[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai
On 07/09/2011 03:36 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
mi cadzu = "I walk"
mi me lo cadzu = "I am a walker (pedestrian)"
No, I'm totally not buying this. (Yes, I read the rest of the thread).
{mi cadzu} *does* mean "I am a walker". If there is a sense in which
"walk" is not "be a walker", you need to spell it out more specifically
if you're claiming that that is the distinction engendered by {me}.
Stela Selkiku wrote:
{.i ti'e so'o jbopre ba klama la .bastyn. .i xu do klama}
"I hear some Lojbanists are going to Boston. Are you going?"
{.i mi na me lo klama .i mi klama la .bastyn. mu'i lo drata ku'i}
"I'm not one of the goers. I'm going to Boston for another reason, though."
This works because of the specificity of {lo} (being completely general,
one of its uses is as a specific gadri; go figure). As you said, {lo
klama} now refers to the contextually appropriate goer(s) we were just
speaking of. But the clear way to say that you're not among them would
probably be {mi na cmima lo'i klama}, which of course relies on the same
contextual appropriateness, but I think is clearer in the sense of
saying that of this set of goers, you are not a member.
I never really liked {me lo} for this reason, and I'm finding myself
thinking {me} should be left as vague as we can comfortably leave it.
~mark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.