[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: fanva
On 5/25/07, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/25/07, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> You want {le fadni po'u la'o gy ... gy}, otherwise the second sumti will
fill
> a different argument slot.
Isn't that a kind of relative phrase?
It's a restrictive apposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition
What would you do if you wanted
{fadni} to directly describe the {la'o gy ... gy} so that they become a
tanru?
You would have to convert the sumti {la'o gy ... gy} into a tanru unit,
with {me}.
What does "using the standard Internet Protocol" mean? If it means
"using the standard called 'Internet Protocol'", which is what I interpreted,
then it's an apposition. If it means "using, among all Internet Protocols,
the one we would describe as standard", then a tanru would be better.
> > 3) Is {lei so'i ...} valid? Also, is the tanru structure {lei ... co ...
ce ... ce ...} valid?
>
> You could say {so'i ki'o ki'o} for "millions". I would use {jo'u} rather
> than {ce}, but the structure is correct.
I think "millions of" is quite a metaphor. Even if {so'i ki'o ki'o} can too
deliver that metaphoric meaning (so, "many as thousand thousand"), would
that be a favourable Lojban expression?
Isn't it literally millions? {so'i} by itself doesn't give any idea of the
magnitude. "Tens of smaller networks" could also be many networks.
And by {le
drata ri} I wanted to say "other-type-of le-gunma-ke-dikca-paprysfe" i.e.
"other documents of the world wide web".
{le drata ri} are two separate sumti, {le drata} and {ri}, each filling a
different place. You could say {lo drata me ri}, converting the sumti
{ri} into a tanru unit and then forming a tanru with {drata}.
I thought "interlinked web pages"
and "documents of the world wide web" are the same things. Hence the
pro-sumti reference. But now I'm in doubt myself whether {ri} can make a
tanru like {le drata ri}.
No, {ri} by itself can't be a tanru unit, but {me ri} can.
I think I read the English as "the interlinked (web pages and other
documents) of the world wide web".
> I don't think {ba'e} corresponds to anything in the English version.
> It's as if you said in English: "It is a _network_ of networks", with an
> emphasis on "network". You may want {pe'a} for the effect of the quotes
> in English, and fu'e-fu'o to extend its effect to the whole phrase,
> otherwise ba'e/pe'a only affect the following word.
I must have firstly written {ba'e ke ciste be fi lei ciste ke'e} and then
somehow changed it. Would that use of {ke ... ke'e} here be valid?
It's grammatical, yes.
{pe'a} looks good, but on the list it isn't said to be a forethought one,
while {ba'e} is. You suggested {pe'a fu'e ciste fi lo ciste fu'o}, so, is
{pe'a} actually forethought? Then I'm not sure how it differs from {ba'e}.
You are right about {pe'a} not being forethought. I was actually thinking
of {za'e}, which is in selma'o BAhE, not {pe'a} which is in UI.
> I'm not sure I understand what {ni'i} is doing there.
The "network of networks" is an interpretation by which the Internet can be
identified. And there is a logical ground on which this interpretation can
be possible. If the Internet doesn't "consists of millions of smaller
domestic, academic, business, and government networks, which together carry
various information and services, such as electronic mail, online chat, file
transfer, and the interlinked web pages and other documents of the world
wide web", then there isn't a reason by which people should call it a
"network of networks". Conversely, if the Internet does "consists ...", then
that's the reason why the emphasized expression is possible. And that's why
I used {ni'i} there.
Hmm... So you are reading the English as saying something like
"It is a 'network of networks' because it consists of ...", rather than
"that consists of ..."?
mu'o mi'e xorxes