From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 21 18:12:15 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dktmg-0003pW-TQ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:12:07 -0700 Received: from web81308.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.83]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Dktme-0003pM-7E for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:12:06 -0700 Received: (qmail 73013 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Jun 2005 01:12:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20050622011202.73011.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.50.91] by web81308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:12:02 PDT Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: sipna selsanga To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <1119392680.8641.9.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10231 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Theodore Reed wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 08:20 -0700, John E > Clifford wrote: > > Curiosity: what is the intended difference > > between {lo melbi} in line 1 (and 3) and > {tu'a lo > > melbi} in line 2 (need for syllables aside)? > > I intended this translation: > > Have beautiful dreams, dear one. > Dream of beautiful things. > Have beautiful dreams, dear one. > I am looking after you, beloved. > > So the difference there is whether it is the > dream which is beautiful, > or the thing dreamed about. Oh! Now I have moved from curiosity to puzzlement. How does {ko senva lo melbi} mean "Dream beautiful dreams" as opposed to "Dream about beautiful things" (assuming it can mean the latter, of course). Of course, just what "have beautiful dreams" means other than "dream about beautiful things" may be problematic. But {ko senva co melbi} is safer, though it may means something else again (tanru are so indefinite). As for {ko senva tu'a lo melbi}, it fits better with the official definition of {senva}, which makes {senva2} take an abstraction (event or proposition or idea), in this case, one involving (a) beautiful thing(s) -- the old standard form for "dream about beautiful things," which in xorlo is {senva lo melbi} (with all the accompanying problems about unmarked intensional contexts). It was where you stood on that issue that I was trying to find out, and I must admit that on that -- as well as on just how what you did did what you intended -- I am no clearer than I was originally.