From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Mar 22 07:39:57 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 60740 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2006 15:39:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2006 15:39:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2006 15:39:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM5RA-0005L6-Nb for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:39:52 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM5Pl-0005JR-Os; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:38:27 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM5PI-0005Ie-1J for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:37:56 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.195]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM5PF-0005IX-Rq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:37:55 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i34so168943wra for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.153.8 with SMTP id a8mr686482wre; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.67.10 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:37:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560603220737i162d9245g85b0cc08245fb89@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:37:50 -0300 In-Reply-To: <06bc01c64dc3$3be85080$a0d2400a@caroe1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <06bc01c64dc3$3be85080$a0d2400a@caroe1> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11212 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A comment on one of my jboselkei translations X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=1XabncfQvPr7QkDVRTv7JoeRPGBtuTFtBVbTrUONqSTEsVcceQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25622 On 3/22/06, Betsemes wrote: > I have a question. I was under the impression that when we add a spatial > tense followed by a sumti, we are really adding a tense sumti that applies > to the entire bridi. So I thought that here {pa'o} applied to the event of > seeing instead of applying to just one of the sumtis (the girl); and I was > under the impression that in order for it to apply to the girl, it should > have been written as {mi viska lo lunbe nixli pe pa'o lo canko be lo ragve > dinju ca le cabycerni} thus associating the tense directly to the sumti. How > is this incorrect? You are correct, the reviewer is wrong. I also got a few "corrections" that were obviously wrong for some of my translations, but supposedly these things will smooth themselves out with time. It would be nice to be able to add some comments to the reviewers comments so that they don't get the last word though. :) > I also didn't think that a past tense tag was necessary because of the {ca > le cabycerni} tense sumti. Am I wrong? It's extremely difficult to judge whether a tense indication is necessary with such out of context sentences. I wouldn't deduct points for that, but it's a valid comment. "This morning" could be now, or even in the future. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.