Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tJKVZ-0000ZUC; Sat, 25 Nov 95 15:19 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 711B596B ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 14:19:06 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 08:18:03 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: CONLANG: picking tomatoes X-To: MarkLVines@eworld.com X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1727 Lines: 34 Actually mark, that tomato-picking problem would have been a good "beginner exercise" on Lojban List. You are correct that the solution needs to involve an attitudinal in order to be even moderately succint. "intend" normally is far more ad hoc then "plan". I might go for plan-want (platydjica) for most usages. But .ai works much better. So i would express your intent as ai mi ba crepu leva tamca which is conveniently short compared to the English. Now I'll quote your post from the conlang list now that everyone has tried to back trnaslate my effort without looking at it (Right?! %^) Your summary does seem to be a good summary of how certain Lojbanists seem like they might go about translating it. HUmor is appreciated! lojbab On conlang Mak Vines posted a humorous posting including the following about Lojban: >Q. How do you say, "I intend to pick those tomatoes," in Lojban? > >A. Lojban is free from syntactic ambiguity, so we should have no trouble >translating, unless your example sets some kind of semantic trap. Let's >see. Intend is {purpla}, which requires an abstractor of selma'o NU in >the x3 place. Now, some Lojbanists might prefer to describe tomato >picking as an activity or event. Others might describe it as a process, >an experience or even a state. Most would not describe tomato picking as >a property, at least not as a human property, altho a mechanical tomato >picker could be said to have a tomato picking property, which humans >might be said to share. Hmm. This _is_ a semantic trap. No matter >which NU abstractor we use, someone on the list will disagree. Maybe >we'd better express intent with an attitudinal, make a tanru for tomato >picking & leave it at that.