WikiDiscuss

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 05 of Jul, 2007 18:19 GMT posts: 350

> i cy. klama fo lo ricfoi pluta bazi lonu cy. viska lo rokci se marxa barna

This would mean that C went via the forest path a short time _after_ s/he saw sand markings. I doubt this was what you meant. If you want to say C saw the markings a short time after going down the path without mucking about with your word order too much, you could use ".i cy. klama fo lo ricfoi pluta .ibazibo cy. viska lo rokci se marxa barna" or ".i bazigi cy. klama fo lo ricfoi pluta gi cy. viska lo rokci se marxa barna" or "bazi lo nu cy. klama fo lo ricfoi pluta kei cy. viska lo rokci se marxa barna"

Also, I might use ".i cy litru lo ricfoi pluta..." rather than "cy klama fo...", simply for ease. Litru is concerned with the route rather than the starting and ending points, as klama is.

Posted by lagejyspa on Thu 05 of Jul, 2007 18:35 GMT posts: 350

I'm not sure what this means — And the rock of the marks was empty metal??

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 06 of Jul, 2007 11:12 GMT posts: 350

I'm not sure about this, but I think the na negates the entire bridi here, including the first bridi tail (la'edu'u cu drata). You probably want na'e instead.

Also, "ra" is probably a lot easier to use here than "la'edi'u".

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 06 of Jul, 2007 11:27 GMT posts: 350

1) The be'o isn't necessary because the cu cuts off the sumti-linking.

2) May I suggest the less wordy:
.i so'a le cmima be so'o le prenu jutsi cu xabju lo tcadu
(btw, you may want "le so'o" rather than "so'o le" if you are trying to say that most of the members of the several different types of people live in cities/a city, rather than most of the members of many of the types of people live in cities/a city. I'm not sure want your intent was)

3) similiary, in the second sentence following re: "se zdani di'o" => "xabju"

On 7/6/07, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> la'edi'u cu drata gi'e ku'i na cizra
>
> Author: lagejyspa
>
> I'm not sure about this, but I think the na negates the entire bridi here, including the first bridi tail (la'edu'u cu drata). You probably want na'e instead.

It negates just the {cizra} bridi. To negate both you'd need {na drata
gi'e na cizra},
or equivalently {drata na gi'e nai cizra}.

> Also, "ra" is probably a lot easier to use here than "la'edi'u".

There's a difference, though. {ra} refers to a preceding sumti, {la'e
di'u} to the
content of the whole preceding utterance. In this case, {la'e di'u}
would be the
fact that people stand on two legs, have two arms and one head. {ra} could
not refer to that fact because no previous sumti referred to it, {ra}
could refer
to the people, for example.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by lagejyspa on Fri 06 of Jul, 2007 18:55 GMT posts: 350

>
> > Also, "ra" is probably a lot easier to use here than "la'edi'u".
>
> There's a difference, though. {ra} refers to a preceding sumti, {la'e
> di'u} to the
> content of the whole preceding utterance. In this case, {la'e di'u}
> would be the
> fact that people stand on two legs, have two arms and one head. {ra} could
> not refer to that fact because no previous sumti referred to it, {ra}
> could refer
> to the people, for example.
>

You're right, of course. I had assumed the author's intent was to refer to the person/people, not the fact. If she intnded to refer to the fact itself, I withdraw my suggestion.