Re: Questions

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>]

>> [4]- the box is the contents of one or more bottles;
>> [5]- the box is the material used for making one or more bottles.
>
>The x1 of {botpi tanxu} is a box. I suppose that the 4th example
>means that it's a box inside a bottle, a "bottled box", although
>{se botpi tanxe} might be more clear. I don't understand the 5th
>example either.

Silly example, but suppose there *were* a special sort of box which was
typically used as material for making bottles; e.g. maybe they're some
kind of glass 'boxes' created by the glass-making process, in a form
especially convenient for glass-blowers to work with when making
bottles.  What would you call those boxes?  "botpi tanxe" seems
feasible, or better yet "te botpi tanxe".

>> .i fe'omi'e dilyn. trsTON.

>You don't need to capitalize TON, because the o is the only vowel and
>so it already has the stress anyway.

Good point, but I'm glad he did it anyway.  I probably would have (wrongly)
pronounced it as TRSton. if it had been spelled without capitals.
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
 Quetzal Consulting   \/   cbogart@quetzal.com


Date:         Mon, 8 May 1995 18:28:07 +0100
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: ci cribe
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sun, 07 May 95 18:19:10 EDT.)

> The question was how to interpret:
>         le ci cribe cu batci ri
> It could either be "each of the three bears bites itself", or
> "each of the three bears bites each of the three bears".
> I think it should be the first. The argument would be that to
> identify what is the referent of {ri}, one should look at the
> prenex form of the sentence:
>         ro da voi cribe zo'u: da batci ri
>         For each x that I'm calling a bear: x bites x.

That makes the most sense.

> To get the second meaning, I would say:
>         le ci cribe cu batci rori

This doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to me to mean
"Each of the three bears bit each of itself" - daft.

> In this case, the prenex form would be:
>         ro da voi cribe ku'o ro de voi cribe zo'u: da batci de
>         For each x of what I'm calling bears, for each y of what
>         I'm calling bears: x bites y.

Right. And it would be nice to have a logically coherent and
not too cumbersome way to say it.

> A more common way of speaking would probably be:
>         lei ci cribe cu batci ri
>         The three bears bite themselves.

"bear bit itself", "a bear threesome bit itself".
It's not really a satisfactory way of saying "each of the bears
bit each of the bears".

----
And


Date:         Mon, 8 May 1995 19:52:30 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@cuvmb.bitnet>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Questions
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>

> Greetings!

coi dilyn

> >From the text:
> >.i mi fi do ca cusku doi pendo fe ledu'u mi mu'inai loi cazi li'i nandu joi
>                                                          ^^^^
> >se steba cu ca'o pacna da .i da mutce se jicmu le'e merko se pacna

[Instead of {le du'u ...} I would use {le sedu'u ...}, because the x2 of
{cusku} asks for a text, not a fact.]

> "cazi" is a tense indicator, "now" "short time distance".  I don't
> know what it would mean, though.  The English has "the difficulties of
> <today and tomorrow>" around here.  The structure of the whole tale
> end of that birdi eludes me.

{nandu joi se steba} would mean "x1 is difficult/frustrating for x2"

{li'i nandu joi se steba} would be "x1 is an experience of something
being difficult/frustrating for someone".  From context, I would
understand that the experiencer is the one for whom something is
difficult/frustrating, and not the one that is difficult/frustrating.  I
think it would be mopre clear to say:  {li'i se nandu joi steba}.

{cazi} means "now", but the {zi} adds a little uncertainty as to the
exact position of the now.  It could be "just now" or "any time now".
So {cazi li'i nandu joi se steba} means "x1 is, about now, an experience
of difficulty/frustration}.

Then {loi cazi li'i nandu joi se steba} would be {some present
difficulties}.

A more literal translation perhaps would be {lei cabna joi balvi nandu}.

> >.i mi pacna lenu levi natmi baco'a virnu gi'e tarti tu'a le fatci smuni be
>                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >leri kriselsku po'u <<lu mi xusra ledu'u ledi'e jetnu si'unai se jimpe .itu'e> >ro remna cu jikydunli co'a lenu ri se zbasu li'u>>
>
> I believe "fatci smuni" is a translation of "true reason".  But
> "fatci" seems like a poor translation of this use of "true"; "fatci"
> seems closer to the English word "correct".  Wouldn't something like
> "jicmu smuni" be better?

I understand {fatci smuni} as "the real/actual meaning", which seems
right.  {jicmu smuni} would be "the most elemental meaning", opposed
perhaps to a more sophisticated one.

> Because of these two and what strikes me as an overabundance of tanru,
> I'd guess that Nick wrote this while he was still experimenting with
> his lojban style.  Is this right?  Is there a better text for a
> beginner to start with?

Perhaps Nick would like to comment?  Are you listening, Nick?

I think we are all still experimenting, but probably his texts have the
most elaborate style.

> >- the box is bottle-shaped, making ta1 both a bottle and a box;
> >- the box contains one or more bottles;
> >- the box is made of one or more bottles;
> >- the box is the contents of one or more bottles;
> >- the box is the material used for making one or more bottles.
>
> The 4th and 5th examples here perplex me; they violate the only
> meaning I could give to the earlier quote.  Anybody?

The x1 of {botpi tanxu} is a box.  I suppose that the 4th example means
that it's a box inside a bottle, a "bottled box", although {se botpi
tanxe} might be more clear.  I don't understand the 5th example either.


> -------------------
>
> Another question:
>
> >From the "Diagrammed Summary of Lojban Grammar", line 1619:
> >This construct may be combined with the modal construct discussed just
> >previously to identify a sumti:
> >
> >      la djan. ne pu la mark. [ge'u] [cu] melbi tavla [vau]
> >      -------- <  >. --------       |     ===========
> >     John, who was (incidentally) before Mark, is a beautiful-talker.
>
> Doesn't this show exactly the confusion about {pu} mentioned earlier?
> {la mark.} is not an event.

I agree with you. It might mean, I suppose, that John lived before
Mark was born.


> mi ckire do ro danfu
>
> .i fe'omi'e dilyn. trsTON.
>
> (Speaking of which... why don't multi-word cmene introduce ambiguities in
> the phonetics?)

Anything that ends in a consonant is a name. To see where the name starts,
you go back until you find a pause or a {la}, {lai} or {doi}.

If it's a pause, and the previous word ends in a consonant, you repeat
the process.

That's why a pause is needed after {mi'e}, which if you write the dots
should be written {mi'e.}

You don't need to capitalize TON, because the o is the only vowel and
so it already has the stress anyway.

co'o mi'e xorxes