From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>
To: "lojban" <lojban@onelist.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:28:11 -0300
Message-ID: <01be0b67$11a33c00$82770ed1@roble.intermedia.com.ar>
Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [lojban] Re: talsa
Content-Length: 2374
Lines: 65


From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>

la kolin cusku di'e

> ({le <do velcki>} cu {stidi <lo [ka'e danfu]>})
>
>Translation: Your explanation suggests there is an answer.
>
> I don't understand the use of "ka'e" in this position.

{lo ka'e danfu} is "something that can be an answer". I did not
want to assert that it was necessarily the answer he was after.
 
> I'm also a little confused by  "le do velcki".  
> Now, what does  "le do velcki"  mean?  Clearly the "do" is intended
> as a possessive, but  "do velcki"  means  "you are an explanation",
> so why should  "le do velcki"  mean  "your explanation", which is,
> semantically, clearly the intent?

{le do velcki} has the same meaning as {le velcki pe do}. 
{do velcki} does mean like you say  "you are an explanation", but 
what follows {le} is never a whole bridi. Think of it as inserting {do}
into the sumti {le velcki} as a modifier. This is explained in 
chapter 8 of the grammar. 
 
> (mu'a {<lu [(xo da) (xadni do)] li'u> cumki})
>
> Does  "xoda xadni"  mean  "xo xadni"  with the "da" taking
> the value of the answer?  

No, {xoda xadni do} means "How many things are the body of you?"
{da} is a sumti and {xo} quantifies it (or rather asks for a quantifier).

> ja lu xoda xadni le pa sezvi be do li'u 
>
> Again, I'm confused by the "pa".  Here, the x2 of  "xadni"
> is  "(le {pa <sezvi [be do]>})", and I'm lost in trying to
> translate  "pa sezvi be do"

You can't translate it by itself without the {le}. {le pa sevzi be do} 
means "the one and only self of you". Here it was important to 
emphasize that we were talking of a single self.

> Translation:  As an aside, in my opinion no human language
>              limits the expression of ideas.
>
> Personally, I disagree.  I believe that *all* languages
> limit the expression of ideas, but are generally flexible 
> enough to permit a back-and-forth to communicate meaning.

If the meaning can be communicated, in what sense can the
ideas not be expressed then?

> co'o mi'e kolin.

co'o mi'e xorxes


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a jump start on your web site? XOOM.com Web Site Templates 250 helps
you get your site up and running in no time. Only $29.95!
http://orders.xoom.com/tmp/lstmp1105/