Message-Id: <199509260308.XAA29906@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 25 Sep 1995 22:48:02 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Beginners question (was: Re: coi za'e jboterymri)
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>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?

As you note - the back translation of the first is not identical to
your English.  The second would also not back-translate identically.

I would use

le lojbo valsi po'u zo valsi cu gismu

Restrictive/nonrestrictive seems like it would be difficult to explain to
native Russian speakers, hence your confusion over "noi" vs. "poi".
I am not sure that I can see a use for "zo valsi noi lojbo valsi".
Non restrictive usages apply wen you have a DEFINITE reference, and you
merely want to throw in some additional information about it - the additional
information must be INDEPENDENT of the main claim of the sentence, and
usually would present some relevant information.

I'm groping unsuccesfully in my mind for some Russian examples - but I
have sensed a certain non-restrrictive sense to many of the partcipial
phrases attached to Russian nouns in more academic styles of writing.
To some extent in addition, since Russian does not explicit mark definiteness
with an article, the word-order conventions used in Russian to convey a
definite vs. indefinite reference indirectly also convey restrictive vs.
nonrestrictive senses to the modifiers that attach to the nouns.

lojbab