[lojban] being talked to vs. doing nothing

[MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com]

In a message dated 4/13/2005 5:21:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, opi_lauma@yahoo.com via  ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:

> > {melbi tavla} and {melbi se tavla} are tanru, and as
> > such are ambiguous. 
> > Now we can reason that {le se tavla} is an audience
> > so {le melbi se tavla} 
> > is a beautiful audience.
>
>
> In the reference grammar the following is written:
>
> 9.10)    la tam. [cu] melbi tavla la meris.
>     Tom beautifully-talks to Mary.
>
> "beautifully" and "talks" are connected by "-", it
> means that "beauty" is property of "talk". So I would
> conclude that {le melbi tavla} is {beautiful speaker}
> in the sense that he is beautiful as speaker, and in
> the same way {le melbi se tavla} I would translate as
> {beautiful audience}, BUT as earlier I would say that
> beauty is a property of "being talked by", i.e. {X cu
> le melbi se tavla} means that X is beautiful in being
> talked, i.e. X is beautiful in doing nothing.


"Being talked to" is not the same as "doing nothing".  There is a situational context that is all-important when being talked to, namely of someone talking to someone or something.  "Doing nothing" implies a completely different context.  

stevo