Re: Apposed participials

[Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>]

la kolin. cusku di'e

> Date:         Wed, 19 Oct 1994 17:11:10 BST
> From:         Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
> Subject:      Apposed participials

...

> I have a very strong intuition that it is not the event which is the object
> of the seeing here. But as pc says the event is still part of the object.
>
> In many cases we can actually express it as
>
> mi viska da ca le nu da kelcrpuli
> 'I saw x at the time x plays-pool'
>
> and I have a suspicion that expressions of this sort will always work,
> but I'm not sure (they may not necessarily be temporal, but deciding
> whether a temporal, spatial or other relation is appropriate will be
> an example of the familiar process of being more precise when we translate
> into Lojban. And we can always leave it vague with "va'o" or even "do'e".

I thought of several similar expressions and came up with the following
where it is quite difficult to say what is the actual object of the
sensing

       'I sensed someone had been in the room'

The nearest translation I could think of was

        mi ganse leka le kumfa ba'o se zvati da

but there may still be some quality of the original missing.

--

  co'o mi'e veion

---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------