From pycyn@aol.com Sun Aug 18 15:29:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 18 Aug 2002 22:29:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 1958 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2002 22:29:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Aug 2002 22:29:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2002 22:29:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.8.2b0e49c8 (18707) for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 18:28:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8.2b0e49c8.2a9179a1@aol.com> Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 18:28:49 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] .uanai ne'i le velcli To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8.2b0e49c8.2a9179a1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15114 --part1_8.2b0e49c8.2a9179a1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/18/2002 5:54:39 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > .i ne'i le 3 pi'e 1 moi fanva selcpe zoi gy. I mail you in Lojban. gy. > goi ko'a se fanva fu lu .i mi mrilu fi do bau la lojban. li'u goi ko'e > .i .ue .uanai pe'i ko'e se smuni zoi gy. I (am the initiator in a > transaction with a delivery service to send something to you) in Lojban. > gy. mi .i .o'acu'i mi fanva ko'a fu lu .i mi mrilu zo'e pe bau la > lojban. do li'u > >> Yup, it sure looks that way. << .i ni'o ne'i le 7 pi'e 4 moi fanva selcpe zoi gy. I was talking to a friend I forgot to talk to earlier. gy. goi ko'i se fanva fu lu .i mi pu tavla lo pendo poi mi to'e morji lenu mi tavla ke'a puku li'u goi ko'o .i .oi ko'o se smuni fi mi fe zoi gy. I was talking to a friend who I forgot that I talked to earlier. gy. .i .oi .uonai >> Somewhat less certain. "I forgot that..." is typically {mi to'e morji le du'u}; this is {mi to'e morji le nu...} which might plausibly be read as "I forgot to..." I can't find that usage explicated in the Book, but it is hard to find good translation advice there, so it may be there, but either hidden or only implicit. << mi jimpe leka mi srera >> I read this as "I understand the nature of my mistakes [the quality of my erring]" but I haven't gotten anyone else to agree about that in public (nor private, come to think of it). It fits beautifully here, contrary to all those "but it is useless" remarks (I wish I were certain that that was what you meant). xorxes: << i mi do tugni le du'u le do jufra cu satci zmadu i ji'asai ka'e cusku lu mi mrilu lo lojbo do li'u >> "More precise" seems litotes here, sinc the original is just nonsense -- sending mail is not language connected (except in very literal trats from English). "More precise" does apply to Brion's second vis a vis xorxes', since le lojbo might be in English but about some lojbanic topic (reflexive indexical). <> I am unsure about the force of {ei} buried under several subordinators; I suspect that {mi bilga le nu} is meant, but seems inappropriate without a lot of detail: what standard is involved (I planned to, I promised to, I am legally bound to, ...; this looks like merely "I planned to." in which case, forgetting covers all the obligation involved -- you can't forget to do -- I take it that {lenu in this sense is OK --what isn't on the list). djordyn: << do drani leka smuni ko'e >> By you don't have the property of being a meaning of y. I suppose it is something like {ka jimpe fi le smuni be ko'e} (and whatever happened to {le du'u ce'u}?). << do djuno ledu'u dakau poi do tavla ke'a ku'o pendo do >> {dakau}? "You know that something you talked to is a friend of yours." I don't see whence cometh "which of your friends" at all ( {le do mo pendo}? -- it might be nice to have a clearer form, but this doesn't seem to be it). Even {le pendo poi do tavla fi ke'a} gets closer -- but won't do with {djuno} . Something doesn't work here. ? {le du'u ma te tavla pendo} ? << uidai le'i do srera cu cmalu >> {uidai} is nice ("I am happy for you" or so). {le'i do se srera}, it is the errors not the errers that we count. --part1_8.2b0e49c8.2a9179a1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/18/2002 5:54:39 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

.i ne'i le 3 pi'e 1 moi fanva selcpe zoi gy. I mail you in Lojban. gy.
goi ko'a se fanva fu lu .i mi mrilu fi do bau la lojban. li'u goi ko'e
.i .ue .uanai pe'i ko'e se smuni zoi gy. I (am the initiator in a
transaction with a delivery service to send something to you) in Lojban.
gy. mi .i .o'acu'i mi fanva ko'a fu lu .i mi mrilu zo'e pe bau la
lojban. do li'u

>>

Yup, it sure looks that way.

<<
.i ni'o ne'i le 7 pi'e 4 moi fanva selcpe zoi gy. I was talking to a
friend I forgot to talk to earlier. gy. goi ko'i se fanva fu lu .i mi pu
tavla lo pendo poi mi to'e morji lenu mi tavla ke'a puku li'u goi ko'o
.i .oi ko'o se smuni fi mi fe zoi gy. I was talking to a friend who I
forgot that I talked to earlier. gy. .i .oi .uonai
>>

Somewhat less certain. "I forgot that..." is typically {mi to'e morji le du'u}; this is {mi to'e morji le nu...} which might plausibly be read as "I forgot to..." I can't find that usage explicated in the Book, but it is hard to find good translation advice there, so it may be there, but either hidden or only implicit.

<<
mi jimpe leka mi srera
>>
I read this as "I understand the nature of my mistakes [the quality of my erring]" but I haven't gotten anyone else to agree about that in public (nor private, come to think of it). It fits beautifully here, contrary to all those "but it is useless" remarks (I wish I were certain that that was what you meant).

xorxes:
<<
i mi do tugni le du'u le do jufra cu satci zmadu i ji'asai ka'e
cusku lu mi mrilu lo lojbo do li'u
>>

"More precise" seems litotes here, sinc the original is just nonsense -- sending mail is not language connected (except in very literal trats from English). "More precise" does apply to Brion's second vis a vis xorxes', since le lojbo might be in English but about some lojbanic topic (reflexive indexical).

<<i drani i ui cinri mupli i e'u fanva le pamoi fu lu mi pu tavla lo
pendo poi mi pu to'e morji le nu ei mi tavla ke'a li'u
>>

I am unsure about the force of {ei} buried under several subordinators; I suspect that {mi bilga le nu} is meant, but seems inappropriate without a lot of detail: what standard is involved (I planned to, I promised to, I am legally bound to, ...; this looks like merely "I planned to." in which case, forgetting covers all the obligation involved -- you can't forget to do -- I take it that {lenu in this sense is OK --what isn't on the list).

djordyn:
<<
do drani leka smuni ko'e
>>

By you don't have the property of being a meaning of y. I suppose it is something like {ka jimpe fi le smuni be ko'e} (and whatever happened to {le du'u ce'u}?).

<<
do djuno ledu'u
dakau poi do tavla ke'a ku'o pendo do
>>
{dakau}? "You know that something you talked to is a friend of yours." I don't see whence cometh "which of your friends" at all ( {le do mo pendo}? -- it might be nice to have a clearer form, but this doesn't seem to be it). Even {le pendo poi do tavla fi ke'a} gets closer -- but won't do with {djuno} . Something doesn't work here. ? {le du'u ma te tavla pendo} ?

<<
uidai le'i do srera cu cmalu
>>
{uidai} is nice ("I am happy for you" or so). {le'i do se srera}, it is the errors not the errers that we count.

--part1_8.2b0e49c8.2a9179a1_boundary--