Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:34:05 -0800
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: More Turner/Nicholas lesson questions
Message-ID: <20031027213405.GR3490@digitalkingdom.org>
References: <200310270954.EAA02815@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200310270954.EAA02815@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 2352

On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 07:19:00PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> 	.i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama ke'a le briju ku'o le
> 	ninmu
>
> 	.i mi viska va le barja poi se klama mi le briju ku'o le
> 	ninmu
> 
> After reading the explanation accompanying the answer, I'm fairly
> sure the first is a reasonable alternative (it's just a question
> of whether you'd rather use fi or ke'a).  But what about the
> second?  Is it a reasonable rendition?  (And if not, why not?)

The second is an observative.  This changes, at the very least, the
flavor of the sentence.

> Lesson 9, Exercise 6 answer, item 1:
> 
>      Note: That odd expression lo cacra be li pimu is in fact how you'd
>      normally say 'half an hour.' In general, when Lojban measures
>      things, it doesn't divide them up into n individual units, but
>      rather says that x measures n units. So "Reading this lesson took
>      me two hours" would be in Lojban lenu mi tcidu le vi ve cilre cu
>      cacra li re.
> 
> So why is it "cacra li re" but not "cacra li pimu" - why the lo...be?

"lo" makes in into a sumti, and you can't just say "lo cacra li
pimu"; that's two unconnected sumti.  "be" attaches a sumti to the
brivla of the previous sumti, so that, in this case "li pimu" ends
up in the x2 of cacra and not floating on its own.

> Lesson 10, Exercise 2, answer for item 6:
> 
> Is it my imagination, or should all "ni'i"s be changed to
> "seni'i"s in these two paragraphs?

No.  A 'because' relation is always ni'i, ki'u, ri'a or mu'i.  A
'therefore' relation is always seni'i, seki'u, seri'a or semu'i.

> Lesson 15, the "tu'a" section:
> 
> Two of the examples given here as motivations for "tu'a" are
> 
>      lenu la djiotis. cu co'e cu cinri
> 
>      lenu la jan. co'e cu fenki
> 
> But it is left unexplained why one contains a "cu" where the other
> doesn't.  I see no difference between them that explains it; is
> this simply a case of an unnecessary cmavo ("cu") making an
> appearance, or is the "cu" necessary (and if so, why?)?

The extra cu in the first is elidable.

-Robin

-- 
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***   I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies."  -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/             ***              .i cimo'o prali .ui