On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Alan Post
<alanpost@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
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
Okay, so the three (I knew that part) tiers are pe, po, po'e, which are associated, specific to, and inalienable to, in order. So, if the rock is your rock and you are holding it, it is {lo rokci pe do po do}, whereas if I am holding it, it is {lo rokci pe mi po do}.