[lojban] Re: lo tumla ne'i lo xamsi

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/1/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > lo tumla ne'i(1)lo xamsi
> > > >
> > > > ni'o lo tu tumla cu simsa lo puzu munje
> .i tu
> > zo'u lo solji cu gacri
> > > > lo klaji gi'e drudi lo dinju .i do nu'o
> > dable'a fi'o temci lo masti
> > > > .ija'e turni lo brabra gi'e ponse ro se
> vamji
> > no'u mu'a loi tricu joi
> > > > sunla joi cicnyjme joi ke solji je zmadu
> be
> > ro solji je terju'o .iki'u
> > > > u'u lo mutce se vamji pe tu ba'o se cirko
> > >
> > > Nice! Is that {ki'u} or {ku'i}?
> >
> > Oops, {ku'i} of course.
> >
> > A Land within a Sea
> >
> > [new topic] A far-away land is like a
> long-ago
> > world.  That [land](2), gold covers streets
> and
> > is roofs buildings. You fight-gain (3)
> > time-interval (4) months and, as a result,
> rule a
> > colossal [place, country] and possess all
> > valuables (things of value) which are, for
> > example, trees (5) and (6) wool and
> blue-green
> > gems (turquoise?) and (7) gold and more than
> all
> > the gold and subject known (8). But alas
> > [repentance](9) many valuables of that place
> have
> > been lost.
> >
> >
> > 1)      "Within" sounds more like Atlantis:
> {se ru'u}?
> 
> I understood this land to be something like
> Atlantis.

*Under* the sea?  That is enclosed in all
dimensions by the sea?

> > 2)      How does this function? The pronoun
> is never
> > picked up.  Presumably we want something
> about
> > "in this place"  (which wouldn't take {zo'u})
> or
> > a modifier on the {lo}s or something.
> 
> As for that thing far away, gold covers the
> streets and the tops
> of the buildings.
> 
> I get the impression that "that thing far away"
> (the city, the place,
> whatever) is not in sight of the speaker, so
> {tu} may be somewhat
> figurative, but it is the same {tu} as in the
> previous sentence.

My point is that is totally isolated: it has no
role in the sentence, a fronting with no place
indicated.  I understand it but don't see how to
parse it meaningfully.
 
> > 3)      Not at all clear: "win" (as spoils of
> war),
> > "take over by force"?
> 
> Yes, I took it to mean something like "pillage"
> or "plunder".

Thanks; that was the word (or those the words) I
was looking for.

> > 4)      Time interval of the fight-gaining,
> i.e., "for
> > months"? Or "after"?
> 
> Notice the {no'u}: "you could plunder for
> months" (I suppose
> because there are so many riches). I would have
> used {ze'a}
> or {ze'u} instead of {fi'o temci}, but {fi'o
> temci} is of course
> available too.

Missed {nu'o}, which clarifies matters.
 
> > 5)      Why collective? Is this to get the
> effect of a
> > mass noun, which mass is mixture of things? I
> am
> > not sure this is what is wanted, especially
> after
> > {mu'a}, which anticipates a list, if more
> than
> > one thing.
> 
> Possibly not the best way of saying it. But it
> is
> not wrong as far as I can tell. You can
> describe a
> collection of things as together constituting
> an example
> of a thing of value.
> 
> > 6)      Why {joi} rather than the appropriate
> form of
> > {e}?  See 5.
> 
> I might have said {mu'a lo tricu jo'u lo sunla
> jo'u lo cicnyjme
> jo'u lo solji je zmadu be ro solji je terju'o
> 
> > 7)      Why the grouping?  See 8?
> >
> > 8)      What does the last bit mean?   "more
> gold than
> > all known supplies"?  But then why {je}?
> 
> It is both gold and more than all which is both
> gold and
> known about.
> 
> He uses {je} quite correctly, I would say, in
> places where
> we would tend not to use it. For example {lo
> drata je prenu}
> for "another person", in the other piece.
> 
> > 9)      Why repentance? Because the closest
> we can
> > come to sorrow, a heartfelt "alas," is
> {uinai},
> > "unhappiness"?  Oh, because of "regret" ? but
> I
> > think that is for the regret for what one has
> > done not for what happens outside one's
> sphere.
> > It doesn't appear that the speaker is who
> lost
> > the goodies; he's just sad that they were
> lost.
> 
> I took it to mean "I regret to inform you",
> i.e. if my
> description got your hopes up, I'm now sorry to
> have
> to tell you that all that is now lost.

Still not exactly repentance, but there is
nothing better.
 
> > I would still like some context.  The title
> could
> > be about a general situation "Sea Islands,"
> say,
> > or about a particular one or some such.
> 
> I would say something like "The land in the
> sea"
> 
> > The
> > first sentence could reasonably be taken to
> opt
> > for the general ? and a very nice thought it
> > would be.
> 
> {lo tu tumla} would be the land(s) associated
> with that
> far away thing I'm pointing to. I believe it's
> not a literal
> pointing though.
> 
> > But the next sentence seems to get
> > down a particular case (we don't expect that
> all
> > islands have golden pavements, etc.).  This
> is
> > confirmed by the next sentence, since you
> don't
> > generally conquer islands (Do we know who you
> > is?)
> 
> The reader?
> 
> > What role does this play ? recounting an
> > adventure, making a prophecy, laying out a
> > possible course of action?
> 
> Telling a story, I would say.
Yes but a story in which the reader apparently
plays a role, which role he has not nor is now
playing.
 
> > Recounting an
> > adventure seems most likely, given the last
> > sentence (and, of course, in that case it may
> be
> > repentance since the teller ? a sidekick of
> some
> > sort? ? may actually have lost the goodies.
> >
> > In any case, the fact (apparently) that the
> > speaker has a particular island in mind would
> > move one toward using {le} with {tumla} and
> then,
> > a fortiori, with {xamsi}.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===

<<I disagree that you _have_ to use {le} when you
have something particular in mind. You only use
{le} when it is important to convey that it is
something
particular that you have in mind.>>

Yes, {lo} is always correct (provided the
so-called broda really is a broda) but here 
a{le} would have been nice for the reason noted.

> Not required but
> appropriate (and it clarifies the first issue
> nicely).

OK, it's arguable.

> The first two {lo}s in the text look
> generic but at least the first may be for a
> particular case (so might be {le}) or about
some
> more restricted bunch; the second is probably
> generic.  Most of the rest are unproblematic: a
> bunch of bits of gold pave a bunch of streets
> (problem generally on this island) and another
> bunch roof a bunch of houses (ditto).  The same
> goes for the rest ? other than the questions
> above.




To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.