Re: [lojban] Re: nu pa moi se nunkei la'e lu lo do ckiku ma zvati li'u lu'u

[Alan Post <alanpost@sunflowerriver.org>]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 09:10:19PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:
>    Where I'm quoted as saying { .i.ienai mi skami nu surla .i ri gunka}, I
>    meant to say {na surla}.
> 
>    Again, me. At { .i.uacai.ui .i ko'a rokci .i ko'e grana} the {.i} in {.i
>    ko'a} shouldn't be there.
> 
>    This one isn't really a grammar issue: At { .i.iecu'i naja'a go'i .i xu do
>    djica}, the {naja'a} was me trying to say, basically, "I'm cool either
>    way". I couldn't find a midpoint cmavo between {na} and {ja'a}.
> 
>    {.i ca ko'a goi lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e goi lo grana pe do} is a few
>    lines early. I said it after you said {.i mi dunda ko'a do .ije do dunda
>    ko'e mi} but before you said {.i mi lebna lo rokci pe mi do}, because
>    after the transfer of possession the {pe} was reversed. (Which also means
>    that {lo rokci pe mi} should've been {pe do}. :) )
> 

Oh right, I meant to ask you about that, because I saw you modeling
that in the game.

I originally used "pe do" and "pe mi" because I wanted to translate
the sentence: "I have your stick"

I need some way to say "I posses this stick which you own." (or the
inverse, "I own the stick which you posses.")

I thought that "pe" could be used in this way, so I could say: {.i
mi ponse lo grana pe do} and mean "I have your stick."

Is there a better way to express this?  It has certainly be the most
difficult issue I've had translating material.

-Alan
-- 
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.