<<
> <<
> > le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
> >
> I tend to see what something takes a turn around as a center rather
than an
> axis, which {carna} seems to require -- is this a legitimate
extension?
I meant a full rotation around its axis, yes.
(How would we talk about a revolution around another body?)
>>
Which tends to make me wonder what x2 of {carna} is supposed to be anyhow -- it always is the axis of rotation and how wlse is it going to be described? So the place is there not to be used in that place, but to give a means of saying "axis of rotation" in other places. Not ideal, however handy. And we won't get into the age-old problem of how to give the direction of turn (why this once did we leave out "from vantage point x4"?) But even then, how do we say it: it isn't "toward the left" and it isn't "the left," so what is the word?
As for the other, the best suggestion seems to be {se jendu} -- in a nice inversion of {carna} -- though that may not be dynamic. {jincarna} is a bit of a stretch but better than the alsosuggested {gunro}.
<<
> Why doesn't this mean "the planet makes a full turn around all
minutes once,"
> i.e., why isn't {ro mentu} x2?
{paroi} is a tag, so it tags the following sumti.
> {paroi} seems to be a free modifier so has
> at most rhetorical effect on its neighbors and there is nothing in
CLL or the
> cmavo list to suggest that {PAroi} takes a sumti to indicate the
span within
> which the repetitions are counted (though maybe it should).
Actually, it does. It even has an example (pg 233): {mi klama
le zarci reroi le ca djedi}, "I go to the market twice today".
>>
Thanks. Chalk up another place where the index leaves out all the interesting cases.
<<
> Maybe something like {ca ro mentu le plini paroi mulcarna}, though
I'd be
> happier with something more intervally than {ca} -- can {ze'e} be
used in
> that way (there used to be something like {ci'a}, but that may be
all th way
> back to Loglan.
The tense can't tag the selbri, otherwise the scope is still
wrong. I suppose {le plini cu mulcarna ze'a ro mentu paroiku}
does work. It is still very tempting to just say {paroi ro mentu}
though. Could we say that the tagged sumti's quantifier has
scope over the tag's quantifier?
>>
Not too easily, without mucking with the left to right scope marking. Is it the case that the tense attached to a selbri is, like {na} to be taken as at the far left of the prefix. Obviously yes, as it should be. So, how do we override that? Explicitly seems the only answer: {ze'a ro mentu paroiku zo'u ...} But how to do it on the fly? I remember asking to build in context leapers a long time agoand having that idea rejecteed out of hand. Maybe it is time to make the suggestion again -- on loCCan, fo course.
| 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.