Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu

[Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>]

coi doi dilyn.
> > Paragraphs can be marked with ni'o or no'i, but apart from resetting the
> > variables it does not have some great semantics in a logical context.
> > Simply - not often needed, except for convenience, IMHO...
>
> {ki'e ku'i ju'ocu'i} I was referring to the principle that all typographic
> distinctions (chapter headings, for example) should be reflected in the
> phonetics.  I think this is a somewhat silly principle, anyway (for
> instance, while it's noble to try to make mathematical expressions
> speakable, it's totally infeasible for expressions of any complexity.  I
> saw a Ph.D. thesis on speaking equations for the blind recently; see
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/aster/demo.html)

It's not that silly. It *looks* silly because you're not used to it.
What I'm saying is that the story looks quite unambiguous and concise
even without the paragraph boundaries. Yes, empty lines don't count in
lojban, there was no confusion arising because of the lack of ni'o, so
no harm done.

> > > Can one person {klama ru'u le toknu} (come around the oven)?
(...)
> OK, right.  {klama ru'u le toknu} means "to go from one place to another in
> the area around the oven", to be pedantic.  See my response to xorxes.

Yes, litru would maybe be better, but this is still OK. Think:
ko'a klama ti ti le sruri be le toknu is what is really meant.

> > > > .i ki'unai le nu lei lorpanzi cu dunku klaku kei le lorxu na jundi ra
> > > > gi'e nerpu'i ra le toknu .ibabo ua co'a spoja fa lei betfu be lei
> > > > lorpanzi .i roroi ca le nu lo betfu cu spoja kei le lorxu cu sruri
> > > > klama gi'e gleki cusku lu paboi li'u fa'ubo lu reboi li'u fa'ubo
> > > > lu ciboi li'u fa'ubo lu voboi li'u fa'ubo lu muboi li'u
> > >
> > > Now's a good a time as any to inquire about the distinction {lo} vs.
> > > {le}.  Why is it, e.g., {lei betfu} in the second line but {lo betfu} in
> > > the third?
> >
> > co'a spoja lo betfu   means   For each of the stomacks, it began
> > exploding. That depicts five separate processes of exploding, each of
> > which is at the beginning point.
> >
> > co'a spoja loi betfu   means   The stomacks began exploding. That means
> > there is one process, which is really a series of explosions of various
> > stomacks, which is now beginning.

Jorge's corections were (almost) all on the mark... Stick fa in both.

> Very good.  I like this explanation for the difference between {lo} and
> {loi} (which was also confusing).  But I was asking about the difference
> between {le} and {lo} (which seems to parallel the difference between
> {lei} and {loi}).  I didn't quite follow xorxes' explanation:
>
> > In the other case, I could have said {pa le betfu} instead of
> > {lo betfu}, but I preferred the shorter one. In any case, I want
> > to individuate them: Every time, that _one_ of the belies explodes...
>
> Does {lo} imply singularity?  I would think that either {le betfu} or {lo
> betfu} could refer to one or more than one stomach, the only difference
> being whether the things actually are stomachs or only described that
> way.

No. lo means some, at least one, of the entire set, indiscriminately
taken.  More or less. le means all of the some, at least one, I think
about.  If more than one, in both cases, they are taken individually:
each of..., not as a group.  That is what loi/lei are for.

> > The focus of the narrative here is not IMHO on the series of explosions
> > of each of the stomacks, but on the point in time when the heat reached
> > the level when the stomacks began exploding. (Umm, this got much more
> > muddled than I thought. I think I'll let somebody else explain this
> > one.)
>
> Yes, I don't follow.  It seems like {co'a spoja fa le betfu} would be
> slightly wrong, since the explosions don't all happen at once.  Is this
> what you're trying to say?

This means for every stomach I'm referring to, it begins exploding, and
refers to many separate events.  If you said, co'a spoja fa lei betfu,
it's one event:  the mass of the stomacks begins exploding = (in this
case) when the first stomack explodes.

> How does {co'a spoja fa lei betfu ba le lorpanzi} stack up?

The mass of stomacks of the fox cub(s) begins to explode.  = All the
stomachs there are in one or more cubs I think about begin to explode,
together.

> > lo is veridical and indefinite (more or less, I think that's the
> > consensus, right?), meaning that it roughly works like indefinite article
> > in English, and also says "this thing that is REALLY...". So, you can't
> > really say lo crida because there aren't any around. (Well, this is also
> > more complicated than that... But we have been arguing about it for months
> > and it cant well be explained in one post... least of all by me.)
>
> Let me voice a premature opinion.  Saying {lo crida} makes just as much
> sense as {le fetygunse ku joi le fetlorxu cu tavla simxu}; neither can be
> true in this world, but could be used in a story (or, I suppose, by
> someone that believes in the referents).  {le crida} would be used to
> refer to actors playing fairies, but if you're going to write about
> fairies, you might as well use {lo crida}.

