Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.21;
Message-ID: <552129B6.9070506@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 14:25:26 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] A few more sentences
References: <6090dd51-ff30-4204-b791-54e109e3989b@googlegroups.com> <CAJHgu=93EhjBeoTrF0HHUb88vmbrT8J=Oy87rBKAij=qE6CAsQ@mail.gmail.com> <3be103bc-7054-40ed-8d03-25f018acbca2@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <3be103bc-7054-40ed-8d03-25f018acbca2@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -
Content-Length: 2351

la'o me. Erik Natanael Gustafsson .me cusku di'e
> coi .i ji'a ki'e
> I have now managed to decipher all of your suggestions, that of course
> seem much more sensible. I am not completely sure what the nei at the
> end of selpa'i's sentence does though:
>
> "> Let us share our knowledge.
>
> .e'e mi'o simxu lo ka [ce'u] jungau [ce'u] fi lo se djuno be lo nei"
>
> Why would I need to repeat the bridi there?

{lo nei} repeats the x1 of the current bridi. {nei} is the current bridi 
(though it's grammatically a selbri), and {lo} always takes the x1 of a 
selbri. In this case it is the x1 of {jungau}, which lets me refer back 
to the first {ce'u}. I can't say {ce'u} again, because that would add a 
third (unrelated) {ce'u} to the sentence (I'm also avoiding subscripting 
{ce'u}).


There is a very verbose way to avoid {nei}:

simxu lo ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u ko'a jungau ko'e lo se 
djuno be ko'a


And an experimental equivalent of this, using {ce'ai}:

simxu lo ka ko'a ko'e ce'ai ko'a jungau ko'e lo se djuno be ko'a

which in my opinion is still way too long too be practical.


That's why I think a new brivla would be good.


> The last sentence is obviously the hardest one, because it is so vague
> and metaphorical. But I think what I mean is that each subject can be
> completely themselves at this place, that no aspect of them needs to
> change. I had a little trouble with selpa'i's second version of this
> (what selbri does the "fa"s refer to and how does the indirect question
> work?), but I think maybe it is getting at this?
> ".i go'i fa lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi
> .e do .e mi'o"

It could be translated back into English as:

"this place, where me, you and we are free to have whatever properties 
that we do"

The first {fa} is {go'i}'s x1, which is the previous sentence's x1.

The second {fa} points to {zifre}.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.