[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: {prenu} vs. {remna}
tu'a la dilyn:
>.i la kris. cusku lu
> .i .ua ba'e *co'a* jimpe
>li'e
>
>.i mi ca go'i .i xamgu selstidi
.i ba'e na selstidi .oi .i tu'a mi smuni ledu'u lenu mi jimpe kei cu
cfari kei .i lu co'a jimpe li'u smuni lu cfari falenu jimpe li'u
>Hold on, let's back up. I was intending to give alternatives for
>"There are _exactly_ three men in the room", but I think most of my
>alternatives fell short, saying, at most, "there are _at least_ three
>men in the room". Which of the following work? What the best way to
>say this?
I think "ci [lo] nanmu cu nenri le kumfa" does what you want. Check out
the definition of "ci" carefully. In English "three men are in the
room" doesn't necessarily rule out that there are other men there too.
But I think Lojban does rule this out. If you wanted to allow for more
men you'd explicitly have to say "su'oci nanmu"
Of your three attempts I think only the last one is drani.
> lo ci nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu ce'o
One or more of the three men which are in the room, do something
[(use co'e, not ce'o) I see what you're trying to do here and
I guess it's correct as far as it goes but I'm not sure it
actually claims there are three men in the room; it simply
assumes it. Only the main bridi is claimed (that they are
doing something unspecified, which is always true, I guess).]
> .i le ni lo nanmu cu nenri le kumfa cu du ci
The quantity of "the men are in the room" is three
[I think you need to quantify the men, not the whole
statement of their being in a room. "ni" has fairly
limited usage, pe'i]
> .i piro loi nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu cimei
The entire mass of men which are in the room is a threesome
[pe'i drani]
How about this:
ro nanmu poi nenri le kumfa cu se klani li ci
or
ro nanmu pe ne'i le kumfa cu se klani li ci
____
Chris Bogart \ / ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
Quetzal Consulting \/ cbogart@quetzal.com