fat no more). > > le ly. betfo ba'o binxo lo/le plana means The fox's stomack finished > becoming a/the bloated thing. The lo variant corresponds to the given > sentence pretty closely, though neither quite capture the whole sense of > the English sentence (i.e. the stomack is now a bloated thing, but not > necessarily a stomack any more. ... > The le variant is not what you want, because of its > definiteness, i.e. There is this thing you know of that you'd describe > as fat and that is what fox's stomack has turned into. (compare English: > The cocoon turned into THE new butterfly. How does that sound?) Good! I think this answers my query about {lo} vs. {le} > > The meaning of the last two sentences seems very weird to me. Is > > "The fox dared to go while she was losing water from her back. She > > cried out in warning, 'Be careful! Sharp leaf, don't cut me!'" a > > correct translation? Where's the fox going? What on earth is a {kinli > > pezli}? > > Doesn't really matter, I guess. The point is, she actually WALKED with > all that water in her (or maybe driven a car, but I sincerely doubt that). > I guess your translation is correct, 'cause I translated the same way. > I'd say cactus needle, or agave (is that how it's called in English?) or > something such. As Jorge pointed out, {dar} is the rafsi for {darno}, 'far'. "Agave" is in my dictionary, although I'm not familiar with the plant. > > > .i badri je klaku klama fo le cmana .ize'iku lo kilpezli ly batci > > > .i zo pof .i ly spoja .i ke'u.uanai ma badri je klaku klama NOTE: this is my question, not part of the text. > > fo'e mi'e. dilyn. trs,ton. > > fa'o, maybe? Yes, I guess so... No, I meant {fe'o}. It would be ungrammatical to have anything after {fa'o}, right? (Talk about useless cmavo.) > co'o doi dilyn. mi'e. goran. > > -- > Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get > e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi reformatting: e'u do cilre lei bangu .i zo'o zo'onai ro bangu te djuno be do cu banri'a .ai le ka do na ka'e seljmi Clever (especially getting them both 79 columns). But: Should the first {do} be {ko}? And do you want the {do} in the x3 place of {bangu te djuno}? i.e., ...{ro bangu te djuno be fi do}... I don't understand the use of {banri'a} rather than just {rinka}. The x2 of jimpe is a fact, not a person. Shouldn't it be {le ka ma do na ka'e seljmi}? ({ma do} standing for {le do selsku} or {le do te djuno}.) co'o mi'e dilyn. TRS,ton.