Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 14 May 2005 12:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DX2ZQ-0005jt-9z
	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 12:45:08 -0700
Received: from smtp4-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net ([81.228.8.92])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DX2ZM-0005jF-WF
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 12:45:07 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain (h239n2fls32o1007.telia.com [213.65.121.239])
	by smtp4-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F355C38495
	for <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>; Sat, 14 May 2005 21:44:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 247A95F4077; Sat, 14 May 2005 21:40:19 +0200 (CEST)
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: coi .i.e'o pinka
References: <87wtq3nxxm.fsf@handgranat.org>
	<925d175605051308194b8956b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<87oebeocf7.fsf@handgranat.org>
	<925d175605051318505c8ee812@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sunnan <sunnan@handgranat.org>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 21:40:18 +0200
In-Reply-To: <925d175605051318505c8ee812@mail.gmail.com> (
 =?utf-8?q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas's_message_of?= "Fri, 13 May 2005 22:50:12
 -0300")
Message-ID: <87acmxoau5.fsf@handgranat.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 1458
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: sunnan@handgranat.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners
Content-Length: 2638

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> writes:
>
> What kind of warning? It's quite grammatical.

Here's the output:
"Warning: Sentence may be missing selbri at line 1 column 4?"


> But if you like {mu'o}, go for it. 
>
>> > something like {ko na dampli lo <large amount deictic> marna}
>> 
>> So, like:
>> .i.e'o doi mamta ko na dampli lo du'e marna
>> ?
>
> Except that's "too much dope", not "that much dope", which
> I take to mean "as much dope as you are currently having".

Right, but I'd rather have an "as much as you're currently having"
deictic than a "large amount" deictic; in lieu of that, I'll go with
du'e for now, unless there are any other suggestions?

>> > {ji'i re roi lo djedi} is "about twice a day".
>> 
>> I read lo djedi as that it could happen about two times any given day
>> - sunday one week, friday the next week, or something like that. I've
>> been going back and forth between lo and ro, I'd rather have "most" or
>> "usually" than *every*.
>
> {lo djedi} works fine for a generic day. Use {su'o djedi} if you want
> "at least one day", and {le [pa] djedi} for "a certain day".

Ah, right. I read lo as "at least one day". I guess I haven't gotten
used to using predicate logic (which I've studied) for ordinary
sentences yet.

>> >> Chris said something about all them long-haired Jesus Christ
>> > ni'a mi = under me.
>> > Not sure what "shining down on me" means.
>> 
>> The light comes from above, as in "The sun shines down on me".
>> 
>> Maybe I'll add a "pe'a" but possibly she means literally.
>> 
>> This ni'a was the thing I felt was most wrong with my translation and
>> I'm still not sure how to write it right.
>
> {gi'e gusni mi lo gapru}?

I just wanted to use one of lojbans fancy space tenses.

>> >> I'm more laid back than you. Yeah, I'm more laid back
>> >> than you will ever be.
>> >>
>> >> .i mi surmau do .i mi caca'o go'i do bacai
>> >
>> > That {bacai} doesn't go with {do} though, it says that I will
>> > be more laid back than you.
>> 
>> I don't really know that part of the grammar yet, but jbofi'e said:
>> 
>> (0[i {mi <(1[ca ca'o] go'i)1 (1do [ba cai])1>}])0
>> (0[i {mi <(1[ca ca'o] go'i)1 (1[ba cai] do)1>}])0
>> 
>> and I can't tell the difference; it seems to go with do in both lines.
>> Would .i mi caca'o go'i bacai do work?
>
> No, {ba do} is "after you". {ba} is a tense on the selbri. You can move it
> around the bridi, but it always sets the time of the relationship.

So how can I say "I am now more laidback than what you will be at any
point in the future", i.e. "I'm more laidback than you will ever be"?

ki'e

-- 
.i mi'e snan .i mi rodo roda fraxu