From opi_lauma@yahoo.com Mon Apr 04 09:17:37 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: opi_lauma@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 55201 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2005 16:17:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2005 16:17:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n14a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com) (66.94.237.28) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2005 16:17:36 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: Received: from [66.218.69.5] by n14.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Apr 2005 16:17:31 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.81] by mailer5.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Apr 2005 16:17:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:17:28 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1294 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 66.94.237.28 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 141.2.216.130 From: "opi_lauma" Subject: Re: tanru X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=216990827 X-Yahoo-Profile: opi_lauma X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24112 > Yes, tanru are vague by nature. Does it mean that "la tam. melbi tavla la meris" being without context (I mean without any previous text) cannot be translated just as "Tom beautifully-talks to Mary". Because in this case one loses some of the possible meanings. It means that "la tam. melbi tavla la meris" should be translated in this case as "Tom is a beautiful-talker to Mary.". Really in this case it is not clear in which sense Tom is beautiful (as speaker or not), it is also not clear how he is "related" with Marry (whether he is beautiful for Mary or he speak to Merry). So, having such sentence with less definite meaning we could reproduce vagueness of the initial lojban sentence. Is this vagueness of the considered sentence are documented in official lojban grammar or may be it is just "projection" of the corresponding English translation? Actually I see no necessity to approve the considered vagueness on the grammatical level. I see no necessity to have a possibility to construct sentences with the given type of vagueness. From my point of view it would be better to postulate that (for example): "sumti1 selbri2 selbri1 sumti2" = "lo nu sumti1 selbri1 sumti2 cu selbri2" It is "la tam. melbi tavla la meris" = "lo nu la tam tavla la meris cu melbi".