[lojban-beginners] Re: questions about questions

[Thomas White <winterwhite9257@gmail.com>]

.i ki'esai darves.

.ui mi pu cusku so'a le di'u drage'a

[happy] I expressed almost-all the afore-mentioned right-type-grammar

(uh oh... let's not get ahead of ourselves and I think I just painted
myself into a corner with this sentence. Actually, I have a gut
feeling that it's supposed to be two bridi or something. {so'a le di'u
[which has the property (ka) drage'a]} has to be constructed as a
separate or nested bridi somehow, no? Ah, wait.... shouldn't I be
putting a {poi} or {noi} somewhere in there? [the afore-mentioned,
which incidentally has so'a drage'a properties]  .oi help! beginner's
gone and painted himself into a logico-linguistic corner!!! Should it
be:

.ui mi pu cusku so'a le di'u noi drage'a

.oicai I gotta stop now.)

On 28/11/05, HeliodoR <exitconsole@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > .i mi puzi tcidu le vomo'o .e le mumo'o pe la lyfybys.
> >
> > I have recently read the fourth-section and fifth-section  of the LFB
>
> Have You read the fourth section of something totally unknown
> and the fifth section of LfB? If not, You will need
> {.i mi puzi tcidu lo vomo'o jo'u lo mumo'o pe lyfyby.} instead.
> > .ije mi terpreti di'e
> >
> > and I ask the following:
>
> I think You mean {.i ji'a} "and."
> {je} is for logical connection, but here it is not important
> that You're really doing both (reading and asking).
> > .i xu la'edi'e mintu soi vo'a vo'e
> >
> > is-true? the referrentofthefollowing is the same and vice-versa?
>
> There's no value given to {vo'e}. :)
> Actually, {soi vo'a vo'e} is not exactly "vice versa" in every
> case. In the next few sections it will become clear that VOhA
> cmavo refer back to sumti of the current sentence.
> Maybe You should say
> {.i xu la'edi'e mintu la'ede'e}
> "is the referent of the following utterance the same as that of
> a remote utterance?"
> > .i le tcika du li xo
> >
> > the time = ?
>
> Almost perfect, only it isn't {li xo} what You need,
> but {xo}:
> {.i le tcika du xo}
> Although grammatical correctness doesn't always
> guarantee the efficiency of communication. o_O
> By this sentence the listener(s) cannot know if
> You're talking about the current time, the time
> when You will go out for a walk or the time that
> Your friend bought a dog. Therefore
> {.i lo ca tcika du xo} is more geek-proof.
> > .ija ma tcika ti
> >
> > what time this?
>
> {ma tcika ti} is a correct, but kind of clumsy way
> to do it. {ti} signs something You can show, or
> You can point to. In this case You're pointing to
> an *event*, doing what most "pro" people would
> claim wrong.
> The standard question is {.i ma ca tcika}.
>
> Hope I could help,
> mi'e darves.