Re: [lojban] 3 loafs

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>


la ivAn cusku di'e
>sklyanin@pdmi.ras.ru wrote:
> > [1] lo pa nanmu cu xagji
> > [2] .i te vecnu lo pa barda bliku be lo nanba gi'e citka
> > [3] .i ku'i ca'o xagji
>
>I'd abbreviate {lo pa} to either just {lo} or just {pa}.++

Actually, {lo pa nanmu} is "at least one of the one and
only man that there is", so it should be {pa nanmu} or
{pa lo nanmu} (or {lo nanmu}). Also it should be
{pa barda bliku}, or {pa lo barda bliku}, not {lo pa}.

On the other hand, I think this is one of those rare cases
where we should use {le} in Lojban even though "the" is not
used in English. {pa nanmu cu xagji} is a general statement
about the world, (probably a false statement) not a statement
starting a story about a certain man.

>{ca'o xagji} `he is continuously hungry': doesn't {co'unai}
>get the point across better?

I think {co'unai} is not currently grammatical (though I
think it should be). Another possibility is {za'o xagji}.
He continues to be hungry even though (presumably) he
should no longer be hungry.

> > [4] .i te vecnu lo remoi bliku gi'e citka
> > [5] .i ku'i ca'o xagji
> > [6] .i te vecnu lo cimoi bliku gi'e citka
> > [7] .i ku'i ca'o xagji
>
>How do we say `one more' (English `another one') in Lojban?

{lo drata}.

You mean as a number? I don't know.

> > [11] .i .uinai mi pu fesygau le ba'e so'i nanba ki'u ma
>
>A rhetorical question in the original.  It may not be a
>good idea to phrase it as a question in the translation.
>All he's doing is state that he's eaten (too) many loaves
>in vain.

Should rhetorical questions be banished from Lojban?
The idea is, I suppose, that the answer is so obvious that
it need not be given. Is this so illogical that it doesn't
belong in Lojban? They could be marked with {paunai}
if necessary.

> > [12] .i .ei mi pu gasnu le nu le pa cmalu djine
> >  cu pamoi le'i se citka be mi li'u
>
>I don't quite see why you make him say that he did {gasnu} that.
>It's those modalities again.  The original goes `I should (just)
>have eaten a bagel straight away', which amounts to `In a world
>where I act (or things in general go) in the best possible way,
>which is a world different from the actual one, I ate(*) a bagel
>as soon as I was hungry'.

I suppose the idea is that {ei} takes you to the world
where things go in the best possible way. Not a bad solution,
I think.

>(*) Past time, different axis.  The form is awkward in English,
>but we're talking meta-English here.

So {pu} would be right for that. Is {ei} good enough for the
world shift?

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. ZERO. Rates as low as 0.0 
percent Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no hidden 
fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the credit you deserve.
Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative6 ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com