From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Aug 02 08:31:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 2 Aug 2002 15:31:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 63869 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2002 15:31:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2002 15:31:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.25) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2002 15:31:24 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:31:24 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:31:24 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] LogFest Phone Game results Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:31:24 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2002 15:31:24.0849 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9587A10:01C23A39] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la greg cusku di'e > > Creatures four-legged and two play along the river. > > loi danlu noi remei najo vomei tuple ke'a ku'o cu kelci vu'u lo rirxe > >in my ma'oste, {vu'u} is "minus" along is {mo'ire'o}. How did the next >participant have the faintest idea what was going on? (Apart from taking >pot >luck among the two or three *likely* possibilities?). Maybe {bu'u} was meant? Would {te'e} be best? In any case, {mo'ire'o} is not this "along". I can't think of any good example where {mo'ire'o} would make sense. {mo'i} in general is not very useful, as it refers to a general movement of the whole event and not the movement of one of the sumti, which is what we usually want. >Oh yeah, nice >"the"->"lo"->"the". Nice in the sense of two mistakes cancelling each other out? > > Animals with 2 or 4 legs play near the river.\ > > loi danlu poi se tuple re da .e vo da cu kelci vi le rirxe > > The animals which are both two-legged and four-legged play near the >river. > >Is the {.e} correct? or should it have been a mass connective like {jo'u}? {e} is incorrect. No animal has exactly two and exactly four legs, at least not simultaneously. {a} would work here. I don't think a mass connective would make sense, but then I don't really know what {jo'u} means. > > Le danlu ne li reboi .e li voboi tuple cu kelci jibni le rirxe > >I don't think this works either semantically or syntaxically I agree. >********************************************************************** > > You can't want what you don't see. > > do na kakne djica le na kakne viska > >{le na'e kakne se viska} That's an incapable type of seen thing. {kakne djica} also makes little sense here, that's a capable type of want. {djica kakne} would make more sense if one insists on using {kakne}: {do na kakne le nu djica le na kakne be le nu se viska}, but {kakne le nu djica} can collapse to {djica kakne}, not to {kakne djica}, and likewise {kakne le nu se viska} could be {se viska kakne}, but not {kakne se viska}. > > You cannot want what you cannot see. > > do na'e ka'e djica le nalselcatlu be do > >how does na'eka'e differ from na ka'e? In scope, mainly. {do na'e ka'e djica le nalselcatlu be do} means that each of the things that you don't see cannot be wanted by you. {do na ka'e djica le nalselcatlu be do} means that it is not possible that you want each of the things that you don't see (but maybe it is possible that you want some of them). If {le} is taken as singular, there is hardly any difference in this case. > > You can't want yourself not to be looked at. > > do na ka'e djica le nu do na se catlu > > You can't want to not be seen. We should also note that "you" here is used as a generic pronoun. I'm not sure we want to import this usage into Lojban, but we don't really have a good alternative (something like Esperanto "oni"). ********************************************************************** > > There are two types of people: those who know how to end a sentence > > lo re prenu girzu cu lei prenu poi ka'e jufra mulno > >beautiful use of inner quantifiers with lo, but a {ro} should be added >outside? Does cu followed by a gadri mean that it was cu co'e with co'e >elided?? Otherwise {du}. There should be some cute solution involving sets >of masses and a proper selbri, but I can't work it out. i ro lo re prenu klesi zo'u ge lei ka'e jufra mulgau mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com