From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Mar 02 16:41:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 3 Mar 2001 00:41:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 25864 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2001 00:41:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2001 00:41:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.231) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Mar 2001 00:41:23 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:41:23 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.37 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 03 Mar 2001 00:41:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.37] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] rut pamo'o Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 00:41:22 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2001 00:41:23.0284 (UTC) FILETIME=[ABF79140:01C0A37A] From: "Jorge Llambias" i melbi xe fanva doi pier i di'e pinka su'omei >.e le speni be ra .e le re >bersa be ra That means someone who is a spouse to him and his two sons, it should be {le speni be ra be'o} >cu fange klama le foldi poi zvati la mo.AV It should be {moAV}. With a pause it breaks as {la mo} followed (ungrammatically) by the cmene {av}. >.i le nanmu se cmene zo .elimelek .ije le speni se cmene zo na,oMIN .ije >lei re bersa se cmene zo maxLON .e zo kiLION {cu se cmene} the three times. I think {zo maxLON fa'u zo kiLION} does work here. >le re bersa cu stali > >.i ri speni re ninmu poi xabju la mo.av ge'u That would mean that each of them married two women. {ro ri speni pa ninmu} would be correct, each of them married one woman (not necessarily the same one). >poi se cmene zo .orpat .e zo >rut then {zo orpat fa'u zo rut} should work. >.i paunai mi xu ba rorci lo bersa poi ba speni do Here we do run into a problem, because {lo bersa poi ba speni do} is "a son who will marry (each of) you", not a different son for each of them. I can't picture Ruth saying: ro da poi du do zo'u xu mi ba rorci lo bersa poi ba speni da which is really what she means. So what would she say if she were a competent Lojban speaker? >.i .aicai >noda poi na'e nunmorsi zo'u da tersepli mi do .i.a la jegvon cu jursa >sfasa mi {ija} instead if {i.a}, but... I'm not sure whether the prenex covers both sentences or just the first one. If both then the negation embedded in {no} extends to both sentences and you end up saying NOT(OR(...,...)) instead of OR(NOT(...),...) which is the one you want. To be safe, I'd just say: {noda poi na'e nunmorsi cu tersepli mi do ija ...} >.i la na,oMIN cu sanji ledu'u la rut .ai cu kansa ko'a .isemu'ibo ko'a >sisti co sa'urmi'e ra I don't understand {sa'urmi'e}. Did you mean {sa'irmi'e}? >.i la na,oMIN ce la rut noi se natmrmo'avi ge'u noi be'aspe ko'a cu xrukla {ce}?! Sets don't go anywhere, it should be {joi}. Also it should be {zi'e noi be'aspe}, else this last relative clause will apply to both women. >la beitlexem la mo.AV mo'u lenu co'a crepu loi bavmi Very nice translation! co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.