Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20031027195247.02df0e30@pop.east.cox.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:11:35 -0500
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
From: Nora LeChevalier <noras@cox.net>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: More Turner/Nicholas lesson questions
In-Reply-To: <200310270954.EAA02815@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: 4325

At 07:19 PM 10/26/03 -0500, der Mouse wrote:

[snip]
>Lesson 9, Exercise 4 (collapse two sentences into one with poi), item 5:
>
>         .i mi viska va le barja le ninmu .i mi klama le barja le briju
>
>The answer given is
>
>         .i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama fi le briju ku'o le ninmu
>
>which is fine.  When answering this, I didn't write that, but I came up
>with two other alternatives:
>
>         .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?)

I am a bit confused by the answers you've been given to this.  All of them 
look equivalent to me.  Here is the breakdown of what they mean.  If I'm 
mistaken, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The original: .i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama fi le briju ku'o le ninmu
.i: (new sentence)
mi: (me) 1st place of viska
viska: (see) the main selbri
va: (near) sumti tcita introducing non-place-structure sumti
         le barja: (the bar)
         poi: (such that) start of clause restricting which bar
                 mi klama fi le briju: clause
                 (I go [to] from the office)
         ku'o: end of restrictive clause
le ninmu: (the woman) 2nd place of viska

The first alternative: .i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama ke'a le briju 
ku'o le ninmu
.i: (new sentence)
mi: (me) 1st place of viska
viska: (see) the main selbri
va: (near) sumti tcita introducing non-place-structure sumti
         le barja: (the bar)
         poi: (such that) start of clause restricting which bar
                 mi klama ke'a le briju: clause
                 (I go to it [the bar] from the office)
         ku'o: end of restrictive clause
le ninmu: (the woman) 2nd place of viska

The second alternative: .i mi viska va le barja poi se klama mi le briju 
ku'o le ninmu
.i: (new sentence)
mi: (me) 1st place of viska
viska: (see) the main selbri
va: (near) sumti tcita introducing non-place-structure sumti
         le barja: (the bar)
         poi: (such that) start of clause restricting which bar
                 se klama mi le briju
                 [it] is gone to by me from the office
         ku'o: end of restrictive clause
le ninmu: (the woman) 2nd place of viska


>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?
>Is this the difference between "half an hour" and "a half-hour", and if
>so, why is the be needed rather than using "lo cacra li pimu"?

[snip]

It appears from this, and also from the question from Llu'is Batlle i Rossell:
>.ui mi ba troci ledu'u mi cusku le danfu
>i le pamoi pe lo sumti stura zo linsi cu la'e zo samxruebe noi mi na djuno le
>smuni ke'a
that you (you two, that is) need to review the use of "be".  Note that, in 
"lo cacra be li pimu", the "li pimu" is attached to "lo cacra" as it's 
sumti-#2 by the "be"; the "lo cacra" itself is the place of, probably, the 
main selbri.  Without the "be", you have "lo cacra li pimu", which make 2 
separate sumti "lo cacra" and "li pimu", both places of the same (again, 
probably the main) selbri.

A clearer example:

"mi klama le zdani be le gerku" is "I go (klama) to the house (zdani) of 
the dog (gerku)", where "the dog" fills the 2nd place of zdani, and the 
whole phrase "the house of the dog" fills the 2nd place of "go".

In contrast, without the "be":
"mi klama le zdani le gerku" is "I go (klama) to the house (zdani) from the 
dog (gerku), where "the house" by itself fills the 2nd place of "go", and 
"the dog" fills the 3rd place of "klama".

I hope this helps.

[snip]


-- 
mi'e noras                                             noras@cox.net
Nora LeChevalier