On Saturday, September 1, 2012 8:26:28 AM UTC-4, la gleki wrote:
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 4:03:52 PM UTC+4, tijlan wrote:
On 30 August 2012 17:32, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't we clearly define UI in terms of {sei broda} after all?
> So you are saying that {.a'o}={sei kanpe je djica}, right?
{a'o} and {kanpe je djica} seem to generally mean the same kind of emotion, yes.
Some notes:
{ui} is a direct _expression_ of happiness, whereas {(zo'e) gleki} is a
descriptive statement that someone feels / felt / will feel happiness
-- same emotion, different functions. Also, with {ui}, the experiencer
is the speaker by default; with {sei gleki}, it can be non-speakers.
{sei gleki} can be used to translate adverbial stuff, such as
"happily", whose explicit or implicit subject (x1) can be other than
the speaker. So, the {sei broda} form cannot always substitute for or
define UI.
Well, I guess {.ei=sei bilga} not {.ei=sei mi bilga} ?
I want all UI-cmavo translated to {sei ko'a broda} form.
> Can you also derive {.ai} from {.au}?
Does {ai} always imply {au}? Probably not. One can intend but not want
to pay a tax.
Does {au} always imply {ai}? Probably not. One can want but not intend
to go to Mars.
mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.