[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: More Turner/Nicholas lesson questions
At 07:19 PM 10/26/03 -0500, der Mouse wrote:
[snip]
Lesson 9, Exercise 4 (collapse two sentences into one with poi), item 5:
.i mi viska va le barja le ninmu .i mi klama le barja le briju
The answer given is
.i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama fi le briju ku'o le ninmu
which is fine. When answering this, I didn't write that, but I came up
with two other alternatives:
.i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama ke'a le briju ku'o le ninmu
.i mi viska va le barja poi se klama mi le briju ku'o le ninmu
After reading the explanation accompanying the answer, I'm fairly sure
the first is a reasonable alternative (it's just a question of whether
you'd rather use fi or ke'a). But what about the second? Is it a
reasonable rendition? (And if not, why not?)
I am a bit confused by the answers you've been given to this. All of them
look equivalent to me. Here is the breakdown of what they mean. If I'm
mistaken, I'm sure someone will correct me.
The original: .i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama fi le briju ku'o le ninmu
.i: (new sentence)
mi: (me) 1st place of viska
viska: (see) the main selbri
va: (near) sumti tcita introducing non-place-structure sumti
le barja: (the bar)
poi: (such that) start of clause restricting which bar
mi klama fi le briju: clause
(I go [to] from the office)
ku'o: end of restrictive clause
le ninmu: (the woman) 2nd place of viska
The first alternative: .i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama ke'a le briju
ku'o le ninmu
.i: (new sentence)
mi: (me) 1st place of viska
viska: (see) the main selbri
va: (near) sumti tcita introducing non-place-structure sumti
le barja: (the bar)
poi: (such that) start of clause restricting which bar
mi klama ke'a le briju: clause
(I go to it [the bar] from the office)
ku'o: end of restrictive clause
le ninmu: (the woman) 2nd place of viska
The second alternative: .i mi viska va le barja poi se klama mi le briju
ku'o le ninmu
.i: (new sentence)
mi: (me) 1st place of viska
viska: (see) the main selbri
va: (near) sumti tcita introducing non-place-structure sumti
le barja: (the bar)
poi: (such that) start of clause restricting which bar
se klama mi le briju
[it] is gone to by me from the office
ku'o: end of restrictive clause
le ninmu: (the woman) 2nd place of viska
Lesson 9, Exercise 6 answer, item 1:
Note: That odd expression lo cacra be li pimu is in fact how you'd
normally say 'half an hour.' In general, when Lojban measures
things, it doesn't divide them up into n individual units, but
rather says that x measures n units. So "Reading this lesson took
me two hours" would be in Lojban lenu mi tcidu le vi ve cilre cu
cacra li re.
So why is it "cacra li re" but not "cacra li pimu" - why the lo...be?
Is this the difference between "half an hour" and "a half-hour", and if
so, why is the be needed rather than using "lo cacra li pimu"?
[snip]
It appears from this, and also from the question from Llu'is Batlle i Rossell:
.ui mi ba troci ledu'u mi cusku le danfu
i le pamoi pe lo sumti stura zo linsi cu la'e zo samxruebe noi mi na djuno le
smuni ke'a
that you (you two, that is) need to review the use of "be". Note that, in
"lo cacra be li pimu", the "li pimu" is attached to "lo cacra" as it's
sumti-#2 by the "be"; the "lo cacra" itself is the place of, probably, the
main selbri. Without the "be", you have "lo cacra li pimu", which make 2
separate sumti "lo cacra" and "li pimu", both places of the same (again,
probably the main) selbri.
A clearer example:
"mi klama le zdani be le gerku" is "I go (klama) to the house (zdani) of
the dog (gerku)", where "the dog" fills the 2nd place of zdani, and the
whole phrase "the house of the dog" fills the 2nd place of "go".
In contrast, without the "be":
"mi klama le zdani le gerku" is "I go (klama) to the house (zdani) from the
dog (gerku), where "the house" by itself fills the 2nd place of "go", and
"the dog" fills the 3rd place of "klama".
I hope this helps.
[snip]
--
mi'e noras noras@cox.net
Nora LeChevalier