From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Oct 10 11:29:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 10 Oct 2000 18:29:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 22130 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2000 18:29:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Oct 2000 18:29:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Oct 2000 18:29:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.123] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Oct 2000 18:29:06 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:29:04 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: krefu etc. Message-ID: <8rvn5g+tu65@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2250 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4532 Creating a Lojban word for "anniversary" (see my translation {morji loi critu}), I came across bavna'ake'udei (balvi+nanca+krefu+djedi: anniversary day) na'arefydje (nanca+krefu+djedi) nancake'udei raising some questions: 1) Is it really correct stating: le vi (zi!) djedi cu bavna'ake'udei ... le nu ... Is it really {bavna'ake'udei}, namely "the day *recurring* (krefu) in the *future* (balvi), i.e. the day recurring from the past or at least the event from the past coming again on this day? Is {na'arefydje} or {nancake'udei} much better an expression? For IMHO I feel the culprit being the word {krefu}. krefu: x1 (event) is the x3'rd recurrence/repetition of x2 (abstract) This doesn't seem to represent Lojban logic (but rather a convenient expression of common thinking), since there is no recurrence at all: whether with regard to a certain day nor to an event (e.g. each turn of the sun around the earth ;-) is a totally new one - similar to those preceding, yet not the same). Why not better create lujvo the way many natural languages (e.g. Chinese) do: by (openly) using metaphors (and not pretending - or even believing - to be "logical" by using "metaphors" like {krefu}), myself included)? In German "anniversary day" is "Jahrestag" (= year's day), what seems to be pretty metaphoric. Would it be very un-Lojbanic to simply/loosely call it {nanca djedi} ({nancadei}, {na'adje}? I'd prefer the 2nd because of its sound. I do not want having maldotco expressions, but isn't {nanca+krefu+djedi} (anni+versari+...) mablylatmo instead? 2) If creating lujvo like those mentioned above, the example in the lujvo list bavna'ake'udei/na'anrefydje lenu co'a zgikrnrokenrole kei li cino doesn't seem to be too convincing with regard to its place order. The tanru {nanca+krefu+djedi} is ending with {djedi}, hence x2 should be that of djedi: x1 is x2 full days in duration (by standard x3) (e.g. lo nanca cu djedi li cixamu - o.k.: about) and the following x3 (event) that x2 (abstract) of {krefu} giving: x1 is the x2-recurrence-day of x3 (abstract) (Unlike the x1-place of {krefu}, x1 needs not to be an "event" but something like {cabdei} etc. mi'e la .aulun. noi se cinri lenu do jinvi makau