2010/5/9 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
>> > drasa 0.434
>>
>> One word I had trouble translating recently was "x1 accedes to do x2"
>> (and it's opposite "x1 refuses to do x2").
>>
>> I don't know whether "drasyspu", "nardrasyspu" would be clear enough
>> though.
>
> (I briefly thought of "tinbe", which is of a mode of responding by being
> (ja'a) or not being (na) the agent of an event wanted by someone else. But
> the event is commanded, not requested, thus different from the x2 of
> "accedes".)
There's that, yes, but another problem with "tinbe" is that it is
about the actual doing, not the predisposition to do. That may perhaps
be fixed with "bredi".
tibybre: x1 is prepared to follow command/rule/(request?) x2 made by x3
Maybe we don't need "drasa" if "bredi" can mean "predisposed to do".
Indeed "tolbre lo nu jungau" is what I ended up using for "refuse to
tell". I didn't think it was a very good match in general, but it
seemed ok in the context. I think the problem is that "bredi" doesn't
have to be intentional.
"future-oriented + intentional" leads me to "bavgau" or "bavzu'e".
> "spuda"s x2 is not the response, not what x1 accedes to do; x3 is. I might
> prefer "spudrasa" or better yet "cpadrasa":
>
> d1=s1 intends to do d2=s3 as a response to s2
>
> d1=c1 accepts and intends to do d2=c2 suggested by c3
>
> "cpadrasa" seems more natural to me. s2 is less likely a requester than c3
> is. And s3 can be an action contrary to what s2 wants. "suggested" in this
> case means that c2 is a purpose given by c3.
Maybe. The problem is that my first reading of "cpadrasa" is "drasa be
lo nu cpacu", "x1 intends to get x2", not "cpacu je drasa".
This makes me wonder how "intends to do" differ from "wants to do". Perhaps simply:
mi djica lo nu [ce'u?] jungau
I intend to tell
mi toldji lo nu [ce'u?] jungau
I refuse to tell
Although UI does differentiate "ai/ainai" from "au/aunai".
mu'o mi'e tijlan