From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Sep 05 19:36:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 6 Sep 2001 02:36:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 92805 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2001 02:35:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Sep 2001 02:35:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.49) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2001 02:35:04 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:35:03 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.40 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Sep 2001 02:35:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.40] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Epictetus, Discourses 1.1 Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 02:35:03 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2001 02:35:03.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[8842D350:01C1367C] From: "Jorge Llambias" la nitcion cusku di'e > >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." But {le se jitro be ma'a} seems closer than {zo'e pe ji'o ma'a} to "the under us"... >Damn, I forgot that {na} has scope over the bridi rather than the >bridi-tail; I assumed it functioned like {naku} there. So noted. We all generally tend to assume that, actually. I always spend too much time figuring out what a bridi with {na} really means. Maybe usage will just redefine {na} as having scope over the bridi-tail only. Are there other languages that have their negatives work as in Lojban? >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 If you lack something to write, then you use grammar to decide what to write? > >>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. Well, I use them like this: mabla: x1 stinks/is shitty/second-rate in aspect x2 according to x3. (In esperanto: x1 acxas je x2 laux x3) zabna: x1 is super/cool/first-class in aspect x2 according to x3. The gi'uste gives a much less useful definition: Word x1 is a derogatory form of (word?) x2 as used by x3. Your use fits neither, so what is your definition? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp