Return-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sxGe7-0000ZOC; Mon, 25 Sep 95 18:44 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.12+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA09426 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:44:46 +0200 Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (MAILER@CUNYVMV2) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V5.0-3 #2494) id <01HVPDYRM3K000106T@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> for veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 19:45:47 +0200 (EET) Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@CUNYVM) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2196; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:42:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:40:41 -0400 (EDT) From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Beginners question (was: Re: coi za'e jboterymri) Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-id: <01HVPDYSO26A00106T@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1820 Lines: 46 la kir cusku di'e > I'm to translate sentense "The lojban word 'valsi' is gismu" into lojban. > > My first attempt was: {zo valsi poi lojbo valsi cu gismu}. > > But back-translations seems like "'valsi', the lojban word, is gismu" - > not exactly the same. Really "lojban word 'valsi'" seems very like to > "plgs" and I feel it must be translated as tanru. > > So my second attempt was: {le lojbo valsi me zo valsi cu gismu}. > > And now the question: what version is right? If both, what is better and > why? And what is the difference between them? Both seem correct to me. Perhaps a more literal backtranslation of the first one would be "the 'valsi' that is a Lojban word is a gismu". > And another question: may be {noi} should be instead of {poi} in first > example? I don't catch difference between "restrictive" and "incidental" > in this case. With {noi} the sentence would say: "'valsi', which happens to be a Lojban word, is a gismu." > The only idea I have is that {zo valsi noi lojbo valsi cu > gismu} can be translated like "'valsi', as a lojban word, is gismu" (and > as an Esperanto word it is verb). Does it all seems like truth? "'valsi' as a Lojban word" is the restrictive sense, it should go with {poi}. You are restricting yourself from all 'valsi's to only that one which is a Lojban word. With {noi} you are just making a comment: 'valsi' (which by the way is a lojban word) is a gismu. A way to decide whether you want to use {noi} or {poi} is to see what happens if you omit the relative clause. If you omit {noi}, the claim being made is the same, you are just omiting background information. If you omit {poi}, you are changing the claim. A direct direct translation of "the lojban word 'valsi' is gismu" would be {le lojbo valsi po'u zo valsi cu gismu}. co'o mi'e xorxes