Re: [lojban-beginners] How to avoid this ambiguity

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:19:22AM -0400, .arpis. wrote:
> I said this sentence (in English): I only understood half the
> jokes because I sat in on your NLP class. Based on my professor's
> reply, I realized that my sentence was ambiguous (although, if I
> had meant the meaning he interpreted it as, I would have put an
> only before "sat" as well).
> 
> Simplified: I only understood half {zo'e goi ko'a} because {zo'e
> goi ko'e}
> 
> What I meant was more along the lines of "I understood any {ko'a}
> at all only because of {ko'e}, and I still only understood half of
> {ko'a}"

I wouldn't expect any language to clear up this "ambiguity" without
changing the form.  If you *only* say "I understood half, because
something to do with X", how is the listener to know if you mean "I
would have understood more if X", or "I would have understood less
if X", if you don't specificy?

> {mi jimpe fi pi mo'a ji'i mu ko'a seja'e ko'e}

Havingy said that, I think that {mi jimpe su'e pi mu} would get the
point across reasonably well, as would {ji'i pi mu po'o}.

-Robin

-- 
http://singinst.org/ :  Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei".   My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/

-- 
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.