[lojban-beginners] Re: Using "nu"

[ianek <janek37@gmail.com>]

Is {senva} the correct word here? To me, dream/reverie means something
one would like to happen and ponders it, as in "I have a dream". The
sleeping kind of dream I'd translate as {sipxanri}.
The main problem here is that the gismu definitions are written in an
ambiguous language, but synonyms in them are meant to disambiguate.
You wouldn't call an animal {lo stela} if it's {lo pinpedi}. In my
rarbau "sleeping dream" and "daydream/reverie" are completely
different words.
By the way, I've had a half-lucid dream this night. I started to fly
and I knew that it's possible only in a dream, but I didn't care much.
It was a good flight, even if I was mildly concious that somewhere
else I lay on a bed.

mu'o mi'e ianek

On Jun 27, 8:43 am, Remo Dentato <rdent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Ben Foppa <eatingstap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > melbi fa lonu lo senva cu sanji le sevzi
>
> > Aiming for "Self-aware dreams are beautiful", or, more precisely:
> > "beautiful are dreams which are aware of the self".
>
> It seem to me: "the event of the dreamer being conscious of himself is
> beautiful". In other words, you deem beautiful the fact that a dreamer
> is (or can be) conscious of himself.
>
> If you meant, instead, that "lucid dreaming" is beautiful in itself, I
> would go with: {lo nu sanji senva cu melbi}.
>
> If are the "dreams" that are beautiful, then you won't need {nu} at
> all: {lo sanji selsne cu melbi}
>
> I think the tanru {sanji senva} ("x1 makes a conscious type of dream
> about x2") renders "lucid dream" quite precisely as in lucid dreams
> one is aware of the the fact that he is dreaming, not necessarily he
> is aware of his ego.
>
> I still have a  problem with {melbi} since it is meant for aesthetic
> judgment, I suspect that you meant "beautiful" in some other sense
> (maybe {pluka}?) for which there's not a direct translation in Lojban.
>
> Note that dreams can't be aware of anything and they do not have a
> "self". Only dreamers do.
>
> > 1. Is this correct? I'm a little confused as to how to turn "lo senva
> > cu sanji le sevzi" into a sumti.
>
> It is grammatically correct but I don't think is what you meant. I'm
> not sure why you want to convert it into a sumti but the easiest way
> is probably to transform it in "the dreamer who is conscious of self"
> -> {lo senva poi sanji le sevzi}
>
> > 2. I'm thinking that not using "fa" (i.e. "lonu lo senva cu sanji le
> > sevzi cu melbi") wouldn't work, because it's sort of vague as to what
> > the "nu" encompasses. Is this correct?
>
> Lojban grammar is never ambiguous. in you case is:
>  { << lonu lo senva cu sanji le sevzi >> cu melbi}
>
> {nu} (and all the other abstractions} take an entire bridi so you
> simply stop before the second {cu}.
>
> When you're in doubt, try to use jboski (or jbofihe) to check how the
> sentence parses. Use the terminator {kei} to define where the
> abstraction ends if the default rules give you something different
> from what you want.
>
> > 3. Is my use of "lo" twice correct? How would meanings change if I
> > used:
>
> {le} is specific in the sense that you're talking about a dream
> (and/or dreamer) you have in mind (and possibly identified by the
> context of what is being said).
> {lo} is more generic but almost always correct. Stay with {lo} as much
> as possible and you'll never be wrong :) (I still have problems
> following this rule myself).
>
> Enjoy your holiday trip to Lojbanistan :)
>
> mu'o mi'e remod.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.