From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Nov 24 09:37:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 24 Nov 2001 17:37:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 20890 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2001 17:37:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Nov 2001 17:37:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n1.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.51) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Nov 2001 17:37:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.102] by n1.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Nov 2001 17:37:10 -0000 Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:37:05 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Even simple texts are difficult Message-ID: <9tols1+fflg@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 3085 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 149.225.137.80 From: "A.W.T." X-Yahoo-Profile: aolung --- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" wrote: > > la greg cusku di'e > > >.ibazuki vomei ke cmalu ractu > >there were four small rabbits. > > Did you mean {pu} instead of {ba}? I would have used no > tense at all. You can't avoid it in English, but is the time > relative to the speaker really of any relevance to the story? I'd like {puzuvuki} in the sense of "Once upon a time..." (in a time far, far back, and at some place far, far away...) Why *not* use sticky {ki} for story time - and then be free from all this? I guess you'd prefer {cmalu ractu vomei} and so would I (also one could drop the {ke} > {joi} works, but so does {kansa}, what's the problem with either? I prefer {kansa} (using it quite often) > >I'm also not intirely sure about my modal... > > {noi ni'a mutce barda ckune} does not mean "under a big fir tree", > it means that the bank is a ckune under something else. > You want something like {noi cnita lo barda ckune} > or if you prefer {noi barda ckune cnita}. As far I understand the grammar, modals just can precede sumti, but not selbri (or am I wrong?), so I didn't regard {noi ni'a barda ckune} as being grammatical. So it really should be something like you proposed: {noi barda skune cnita} > >.iku'ibo ko na mo'ine'i klama le purdi po la nan mygregor > >but don't go into mr mcgregor's field > > > >I got the modal right here (I think) yay > > I think it says that the going to the field as a whole moves > into something else. I would just say {klama le purdi} or > {klama le nenri be le purdi}. 1) {mo'ine'i klama} doesn't seem grammatical (see above); or is it meant as a lujvo composed of the rafsi mo'i/muv+ner/ne'i ? 2) creating a special selbri place by a modal - here, with {klama} already providing the appropriate place - is not good lojban. > >.imu'ibo ledo patfu pu va se raktu la nin mygregor. lenu ri setca ra lo > >pilstasu > >because you father met with an accident there : he was put into a pie by > >mrs > >mcgregor > > I'm not sure {va} works for "there" in this case. "There" here > means "the place I just mentioned", not some distance from Mrs > Rabbit. It's the (medium) distance from the *speaker*, no? {va} doesn't seem necessary here (or maybe: {vi la mygregorfet.} {le patfu be do} is other than what we're calling malglico/maldotco or what have we., {ledo patfu} is not. > >accident=?? > >pie=?????????????? > >I like this construction, it has the same underlying humour as the english > > {snuti} is accident. Maybe: {...pu snuti se raktu...} > >.i mi klama fi le zdani li'u > >I'm going out" > > > >good > > > >(add to previous word "god") > > > >that's terrible... i. ki'a zoigy. god gy. > >All suggestions most welcome... > > How about {mi cliva}? It's good because of its conciseness, yet nontheless having a flavour of "adieu" :( - sometimes this sense might be adequate - with regard to those just leaving the house "for cigarettes", and never to come back ;-) How about creating a lujvo out of {klama fi le zdani}; yet, {zdakla} would be ambiguous. mu'omi'e .aulun.