sorry, I guess I meant {na'e} not {na}. I didn't realize that you couldn't put {na} onto a specific word in a tanru.I wasn't saying {le ckule cu ckusro} I was making a tanru to say {ckule ckusro} (a school type of library) and then was filling in the internal places of both to make it a "with pupil me - type of school" and a "library with book(s) <some book>" (oh, but saying that it's NOT that kind of library since you're saying the library is the "doesn't have <some book>" type of library :-p )To be sure, the second example is shaky. I was just trying to see if I could make "library" be the main selbri.--On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
The second one seems wrong to me, because the school itself is not a library in general, and so even if the book in question was one they had the sentence would still be true. And I dunno, {ckusro} seems like the better relation to use for "having a book" in the sense of a library, better than {ponse}, at least; the kind of possession of a book that a library is involved in seems somewhat different from generic possession. Also, as I said I was trying to avoid {pe} (and the nesting structure that is equivalent to it) as best as possible; I find it useful for things that aren't compact otherwise but prefer to avoid it when possible.
mu'o mi'e latros.On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
why not just use {ckusro} (which already exists in jbovlaste) and {ponse}. {le mi ckule ckusro cu na'e ponse la <a particular book>}Or {ckule be fo mi be'o na ckusro be la <a particular book>} -> [something] is a school of me type of [NOT] library with book <a particular book>.The second example there seems clunky to me. I think the base relationship is {ponse} or something like it.--On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
--I attempted to say something along the lines of:
My university's library does not have <a particular book>.
preferably without having to use {pe}. My attempt was using a somewhat long lujvo, seljitckusro, which I defined as:
x1 is a library containing books x2 managed by x3.
(The underlying tanru was {se jitro ke cukta sorcu}.)
and then the construction (with the book being the last sumti of the previous sentence) was:
.i ri na se seljitckusro fi lo balcu'e be fo mi
Does this seem reasonable? I don't have much practice coining lujvo but am attempting to get better at it.
mu'o mi'e latros.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.