Re: 3 loafs

["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