[lojban-beginners] Re: attempt at translation

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

2009/9/23 Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday 17 September 2009 14:35:55 Ryan Leach wrote:
>>> > lu mi pu tirna da'e ra'i da'e goi mi pa'upatfu .ije mi pa'upatfu go'e
>>> > .ije do'i rapli nu so'i pano nanca .i
>>>
>>> I was stumped by the first sentence, but it parses. It means "ÂI heard it
>>> (which is something I'll say later) from it (which is something I'll say
>>> later) which is IÂ is a father with a component".
>>
>> ÂActually, it doesn't parse. Â"mi pu tirna da'e ra'i da'e goi mi
>> pa'u" is fine, but "patfu" is an illegal Âsecond selbri in the main
>> sentence. Â"tirna" is the selbri.
>
> "li'u" should't be elidable, but officially it is, so it does parse.
> ("toi" and "tu'u", the other text enclosers, also should not be elidable.)
>
>

  We crossposted, but as I mentioned in my last note, the utterance
_as a whole_ doesn't parse, because the li'u wasn't actually, elided,
but existed at the end of the second paragraph.

>> ÂÂIn addition, since you want help
>> with Â"learning", not a learner", it's an event abstraction, "lo nu
>> cilre", so the first sentence is
>> pe'u ko [cu] sidju mi lo nu cilre
>
> "pe'u do'u ko", or just ".e'o ko"
>
> "pe'u ko" is grammatical, but probably not what was intended.

  Thank you, you are correct.  I apologize for my sloppiness.  Ryan:
"pe'u" (and other members of its selma'o, COI), take a sumti after it,
so the "ko" becomes part of it (unless you put in the terminator,
do'u)

                         --gejyspa