That is also my opinion.  The main point here is universe of discourse.
If you talk about events in Midsummer's Night Dream, the fairies are
real.  So, lo crida is OK.  If you are saying, There are no fairies, you
CAN'T say lo crida na zasti, because that's logical contradiction.
IMHO.  I don't know the current consensus on this.

> > le ly. betfo ba'o binxo lo/le plana   means   The fox's stomack finished
> > becoming a/the bloated thing. The lo variant corresponds to the given
> > sentence pretty closely, though neither quite capture the whole sense of
> > the English sentence (i.e. the stomack is now a bloated thing, but not
> > necessarily a stomack any more. ...
> > The le variant is not what you want, because of its
> > definiteness, i.e. There is this thing you know of that you'd describe
> > as fat and that is what fox's stomack has turned into. (compare English:
> > The cocoon turned into THE new butterfly. How does that sound?)
>
> Good!  I think this answers my query about {lo} vs. {le}

Jorge doesn't approve this explanation.  I still hold it.  Let's see:
le means in-mind referrent.  You can't have an in-mind referrent if it's
a new one.  Dunno.  Maybe.  You still have to explain your stand to me,
xorxes...

> > > The meaning of the last two sentences seems very weird to me.  Is
> > > "The fox dared to go while she was losing water from her back.  She
> > > cried out in warning, 'Be careful!  Sharp leaf, don't cut me!'" a
> > > correct translation?  Where's the fox going?  What on earth is a {kinli
> > > pezli}?
> >
> > Doesn't really matter, I guess. The point is, she actually WALKED with
> > all that water in her (or maybe driven a car, but I sincerely doubt that).
> > I guess your translation is correct, 'cause I translated the same way.
> > I'd say cactus needle, or agave (is that how it's called in English?) or
> > something such.
>
> As Jorge pointed out, {dar} is the rafsi for {darno}, 'far'.  "Agave" is
> in my dictionary, although I'm not familiar with the plant.

.oiro'ese'i Right.  Agave is a something with needles on it's leaves.
Some AmerIndians used its needles as needles, and its fibers for making
cloth.

> > > > .i badri je klaku klama fo le cmana .ize'iku lo kilpezli ly batci
> > > > .i zo pof .i ly spoja
>
> .i ke'u.uanai ma badri je klaku klama
> NOTE: this is my question, not part of the text.

Translates as:  And lo, (sb) sad and weeping, goes.  We assume it's the
fox.  Actually, what it says is, There is somebody in the vicinity I am
pointing out to you considering it important for you to notice it.  See
section on observatives.

> > > fo'e mi'e. dilyn. trs,ton.
> >
> > fa'o, maybe? Yes, I guess so...
>
> No, I meant {fe'o}.  It would be ungrammatical to have anything after
> {fa'o}, right?  (Talk about useless cmavo.)

It's not ungrammatical.  It is where parsing ends.  Compare EOF
character on computers, or this:  if you continue talking after you hang
up, you're wasting your breath, and can even talk nonsense.  But it does
not mean that it's ungrammatical.  It's more likely that it is not
possible to say whether it's grammatical or not, because there is nobody
that would check it.  Granted, fe'o is much more logical.

> e'u do cilre lei bangu .i zo'o zo'onai ro bangu te djuno be do cu
> banri'a .ai le ka do na ka'e seljmi
(...)
> Should the first {do} be {ko}?

If you say ko, thenn it's a command.  I say:  I suggest that you study
languages.  I am not telling you, but it would be better for you if you
did.

> And do you want the {do} in the x3 place of {bangu te djuno}?  i.e.,
> ...{ro bangu te djuno be fi do}...

= All languages known by you. What's the matter?

> I don't understand the use of {banri'a} rather than just {rinka}.

language-cause.  Dunno why I put it.  It was a long time ago.  Maybe I
should change my sig... zo'onaizo'o...  Maybe just to fill the 79...

> The x2 of jimpe is a fact, not a person.  Shouldn't it be {le ka ma do na
> ka'e seljmi}?  ({ma do} standing for {le do selsku} or {le do te djuno}.)

No, no, no.  There is an error, and thanks for pointing it out to me...
I stopped seeing the sig.  But the solution is much simpler than that
(even if yours worked, which it doesn't):  le ka do terjmi.

ma do na ka'e seljmi means What can't you understand.
me do means x1 refers to you.
le me do means something referring to you
tu'a do is what you want here. See Jorge's post.

> co'o mi'e dilyn. TRS,ton.

co'o mi'e goran. poi finti lo cnino famselsku