Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 00:38:12 +0300
From: Cyril Slobin <slobin@FEAST.FE.MSK.RU>
Subject: Re: Beginners question (was: Re: coi za'e jboterymri)
In-reply-to: from <"jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU"@Sun>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Cyril Slobin <slobin@FEAST.FE.MSK.RU>
Message-id: <01HVP0VMKXHK000ZB4@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Organization: Institute for Commercial Engineering
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1433
Lines: 38

coi
 
> > > i le do se ciska na mutce nitcu le nu cikre
> >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I haven't found this pattern in The Draft Reference Grammar. :-(
>
> I think that is because this would be explained in the paper about
> relative clauses, which is not yet done. I think John Cowan will have
 
Thank you, I have found example in "summary", it seems clear now.
 
But I have more questions...
 
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?
 
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. 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?
 
co'o mi'e kir
--
Cyril Slobin <slobin@fe.msk.ru> `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
<http://www.fe.msk.ru/~slobin/> `it means just what I choose it to mean'