From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Oct 14 19:17:01 2002
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_1); 15 Oct 2002 02:16:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 55195 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 02:16:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Oct 2002 02:16:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 02:16:59 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05)
  id 181HKv-0002Yv-00
  for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:21:33 -0700
Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 181HK6-0002YV-00; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:20:42 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox-2.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.102])
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 181HJJ-0002YD-00
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:19:53 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-67-132.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.67.132])
  by mailbox-2.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C64A1C464
  for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 04:14:43 +0200 (DST)
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: x1 is of type x2
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 03:16:27 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMMECHGLAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20021015010104.GA11749@allusion.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 2185
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
X-list: lojban-list
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin

Jordan:
> > > to'e bilga co tai tavla va'o loi sivni
> 
> Ahh just realized the above doesn't work anyway: tai needs to be in
> front of the whole selbri, which would change the meaning, 

Can tenses, NA, etc. occur tanru-internally? One can think of reasons
why one would want them to, though I can't think of reasons why BAI
should be able to.

> > > Which is probably a lot better than "fi le'e tai co'e".
> > 
> > "tai tavla" would meant something like "talk in a zo'e-ish way",
> > whereas "tavla fi le'e tai co'e" would mean "talk about the co'e
> > of the zo'e sort", which seems a better translation (at least in
> > the context of manifold considerations about what makes for a
> > good translation).
> 
> Ahh probably true. "tai tavla" could refer to things other than the
> subject I guess (standing on one foot, etc).
> 
> > What is the difference between {tai} and {se kai}? 
> 
> tai isn't a ka. se kai gives you a quality found in the whatever,
> where tai says it is like some other thing in some quality.
> Something like:
> 
> mi tavla tai lo'e gerku
> I talk like a dog
> 
> mi tavla sekai leka ce'u jai fenki
> My talking exhibits the quality of it being frenzied
> I talk crazily

I can never remember what that nitcionic jai does. I keep on learning
& forgetting. (Oh I remember, it's somehow for sumti raising.)

Anyway, the examples can be swapped around:

mi tavla tai lo'e jai fenki
mi tavla se kai le ka ce'u gerku

Can we think of examples that make good sense only with tai and
others than make good sense only with se kai?

--And.




