From yann.ledu@noos.fr Tue Apr 12 04:07:34 2005
Return-Path: <yann.ledu@noos.fr>
X-Sender: yann.ledu@noos.fr
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 15409 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2005 11:07:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167)
  by m28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Apr 2005 11:07:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO pm-mx5.mx.noos.fr) (195.46.220.209)
  by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Apr 2005 11:07:33 -0000
Received: from m148.net81-67-70.noos.fr (m148.net81-67-70.noos.fr [81.67.70.148])
	by pm-mx5.mx.noos.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0284427001;
	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:06:32 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:06:32 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: yann@neuron.noos.fr
To: Opi Lauma <opi_lauma@yahoo.com>
Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <20050412104848.64160.qmail@web31314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504121305440.2410@neuron.noos.fr>
References: <20050412104848.64160.qmail@web31314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Originating-IP: 195.46.220.209
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0
From: Yann Le Du <yann.ledu@noos.fr>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {X1 selbri X2} = {X2 se selbri X1}?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=166479209
X-Yahoo-Profile: yldjtb
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24173

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Opi Lauma wrote:

>
>> {melbi tavla} and {melbi se tavla} are tanru, and as
>> such are ambiguous.
>> Now we can reason that {le se tavla} is an audience
>> so {le melbi se tavla}
>> is a beautiful audience.
>
>
> In the reference grammar the following is written:
>
> 9.10)    la tam. [cu] melbi tavla la meris.
>    Tom beautifully-talks to Mary.
>
> "beautifully" and "talks" are connected by "-", it
> means that "beauty" is property of "talk". So I would
> conclude that {le melbi tavla} is {beautiful speaker}
> in the sense that he is beautiful as speaker, and in
> the same way {le melbi se tavla} I would translate as
> {beautiful audience}, BUT as earlier I would say that
> beauty is a property of "being talked by", i.e. {X cu
> le melbi se tavla} means that X is beautiful in being
> talked, i.e. X is beautiful in doing nothing.

{X cu melbi se tavla}, without {le}

Ok, right, "X is beautiful in doing nothing", and is that a problem really
? "A stone is beautiful in doing nothing", and what ?

Or maybe you don't see any problem with that, and just wanted some
confirmation for your interpretation, in which case I concur.

co'o

--
Yann Le Du