[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Questions
- To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
- Subject: Re: Questions
- From: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 13:43:46 -0400
- In-reply-to: <199505131903.PAA10297@locke.ccil.org> from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at May 13, 95 12:23:01 pm
- Reply-to: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
- Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
la xorxes. joi da cusku be di'e casnu
> > >> Could I say
> > >>
> > >> mi ckire sei rapli
> > >>
> > >
> > >I don't really feel comfortable with {sei}. I don't fully understand it.
> >
> > I don't know I do either, but that is consistent with how I use it. I tend
> > to think of it as simply a way of attatching something to a sentence without
> > any precise logical relationship to the sentence.
>
> The problem (or maybe not) that I see is that inside a quotation, sei
> talks about the text, but here it talks about the action described by
> the text. Maybe it is not a problem, but Lojban tends to distinguish
> these two things carefully, and here we seem to be ignoring the
> distinction.
How about "mi ckire sei la'edei rapli"?
--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
e'osai ko sarji la lojban.