From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 10:12:41 2000
X-Digest-Num: 353
Message-ID: <44114.353.1908.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 10:12:41 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 3 loafs

la ivAn cusku di'e
> > >doesn't {co'unai} get the point across better?
> > I think {co'unai} is not currently grammatical
> > (though I think it should be).
>
>You mean {nai} can't be attached to everything in Lojban?

I was surprized when I first noticed it, too. {nai} doesn't
have the grammar of selma'o UI.

>I did wonder if {za'o} could be used for a state holding
>beyond a would-be {co'u} point, as opposed to a process
>going on beyond its {mo'u} point.

I think it makes sense. {za'o xagji} is grammatical, so
that seems to be the likeliest meaning. After all, in general
the would-be {co'u} point of a process is its {mo'u} point,
so it is a valid generalization.

> > >How do we say `one more' (English `another one') in Lojban?
> > {lo drata}.
> > You mean as a number? I don't know.
>I mean that if the English sentence _He ate another loaf_ is
>translated word-by-word into Bulgarian or German, it will come
>across as putting undue emphasis on the fact that the second loaf
>was different from the first one (as if it could have been the
>same one).

Maybe that's the difference between {drata} and {frica}.

>The existence of {paunai} seems to imply that rhetorical
>questions are not banished as a matter of principle, but
>I still wouldn't use them for things that can be said in
>more Lojbanic ways.
>
>{.i'enairo'e .i.u'acu'i mi citka le barda nanba}, perhaps?

Sounds right.

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com