<<
pe'i le ralju be lo'i selstidi zo'u lu mi nelci le li'i mi citka lo/loi
cakla li'u
>>
Yeah, grammar aside, I agree that it is an important suggestion, maybe even a right one. We probably need to do more with {li'i}, since it is often not the event but our subjective participation in it that we deal with (see the stuff about remembering around here somewhere).
<<
.i pamai le selfri poi na cuntu do cu smuni tu'a zo zu'o
>>
The activity abstractor marks events that are cyclic (repetition of similar events indefinitely), that go on for a time but do not take time, and [damn, I can't remember the other bit]. I don't see how the experienced event that is none of you business is a meaning for it. I suppose you mean the internal, personal, subjective experience of the event, but am not sure about even that, nor of a better way to say it (except it seems to require {lifri}).
<<
.i remai lo broda zo'u dunli lu lo broda li'u lu loi broda li'u le ka
smuni ce'u .i lo cakla po'onai cu broda
>>
Yes, the two expressions are equally meaningful, though they don't mean the same thing (though what that has to do with some broda, I am not sure). And, yes, this is true of other things than chocolate.
<<
.i romai .o'unai frili jimpe fi le do jufra
>>
I am not sure why this is stressful, it sems pretty non-threatening. I assume that what is easy to understand about the sentence is what it means -- and maybe how it is put together?
<<
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act
of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation?
-- Howard Zinn
>>
Presumably by providing a cover that those who wanted to attack Iraq already (and save Daddy's reputation) could use as justification -- if played right. So far it seems to have had mixed results, but this is an election year.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.