From araizen@newmail.net Sat Aug 04 17:44:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 00:44:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 9342 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 00:44:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 00:44:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n20.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 00:44:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.120] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2001 00:44:31 -0000 Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 00:44:27 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Well I guess you do learn something new every day... Message-ID: <9ki4tb+tfm2@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010803112858.00d2be00@pop.cais.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2316 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.181.246 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9177 la lojbab cusku di'e > Imagine sentences nested multiple levels deep. You can use vo'a to refer > quickly back to the main level, which seemed to occur often enough that it > was worth chewing up 5 cmavo in a series for (and it may have existed back > in JCB's version). You can use le nei for the current bridi (but ri/ra > usually is good enough), but need a SE to get non-first places, and you can > use le no'a, possibly with subscripts, to get anywhere in between the > current bridi and the main bridi (and with a negative subscript, possibly > also to refer inwards from the main bridi, though there is no usage and > counting convention defined for same). Thus we cover all the possibilities > with only 7 "new" cmavo, spending most of them for the possibility that is > useful but for which we had no other way to do it (because if you are very > nested, you may not know how many levels out to subscript no'a - umm, I > guess no'axiro would work but ...) I guess that means that "no'a" by default goes exactly one level up. But even if "no'a" is useful to get to an arbitrary level in between, "no'axiro" could still be the default. > > mi pensi le nu le nu no'a cu rinka le nu mi djuno > > > >Is it my thinking (likely) or being the cause (???) that makes me > >know. > > The sentence claims that it is the "thinking about the thinking about", > that is the cause. I agree, but that contradicts that "no'a" refers to the bridi one level up. In "le nu no'a cu rinka le nu mi djuno", the bridi one level up is the rinka-ing. So the one-level-up interpretation would be that I'm thinking about causing my knowing causing my knowing. > > mi badri le nu do djuno le du'u no'a > > > >Does it mean that I'm sad that you know that I'm sad, or that you know > >that you know (that you know, etc.) > > It means that I'm sad about the fact that you know I'm sad (about the fact > that you know I'm sad ...) Again, exactly one level up from "no'a" in "do djuno le du'u no'a" is the djuno-ing, so the sentence by that interpretation would be that I'm sad about the fact that you know that you know that you know etc. I really think that "no'a" would be more useful (and easier to think about) referring to the main bridi. mu'o mi'e adam