WikiDiscuss

Robin:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:19:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > Robin:
> > > One of these suggestions is a joke. See if you can spot it.
> Did you spot it?

Yes. Did you think my response to it was serious?

> "The resulting expression refers specifically to an individual or group
> that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker describes with the
> selbri." "describes as fitting the first argument of the selbri",
> please.

OK.

> > > * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" . the first two lo
> > > are most definately "le" if you want it to match the English. You
> > > should probably quantify ctuca as well.
> >
> > How would you translate the Lojban into normal English? (The context
> > is a set of instructions for conducting a Lesson.)
>
> The way I translated it (see my other post) is "Teachers (un-numbered,
> could be one) divide those taught into five foursomes of students."

I mean into normal English. The Lojban sounds normal as it is.

> > Any suggestions for something natural? I don't want to give the
> > impression that non-veridicality is used in more that .1% of cases.
>
> Erk. "le ta ninmu cu mutce melbi .iku'i ca'a nanmu gi'e nelci lo nu
> ninmu dasni" is the first one that comes to mind.

Added. (With {va} instead of {ta}.)

> Gender-queer-positive people would have a field day with "le", I
> suspect.

Many of them would claim they are ca'a ninmu, not that
they are using the selbri non-veridically.

> > Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE into
> > BRIVLA?
>
> mumble, mumble It's up to you. I can't think of a *better* time,
> though. If you do so, I will *immediately* call an extension to voting,
> for obvious reasons.

I won't then. We can always fix the definition of {la} later if that is
ever changed.

> > > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.
> > Why?
>
> Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German
> sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl called
> The Cup.

Isn't the English version equally vague though?

> "typically satisfy also the predicate": swap "satisfy" and "also". That
> works.

Done.

> > The outer is adjusted accordingly, but {PA lo broda} retains the same
> > meaning.
>
> I don't see how that's possible. Before, "pa lo broda" meant *exactly*
> one broda. Now it means one *group* of broda, of indeterminate size.
> That is a massive change, unless I'm missing something.

It's {PA lo pa broda} in most contexts. Before, it meant
{PA da poi broda} exactly PA things that broda.
{pa da poi broda} could also mean exactly one group of brodas,
given the appropriate context. In most contexts, in both cases,
the usual interpretation is that we are counting individual
brodas.

> None of your examples use an outer quantifier by itself, by the way.
> Might want to fix that.

That's because in that case {lo} is elidable. There's
{mu (lo) xagji sofybakni} anyway.

> > A constant is something that always keeps the same referent. {lo
> > broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode},
> > "da" is a variable, because it takes values from the set of all things
> > that brodas. Anything with a quantifier in front takes values from the
> > set of things over which the quantifier runs.
>
> Don't tell me; tell the notes.

OK.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/