From OneOfThree@gmx.net Wed Jul 23 04:26:19 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: OneOfThree@gmx.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 52893 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2003 11:26:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Jul 2003 11:26:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2003 11:26:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 12399 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Jul 2003 11:26:15 -0000 Received: from p5086C643.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ONEOF) (80.134.198.67) by mail.gmx.net (mp003) with SMTP; 23 Jul 2003 13:26:15 +0200 Message-ID: <000e01c3510b$9b5c1860$fe7aa8c0@ONEOF> To: References: <1058866309.317.21468.m12@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: use of ko'a Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:59:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Stefan \"1of3\" Koch" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=39088451 X-Yahoo-Profile: oneofthree2 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20442 And Rosta wrote: > Translate English "They went." I can see two ways: > > 1. ko'a klama > 2. le du cu klama > > Neither uses anaphora, and I cannot see any way of using anaphora. You can use a description though: - le za'emei cu klama Which is better since it translates the plurality of they into lojban. You could also use {da} or a BY. cmavo if you have some idea how to call THEM. {ledu} sounds quite strange to me. If I had to make a decision between {ko'a} and {ledu} I would use {ko'a}. lojban-out@lojban.org wrote: > Who went? "They" is anaphora, it's only meaningful in English when we've > already been talking about some group. That's obviously wrong. Imagine a novell that starts with "They ran around the corner. ...". And you read one and a half pages before you know who THEY are or why they run around corners. And if this wasn't possible, why would have linguists invented the term "kataphoric"? > 3. klama > > which doesn't tell us a thing about who went, but neither does unbound ko'a. > If you're going to have to glork who ko'a is, then why don't you just use zo'e > the way it's intended? The difference is that {zo'e} doesn't show that I have somebody special in mind. mu'omi'e ctefan.