Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

> The claim is that most of the englishmen with a taste for w. acquire the
> taste, or that most instances of the taste of an englishman for w. are
> acquired. Is that precise enough? The translation originally appealed
> (though it has palled) because of the use of "*an* englishman": I
> wanted to see if it could somehow be translated by "lo gicnau".

so'e glipre cu pu'o ja noroi vusnei la .uiskis.

or, more precise, and using nice sexist zo'o word:

so'e gicnau cu pu'o jonai noroi vusnei la .uiskis.

> > > > > > > > > How would you say "the mothers of Jorge and And"?
> > > Wouldn't work for the siblings example, of course.
> > Why don't you take lojbab's advice? I think he had theright idea
> > (actually, I've thought of it myself, he beat me to the kbd :))
> >   rolo mamta or whatever la .and. ba'e joi la xorxes.
>
> Isn't {lo mamta be lo patfu be la .and. joi la xorxes} vaguer than
> {lo mamta be lo patfu be la and beho beho .e lo mamta be lo patfu
> be la xorxes}? Surely they're not synonymous? When I asked "how
> would you say" I had in mind "how do you express the meaning", not
> "how might you get across this meaning to a cooperative interlocutor".

Yes, you are quite right here. {joi} version is definitely much shorter,
but is also certainly semantically different than full one. But the
sentence you just gave *can* collapse into

lo mamta be lo patfu be la .and. .e la xorxes.

That which is not easily expressible and cannot collapse is the sentence
"I saw (mass of) x's and a's grandmothers (together, as one entity)"

lo mamta be lo patfu be la .and. kukukujoi lo mamta be lo patfu be la
xorxes.                                ^^^

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get
e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi