From sentto-44114-2472-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sat Apr 29 16:30:10 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 8111 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 16:30:09 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 16:30:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 12106 invoked by uid 40001); 29 Apr 2000 16:30:30 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 12103 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 16:30:30 -0000 Received: from mk.egroups.com (207.138.41.165) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 16:30:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2472-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 2000 16:30:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 24992 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 16:30:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Apr 2000 16:30:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 16:30:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 94635 invoked by uid 0); 29 Apr 2000 16:30:25 -0000 Message-ID: <20000429163025.94634.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.59 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 09:30:25 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.59] To: lojban@egroups.com From: "Jorge Llambias" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 09:30:25 PDT Subject: Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit la pycyn cusku di'e >How should I read the observatives (well, I don't suppose you can observe a >perfective)? I think you could observe a perfective sometimes: (ba'o carvi -- Look! It has rained!, ba'o se cikre -- Look! It's fixed!) but in fact usage has not limited the elision of the first argument to observatives. This elision is treated exactly like the elision of any other argument: the sumti is supposed to be obvious from context, or irrelevant. There is no special treatment of the x1 place. In this particular example I was not baffled by the "observative" (the elision of x1) but by the meaning. What does it mean for an idea to be over and done with? Is it no longer an idea? Or no longer held by x3? Or no longer being elaborated? What does {ba'o} really mean there? And even assuming that {la'e di'u ba'o sidbo} could mean "that was the idea", then it could also mean, even more likely, "it was an idea". But these two phrases reflect almost opposite attitudes in English. The first reaffirms the idea, the second is almost an apologetic withdrawal of the idea. I think both are rather idiomatic, and the Lojban phrase would have none of those connotations. When we're presented with an English translation next to the Lojban, it is difficult to detect this kind of ambiguities, we tend to accept the given translation as reasonable, but sometimes we would read something very different in its absence. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws. http://click.egroups.com/1/3020/2/_/17627/_/957025826/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com