On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM, selpa'i
<m3o@plasmatix.com> wrote:
la Jonathan Jones cu cusku di'e
Here's a hypothetical example of why I don't agree that srana "x1 is
pertinent/relevant to x2" could be used to mean "dedicated to":
Let us say that I wrote a book, and upon its being published, I gave it
the dedication "To my wife, for putting up with me as I wrote this".
Then is would be true that {lo mi cukta cu ckini lo mi speni lodu'u ca
nu mi ciska ku sy. se fanza mi}.
(You forgot a "lo" before after "ca".)
{lo mi cukta cu ckini lo mi speni lodu'u ca lonu mi ciska ku sy. se fanza mi}
However, other than the dedication, my
wife has nothing to do with the book- the story contained within has
absolutely nothing to do with my wife in any way, except in that she may
find it enjoyable to read, which has nothing to do with the decision to
dedicate it to her, and so {lo mi cukta cu na srana lo mi speni}, it's
in no way pertinent to/relevant to/concerning/about my wife.
mi nelci lo do zgike se finti .i pu zi tinju'i lo do se finti pe la'o me. Han Ga Eun .me
Or:
mi pu zi tinju'i lo srana be la'o me. Han Ga Eun .me
"I like your compositions. I just listened to your Han Ga Eun piece."
That's the easiest way to distinguish them, especially since I don't give my pieces names. pe/ne/srana are by nature vague and rely on context. And I think that's a good thing.
In this instance, I concede the use of {pe}, but not {srana}. "Dedicated" is /not/ "pertinent". "Associated with" should not be part of the English definition of srana, since it is obviously misunderstood. {srana} is not the gismu equivalent of {pe}. {ckini} is.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo je nai zo lejbo
doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi je sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo da'i pu cìtka lo gràna ku
.
.