[lojban] Re: Can you read this and tell me if it is correct?

[Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>]

de'i li 11 pi'e 09 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. arpgme .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> Ok, I understand "cu" now. It's like "is" when used with a noun + adjective.
> 
> So it's noun + cu + adjective. "Cu" needs to desperate these words to that no
> one misunderstands.
.skamyxatra

You're right that "{cu}" is needed to separate the words (I assume that's what
you meant to type), but it's not really correct to compare it to "is."  First
of all, the "is" is built into the definition of the adjective*, and using it
as the verb (or "{selbri}") of the sentence automatically makes the "is" part
of the English translation.  The entire purpose of "{cu}" is to separate a
{bridi}'s {selbri} from any {selbri} that come immediately before it (e.g.,
inside a {sumti}); without the "{cu}", the {selbri} run together into one long
{selbri}.

la'o fy. arpgme .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> What I DON'T understand is how "my desire" translates into "le se djica be
> mi". Why is "se" there? I thought "se" was used to switch positions between
> two words? Can I just write "le djica be mi"? If not, what would "le djica be
> mi" mean?
> 
> Can someone elaborate on how "be" should be used?
.skamyxatra

Pay close attention to the definition of "{djica}": "x1 desires/wants/wishes x2
(event/state) for purpose x3."  When you place a "{le}" in front of a {selbri},
you create a {sumti} which is capable of filling the x1 place of that {selbri}.
Thus, "{le djica}" is a person or entity who desires something -- "the
desirer."  The "{se}" causes the x1 and x2 places of a {selbri} to be switched,
so "{le se}" gives you a {sumti} that fills the x2 place of the affected
{selbri}; thus, "{le se djica}" is the event or state being desired, i.e., the
desire itself.  "{be}" allows you to fill in the places of a {selbri} that is
already being used inside a {sumti} (technically, it's a lot more complicated
than that, but it's a good enough explanation for now).  Attaching "{be mi}" to
a {sumti} limits it to things which take the x1 place of the {selbri} and have
"{mi}" ("I", "me") as the x2 place of that {selbri}.  Thus, "{le se djica be
mi}" is a thing which is desired by the speaker; in other words, "my desire."

"{le djica be mi}" is rather nonsensical (and either grammatically or
semantically incorrect) and roughly means "the thing which desires the event or
state that is I."

la'o fy. arpgme .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> Lojban is so difficult... (:cry:)
.skamyxatra

You'll get used to it.  Just stop thinking like a natural language speaker.

mu'omi'e la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy.

* Important side note: In English, speakers sometimes use nouns as verbs,
"verbing" them.  In Lojban, {brivla} (words other than names & grammatical
operators) start out as verbs and are nouned, adjectified, & adverbialized as
needed.  Hence, "{melbi}" in its default state as a verb (a.k.a. a "{selbri}")
means "is beautiful."  Used as a noun (or "{sumti}"), "{le melbi}" is a thing
which is beatiful.  Used to modify another {brivla} in a {tanru}, "{melbi}"
acts like an adjective or adverb (depending on how the {tanru} is being used)
that means "beautiful" or "beautifully" (literally, "of type 'beautiful'").

-- 
mi pu klama .i mi pu viska .i mi pu fanva fi la lojban.


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.