Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 07:07:56 +0600
From: Yanis Batura <ybatura@mail.ru>
Message-ID: <1937721406.20061205070756@mail.ru>
To: Daniel Adamec <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: nei
In-Reply-To: <241e6b720612041342t74e9e646nf5432fbc0863f556@mail.gmail.com>
References: <241e6b720612041342t74e9e646nf5432fbc0863f556@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 996

On 05.12.2006, 3:42, Daniel Adamec wrote:

> I have just encountered the full (I think) list of the GO"I series
> and their various uses and have been woundering if the scentance:

> .i mi tavla do lenu nei

> would translate into english as either

>  a) "I talk to you about the event of my talking to you"

> or

> b) "I talk to you about the event of my talking to you about the
> event of my talking to you about the event of my talking to you (etc.)"

> I had origionally thought "a" was the correct translation, but if
> "nei" repeats the whole of the present statement and is itself a
> word that is not dropped without loosing some meaning, would it repeat itself?

In your example, {no'a} would be better than {nei}, but it'd still lead to b). However, you can clear that infinite recursion explicitly: {mi tavla do le nu no'a fi da} = "I talk to you about the event of my talking to you about something".

By the way, who knows paradoxes shorter than {la'e dei jitfa}?

mi'e .ianis