[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: ci lo gerku vs lo ci gerku
Sorry I've taken so long to reply by the way, I've been a little busy.
A question about grammar has degraded to semantics :(. If it "lo no
gerku cu blabu" can only be use metaphorically, so be it, so long as
it can be used. And if it can't, let's discuss "no lo gerku" instead
(which surely is sensible).
I guess the question for me comes down to the following: is lo used
with default quantifiers implicitly? Or are there examples of brivla
where we would assume different quantifiers in certain contexts?
Personally, I think no.
Everyone was used to the quantifiers of "le" before xorlo, and so now
they simply use "lo" in the same way - which is allowed because xorlo
makes no demands. The point is though, that currently someone can come
along and use it differently - saying "lo gerku cu blabi" when they
mean "no lo gerku cu blabi" and be technically correct. Why are we
allowing this?
Ranorith
u'u mi masno lo nu spuda kei mu'i milxe tolcando i
uinai pa preti be lo gerna cu xlabi'o pa preti be lo smuske i lu lo no
gerku cu blabi li'u goi ko'a po'o to'e satci smuni ja'e no vajni i lo
du'u ko'a smuni kei po'o vajni i ko'a smuni inaija ko joi mi casnu
sedu'u no lo gerku cu blabi kei to a'o ri smuni to'i i
vajni to vajni mi to'i se preti sedu'u zo lo selcusku fi'o kampu smuni
fe'u lo steci selskani xu kei i mupli lo drata ka selskani lo'i ro
brivla xu i jimpe lo du'u nago'i i
ro jbopre selslabu lo selskani po zo le pu la xorlo selfinti isemu'i
zo lo mintu pilno i di'u drani ni'i la xorlo cu jai te bilga noda po
lo selskani i ta'onai lo nu cusku lu lo gerku cu blabi li'u gi'e smuni
lo sedu'u lu no gerku cu blabi li'u drani i
mu'i ma cu ca'icru di'u vu'enai i
mi'e ranoritc
On May 10, 5:58 am, Luke Bergen <lukeaber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> haha, gejyspa, you're kind of a jerk ;)
>
> I guess it could also be a way of translating stuff from english like "if
> there WERE 9-tailed-dogs, they would probably like bones" -> {pe'i lo no
> sozrebge'u cu nelci la'a tu'a lo bongu}
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturnian...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No, no, it's ALWAYS true. And I didn't say it was necessarily useful, I
> > just said it wsan't nonsense. After all, I use the equivalent English with
> > my kids all the time -- you know, like "I'll give you all the dollars in my
> > pocket if you clean your room....Good job, I now give you the zero dollars
> > that are in my pocket."
> > --gejyspa
>
> > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeaber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> But what's the purpose. {lo no gerku cu crino cirla .ije lo no gerku cu
> >> se rebla}. If you can say anything about {lo no gerku} (whether it is true
> >> or false) then what is the purpose of it?
>
> >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Michael Turniansky <
> >> mturnian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 2011/5/7 Jorge Llambías <jjllamb...@gmail.com>
>
> >>>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> > What about "ro lo no prane ke xirdegmei namcu cu gumpilji lo su'o so
> >>>> ficysi'u
> >>>> > namcu"? ("xirdegmei" is opposed to "landegmei".) It has been proved
> >>>> that they
> >>>> > must have at least nine different factors, that they are not divisible
> >>>> by
> >>>> > 105, etc.; but no one has found a single one, and some mathematicians
> >>>> suspect
> >>>> > they don't exist.
>
> >>>> If you are saying that "ro lo no broda cu brode" could be interpreted
> >>>> as "if there were any broda, they would brode, but in fact there
> >>>> aren't any broda", then I guess you could interpret it that way. From
> >>>> a logical point of view "lo no broda" is both a referring expression
> >>>> and not referring to anything, so we can only try things like mixing
> >>>> two different contexts to make sense of it.
>
> >>>> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> >>> I don't believe "lo no gerku cu blabi" to be self
> >>> contradictory/nonsense.
> >>> Consider a room containing three white dogs -- lo ci gerku cu blabi
> >>> I take one away -- lo re gerku cu blabi
> >>> I take another away -- lo pa gerku cu blabi
> >>> I take the last one away -- lo no gerku cu blabi
> >>> Of course, when I take the last one away, I can equally truthfully say
> >>> "lo no gerku cu xekri". But in all those cases I can say "ro gerku [poi
> >>> zvati lo kumfa ku'o] cu blabi". It's jsut a question of whether I am
> >>> specifying their cardinality (ci,re,pa,no) or not (ro).
>
> >>> --gejyspa
>
> >>> --
> >>> 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.
>
> >> --
> >> 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.
>
> > --
> > 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.
--
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.