Re: [lojban] Baby words: "into", as in "into the toilet".

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 13 March 2013 00:15, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 03:26:52PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:05:14AM -0700, la gleki wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:52:22 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>> > >
>> > > .i.e'o ko gasnu lonu lo do pinca cu nenri lo vimstizu
>> > >
>> >
>> > .ie I immediately translated it as {gau ko lo pinca cu nenri lo
>> > vikmi kumfa} but it depends on Robin's style of talking to the
>> > babies.
>>
>> I like, and use, the {gau ko} form better, but Adam's is even
>> better, I think.
>>
>> In fact, I think {ko vikmi le vimstizu nenri po'o} might even be
>> valid; "make it such that you excrete something that is in the
>> toilet".  I mean, maybe {le ba vimstizu nenri}, but enh.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> I'm interested in further commentary here, please.

I like the efficiency of {gau ko} replacing {ko gasnu lo nu}.

{gau ko lo pinca cu nenri lo vimstizu}, however, doesn't specifically
say that *you pee into* the toilet - it could as well mean that some
unspecified children can pee in their diapers or wherever else so long
as you later put it in the toilet. Similarly, {ko vikmi le vimstizu
nenri po'o} could mean "Pass stuff which can be only in-toilet (you
may pee or poop wherever, but make sure the stuff isn't too much or in
a troubling form for it to be put in the toilet by somebody", rather
than "Pass stuff only into the toilet".

I guess the context would be clear enough between you and your
child(ren) for {do} to be dropped from {lo pinca be/pe do}, but there
are things I'd like to point out, for the sake of discussing Lojban,
from {gau ko lo pinca be do ...}. The evacuator of the pee & the agent
of the pee movement don't have to be split into two places (gau ko &
be do) when they mean the same child, and {gau} would seem redundant
in the presence of this particular instance of {ko} as {pinca}'s x2.
Or is there some significant difference between these:

gau ko lo pinca be do cu nenri lo vimstizu
lo pinca be ko cu nenri lo vimstizu

I think not. So I would prefer the latter that's shorter, and then I
would want a word to the effect of "moving", say {mo'i}:

lo pinca be ko [cu] mo'i nenri lo vimstizu

This, however, says that you be the agent of your pee "being *in* a
toilet in a moving manner" (perhaps a pee of yours that you for
whatever reason have to keep in a train's loo, not allowing it to be
flushed away from the moving container), again not necessarily "moving
*into* a toilet". More surefooted than {mo'i nenri} would be {mo'i
ne'i}, which would allow for further simplification:

pinca ko mo'ine'i lo vimstizu

That is, you be the agent of your own pee's moving into a toilet.
Still doesn't say that the "moving into" has to take place as the pee
leaves your body, though - again one could pee in one's diaper and
then throw it into the toilet (something a natively lojbanic child
might have justification for doing based off a correct grasp of the
sentence's vagueness). And {ko pincyvi'i mo'ine'i lo vimstizu} is no
better alternative - one could pee while heading into a toilet
(something Jackass guys might excel at).


mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.