Re: more help (Todd Crane or Paul Fly ki'a)

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

Response to Todd:

> segu mi na'e gleki ledo na'e prami mi gu mi prami do
> I am non-happy about the-thing-described-as-your non-love for me,
> nevertheless, I love you.

As Mark pointed out, you need a "nu" in there.

I interpret the "segu" as
"Whether or not I am unappy about ...., I love you"

which is not quite the same. The point is that ".u" and its congeners DO
NOT ASSERT their second operand (and neither do they assert its negation).
So this is not saying that you are unhappy, merely that you love whether or
not you are unhappy.

Most people for "despite" and "nevertheless" use something like "seki'unai"
(not therefore) - you will be asserting the two statements, and denying their
causal connection. This may not be quite what you mean here, and I think Mark
is right about attitudinals.

Logically, what you are saying (I think) is
	mi na'e gleki li'o .ije mi prami do
	"I'm not happy .... AND I love you"
the thing that makes AND inappropriate in English is not any extra logical
baggage, but purely semantic/emotional:
It might be straight contrast:
			.ijeku'i mi prami do
or more specific emtions:
	mi na'e glaki .o'onai lenu do na'e prami mi .ijeku'i mi prami .iu do
	"I'm not happy (impatience)  ... but I love you (love!)"

NOnetheless, nice going for plunging into converted forethought logical
independence! I doubt "segu" has ever been used before!.

> noda zo'u da na'e .iucai sibdo do mi
It looks to me like you're trying to get "iucai" to modify sidbo in a sort of
tanru, and then negate it. It doesn't work like that. This is saying

	There's nothing that isn't an idea of you to me
with an emotion of intense love attached to the "isn't".

UI always refer to the speaker's emotional state, evidential support, pragmatic
intention etc about the sentence: they cannot modify the meaning of any of the
other words. (There is a debate as to whether UINAI is capable of negating a
sentence or not, but that's a special case, as is "kau").

Your following examples (using a tanru and a lujvo) are much better. As Mark
says, the prenex is unnecessary (and I wouldn't bother with the "za'e" here)
but I can't fault them at all.

> lu mi nupre be la lerel. na'e cmene mi be'o li'u se bacru ko'a
I have little to add to what Mark said, except that I think he did not give
much emphasis to the most important point.
One of the most common mistakes lojbo make is leaving out levels of abstraction
(we now have "tu'a" to let us do it legally!)
Whenever you get a clause embedded in the English, you need one in the Lojban
(and some other times besides). Examples of when this happens:

I said that ...
I tried to ....
I promise [that] ....
After he [did something], ...
We were waiting for [somebody to do something]
(Notice that "We were waiting for him" is properly "We were waiting for him
to arrive" "mi denpa lenu ko'a mu'o klama" / "mi denpa tu'a ko'a". "denpa"
takes an event as its x2 not a thing/person (I think).)

	fi'ico'omi'e kolin