[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TEXT: Re: TEXT: Imagist
And replies to me:
I have piho down as a rafsi for pipno "piano" - I meant
typing = piano writing.
.u'uro'e do na.e mi srera
I don't understand what you mean. I thought "n" is a legitimate
hyphen, & necessary because otherwise piho + ciha would
You do indeed need a hyphen. What I'm querying is whether
'n' is a permitted option to the standard 'r'.
In my rafsi list "xem" is the rafsi assigned to "xe".
As John has just explained in another mailing, that has
now changed to 'xel', but several people (including me) thought it
was already 'xel'
.i nu'i mi fo lo purci nu'u .e do fo lo balvi cu srera
I meant the x1 of ciksi. I have not studied the gismu places
thoroughlt enough to know whether I would recant on this.
I interpret the "x1 (person)" as a non-defining feature.
I wonder, incidentally, how to translate "explain that [clause]"
- the x2 of ciksi seems also to be the x4 of ciksi.
'person)' may be non-defining, but I infer '(agent)' in the x1:
'x1 provides explanation x4 for x2 to x3'
The x2 is the thing explained (about), the x4 the explanation.
So 'explain that I made an error' is
'ciksi fo le du'u mi srera'
However I'm not happy about that, because I've just realised that
there are two meanings of 'explain' in English - one is definitely
covered by 'ciksi', one might not be.
'explain the workings/mechanism/details/purpose of some system'
'explain the justification for some action' (dubious, because it
typically implies 'justify')
'Explain that' is often the latter, and I think 'krinu cusku' or even
'zungi vimcu troci' is often more appropriate.
I wonder what the current rash of entirely Lojban postings is having
on less committed or less expert readers of the list. Comments