From nicholas@uci.edu Wed Sep 05 19:04:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 6 Sep 2001 02:04:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 94094 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2001 02:04:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Sep 2001 02:04:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2001 02:04:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16590; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: [lojban] Epictetus, Discourses 1.1 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS cu'u la xorxes. >la nitcion cusku di'e >>pamo'o me zo'e pe ji'o ma'a ge'u .e zo'e pe ji'onai ma'a >Is {me ko'a e ko'e} "at least one of ko'a and ko'e"? Oh buggery, I'm doing the old {me} = {srana} again. Yes, so if this stays, it should probably become {fa'u}. >Any reason to prefer {zo'e pe ji'o ma'a} over {lo se jitro be ma'a}? Yes: the Mark Shoulson school of translation :-) . The original has "about the under us and the not under us." >>ni'o da'a da poi te lanli zo'u: rodo na zatfa'i da poi ge zo'e lanli da da; >>gi seni'ibo da jetycipra fi da gi'a jifcipra fi da >Shouldn't it be {rodo naku}. Otherwise the claim is too weak. Damn, I forgot that {na} has scope over the bridi rather than the bridi-tail; I assumed it functioned like {naku} there. So noted. >>.i ku'i zu'u ca lenu do ciska lo xatra be lo pendo kei >>lo ba se ciska cu se claxu nagi'a se jdice sepi'o le genske >>.i le jei zu'unai do ba ciska lo xatra kei na se jdice sepi'o le genske >Do you mean: {le du'u zu'u xukau lo ba se ciska cu claxu enai >le du'u zu'unai xukau do ba ciska lo xatra cu se jdice sepi'o >le genske}? Not really. I was being elliptical, but please tell me if I was being actually wrong (I'm assuming you can decide things as well as propositions; should I?) Fully expanded: .i ganai lo ba se ciska cu se claxu do; gi do jdice sepi'o le genske ledu'u le ba se ciska cu mokau .i ku'i ledu'u do xukau ba cuska lo xatra na se jdice sepi'o le genske >>.i ja'e lenu do kurji le se go'i gi'e tinbygau roda pedo le se go'i kei >>do banoroi se fanta gi'e banoroi se rinju >>gi'e bana crocmo gi'e bana te mabla ja te zanba su'o prenu >I don't understand {te mabla ja te zabna su'o prenu}. Don't see why. "You shall not curse or flatter any man." The Lojban distorts this somewhat, but I think it distorts it in the right direction. Problem is, of course, we've rarely seen {mabla} or {zanba} as gismu as opposed to rafsi, so it's not a given that this is how they're used. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias