From lojbab@lojban.org Mon May 01 18:14:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13719 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 01:14:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 May 2000 01:14:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO qh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.28) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 May 2000 01:14:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 7223 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 01:14:58 -0000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (205.252.14.63) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 2 May 2000 01:14:58 -0000 Received: from bob (209-8-89-151.dynamic.cais.com [209.8.89.151]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16583 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 21:13:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000430193840.00a78970@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:58:18 -0400 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku In-Reply-To: <20000429163025.94634.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2490 At 09:30 AM 04/29/2000 -0700, Jorge Llambias wrote: >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. I think the concept of the observative was always a recognition of what it means to elide the first place, or rather any place upon which focus or stress is placed. In Lojban, the first place is naturally focussed by the grammar associated with "le". It is plausible that there be nonobservative uses of omitted x1. >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? Well a cessative tense or a completitive tense suggests that it is an idea which has ceased (perhaps permanently) to be an idea. An obvious example from US history are the idea of the US as a slaveholding nation after the civil war. While I am sure people have thought about the idea since then, I suspect that no one has been able to think about it in quite the same way - so an idea of slavery is really a new idea. I presume that the idea of Argentina as a Spanish colony is fairly well extinguished by now too %^) If one thinks of people or the perceptions and recollections of people as ideas, then when the last person that knows or recalls the person is dead, that idea is clearly perfected. How many anonymous human beings of whom no record was ever made are completely lost to us, as are any ideas that they thought and never conveyed, or even conveyed and were forgotten. > Or no longer held by x3? >Or no longer being elaborated? What does {ba'o} really >mean there? I associate ba'o with pujecanaijebanai but having more recognition that there was a definite ending point to the state. >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. Those differences are attitudinal. An idea can end and one can be happy, sad, apologetic about it. The attempt to resurrect or bring back a dead idea is probably not covered by this directly, though if one assumes that a resurrected idea is not necessarily the same as the original idea, it could be expressed that way. >I think both are rather idiomatic, and the Lojban >phrase would have none of those connotations. Agreed. >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. The intralinear translations can be a weakness if they cause someone to read the English as being the identical things as the Lojban. That was one reason I always favored the stilted English translations. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)