From iad@math.bas.bg Tue Feb 8 05:46:43 2000 X-Digest-Num: 358 Message-ID: <44114.358.1952.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 15:46:43 +0200 From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Re: 3 loaves Jorge Llambias wrote: > la ivAn cusku di'e > >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. Something can be grammatical and still have no likely 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. There can be different ways of looking at this. The Codex says: `The span of time between the natural and the actual end points is represented by "za'o": {le xirma ca za'o jivna bajra} [...] which means that it ran past the finish line (after the race was over [...])'. That doesn't say if the same sentence could mean that the horse ran after a potential (though unnatural) end point -- something that could've made it stop (injury, loss of a shoe, loss of jockey, whatever). I like Pycyn's way of putting it (`still around after its time is up'), but I'm not sure I know that the time of hunger is up when one has eaten. > >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). My mother once confused a German waitress briefly by ordering `eine andere Limonade' (malglico or malfraso for `noch eine'). > Maybe that's the difference between {drata} and {frica}. Maybe. Or maybe {drata} means `another' (not the same one) and {frica} means `different' (not of the same kind). That is another parameter on which natlangs vary. Then there's a language-related stylistic thing: when talking of a recurring situations, some languages prefer to count (`ate a loaf ... ate a 2nd one ... ate a 3rd one') and others prefer not to (`ate a loaf ... one more ... and one more'). Iain Alexander wrote: > Robert McIvor's solution is of course good - {krefu citka}. > > I think John Cowan's problem - > {ko'a refcti pa nabytai} suggest that the same loaf was eaten > both times - depends on lujvo vs. tanru and other grouping factors. > Using a lujvo does indeed make it seem like is a > single concept applying to a single loaf. I second that sentiment. I like best Michael Helsem's suggestion, {krefu lemu'e nabybli citka}. sklyanin@pdmi.ras.ru wrote: > Ivan Derzhanski wrote: > >{ca'o xagji} `he is continuously hungry': doesn't {co'unai} > >get the point across better? > > When choosing {ca'o} I relied on the Book, section 10:10, example 10.2 > > la stiv. ca'o bacru = Steve continues to talk. `Steve is talking' is perhaps a better translation, since {ca'o} merely selects the middle part of the event contour, and `still' and `continue to' do something more than that: they *presuppose* that Steve has not just started talking and *emphasise* the fact that he hasn't stopped, although he might (be expected to) have done. > As for "continuosly hungry", isn't it rather {ru'i xagji}? Well, yes, but that's a different sense of `continuously'. -- <'al-_haylu wa-al-laylu wa-al-baydA'u ta`rifunI wa-as-sayfu wa-ar-rum.hu wa-al-qir.tAsu wa-al-qalamu> (Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi) Ivan A Derzhanski H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences