[lojban-beginners] Re: lo nanmu poi na va

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

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 02:37:04PM -0500, Matt Arnold wrote:
> When we want to be specific about singular/plural do we have to
> use number words? 

Yes.

> I have never understood gadri and I feel more confused about them
> now than before. 

I thought your characterization of the BPFK's lo was certainly good
enough.

> Let me offer some more examples. I am translating an article
> describing a progressive religious movement.* At one point I want
> to say "All meaning and purpose are understood through personal
> reason and observation rather than second-hand testimony." 

Dude, that's pretty hard-core.  Seriously.  I'd have to write at
least one lujvo to get through that sentence.

> {.i fi piro lo te vajni .e lo mukti cu jimpe ma'i lo seni'ikri .e
> lo nu zgana seba'i lo se sitna} 

"All reasons for importance [that's not "meaning"] and motivations
are subjects of understanding by the standard of result-beliefs
[seni'ikri is, prima facia, inherently contradictory; can you give a
full definition] and observations [you want a vau or kei here]
instead of citation sources [you probably want lo te sitna]."

> I didn't want to say a particular
> reasoning, observation, or quote sources, just anything that would
> qualify as such. Is this the sort of thing for which {lo} is
> needed, for which {le} would not serve?

That is exactly the sort of thing for which BPFK {lo} is intended,
yes.

> * (Slightly off topic, how the heck do I translate the adjective
> "naturalistic," in the sense of no supernatural realm?)

I've always called that "materialistic".  Huh.  I think I'll use
that now.

I would probably use marji or to'e mucti.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/