From nicholas@uci.edu Wed Sep 05 21:04:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 6 Sep 2001 04:04:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 40612 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2001 04:04:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Sep 2001 04:04:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2001 04:04:08 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00623; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:04:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:04:04 -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. >But {le se jitro be ma'a} seems closer than {zo'e pe ji'o ma'a} >to "the under us"... *shrug* So did it please me. It still does... >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? You mean, I suppose, that naku is natural and na is not, right? I suspect so too. I'm not quite in a position to hunt down typological surveys of negation; And, would you have access to this sort of thing? If you're really keen to know, I'll see if I can't reattach to the grapevine of erstwhile colleagues... >If you lack something to write, then you use grammar to decide >what to write? Yes --- where "grammar" of course corresponds more to what we'd now call "Composition Classes", "English" in Anglo countries, and "Philology" in Greek. Re: te mabla, te zabna > Your use fits neither, so what is your definition? Well, I guess it's in between. Because of the "word" implied in the gismu list, I take mabla and zabna to be primarily linguistic rather than mental activities. So their x3 is someone praising or dismissing, not someone thinking that something is praiseworthy or dismissable. But I think both fit Epictetus: because you will have proper Stoic detatchment and judgement, you will not bother cursing or flattering anyone --- or for that matter making emotive judgements on things other than as they really are (which is I assume why the x1 and x2 of mabla and zabna are distinct) --- because you're a Stoic, dude. As I exclaimed on the rather chilly Twin Peaks in San Francisco Sunday :-) --- {.i mo .ue .i xu do ba dujri'a mi .i go'i le ganti po'o .i leka vrude cuxna pe mi la zdeus. ji'a na ka'e dujri'a} (I'd say it in English, but not everyone here is as Aristophanean as me. :-) Now if only someone would tell me what the Lojban for "The world is everything that is the case" is... -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias