[lojban-beginners] Re: Feedback on phrases

[Andrew Archibald <archibal@math.mcgill.ca>]

co'e

(Aside: is this a reasonable thing to be posting on the list?  Is
everyone bored by all this basic stuff?)

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:55:04AM -0800, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> 
> --- Andrew Archibald <archibal@math.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> > vi ma le mi palku
> > 	Where are my pants?
> 
> That's grammatical, but somewhat incomplete because 
> it has no selbri. A more complete sentence might be: 
> {le mi palku ma zvati}

Why do you need another selbri?  It seems like this says "my pants"
(observative) "near where?" (tense).  Is the problem that bare
observatives are too abbreviated ofr ordinary discourse?  (Like
"Smoke. Fire.  Run."?)  

Is there a reason to prefer {le mi palku ma zvati} over {le mi 
palku zvati ma}?

(Perhaps the unusual place of ma draws attention to it?)

> > .e'o ko ctigau le ti kanba
> > 	Please feed this goat.
> 
> Probably {le vi kanba}. {le ti kanba} would be 
> "the goat associated with this thing here", while
> {le vi kanba} is "the thing that is a goat near me".

If we were being strict, I guess this last would be "the thing that I
call a goat, that is near me" (or "the thing that I call (a goat near
me)"?); to get something that is really a goat, I suppose you'd say
{lo vi kanba}, but then it wouldn't mean a particular one.  

I suppose combining the two contains a factual assertion (yes, that really
is a goat, and it's what I'll be referring to) and hence requires a more
elaborate expression?  
{ti kanba .i .e'o ki ctigau ky.}
{ti goi ky. kanba .i .e'o ki ctigau ky.}
"That's a goat, please feed it."

> > pu ku do cadzu lei mi so'i vanjba
> > 	You have trampled my grapes.
> 
> Maybe {stapa} is better for "trample".

I guess in {cadzu}, the emphasis is on the motion and {stapa} is on
the action itself?  Or does {stapa} refer to one (or more) discrete
steps, while {cadzu} indicates continuous motion?  (Is this kind of
detail on the definitions available somewhere?  jbovlaste doesn't
really have a lot of information...)

> > le mi badgai sivyta'u cu ca se na'e kufra
> > 	My jockstrap is uncomfortable.
> 
> {ca} insists on the present time. The English translation 
> is more general, using {ca} here is like saying "my jockstap 
> is uncomfortable now".

That was intentional.  These rather silly sentences are supposed to be
sort of ambiguous.  If I don't specify a duration for {ca}, what is
assumed?  Just unknown, right now (for a short time) or what?  

> > ga do vimcu le taxfu cinza mi gi mi spoja
> > 	If you do not remove this clothespin, I will explode.
> 
> Yes, well... "either you remove this clothespin or I explode",
> but no causality is implied.

I couldn't really figure out how to get the effect of English's "if
you don't...".  Just replacing {ga} with {ganai} and then negating {do
vimcu le taxfu cinza} didn't seem right.

As for causality, I couldn't wrap my head around that part of the CLL.
Let me try again:

{le nu do na'e vimcu le taxfu cinza mi cu rinka le nu mi spoja}
or
{na'e bo le nu do vimcu le taxfu cinza mi cu rinka le nu mi spoja}

(I think the second one is more appropriate as it's closer to "if you
don't..." than "if you do anything but...")

> > P.S.  How would one say "thanks in advance" (which is what I mean)?
> 
> There is no such fixed expresion yet.

Hmm.  I'll have to figure out some other appropriate expression.  But
for now I can really say

ki'e do

Andrew