From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Feb 01 15:01:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 23:01:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 1264 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 22:49:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 22:49:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 22:49:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f11Mnv909852 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:49:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:49:57 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u In-Reply-To: <20010201171442.C19196@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:11:16AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > > la jbofi'e pu'i srera > > Are you claiming this is one of them. No. However, I do not think a single sumti in an abstraction is meaningless or ambiguous. > > .i zo fi'o vlipa > > je'e > > > .i jebo ve'e selmipri zvati > > Huh? "There are secrets everywhere"? "fi'o" is secretly everywhere. (It's everywhere selma'o BAI is!) > And I still have very little idea what le pu'u facki le su'u le > cajeba temci is supposed to mean. > > "The process of discovering something about now and the future"?? > Yes! The scope of balvi is larger and yet more specific than any simple abstraction indicates, so I used su'u > > .i ja'o do .e la jbofi'e djica zo su'u cu srana le bridi .enai le sumti > > I think you meant: > > do .e la jbofi'e cu djica le za'i zo su'u srana le bridi .enai le sumti You're right. I was writing at 4am! > >.i la'a mi nitcu zo me > > I would just remove the 'le', but as I've said I don't think I > understand the sentence. > > > .i ku'i xu do jimpe le terfrica lu le li'i me le > >pu bacru li'u lu le li'i pu bacru li'u > > I think so. I would translate the former as "the experience of a past > utterance" and the latter as "the experience of having uttered", since > me translates as 'one of the referents of'. Exactly. And, above, we're not discovering about the relationship of time (timeness?) but about le temci; the time itself! Hence, dropping the le isn't good enough, but "me" converts my sumti into a bridi for you and jbofi'e. > > .i no da poi na dunli zo ka zo'u da srana le satci tergismu > > I'll take your word for it. Was it _really_ necessary to confuse me by > using tergismu instead of sumti? 8) I was trying to express "places", not "sumti". "ka" uses "ce'u" to point to a place, not a sumti. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!