Re: TEXT: advert

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Xorxe:
> > > > Suho buha cei ka da kau vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe
> > > > zohu
> > > The prenex is grammatical:
> > >  There is at least one predicate bu'a = "is the property
> > >  of who likes whisky", such that:
> > Why not "is the property of being a liker of whisky"? That's
> > what I wanted. [You would want "ka keha vusnei", but this
> > isn't official, is it?]
> {ke'a} is not official, but {dakau} certainly does not work for that.
> Didn't you read the example where I contrasted {dakau} with the lambda
> variable? Do you disagree with that?

Unfortunately I've deleted your message. I read that bit and did not
understand you to be saying that dakau has some other meaning. But
forgive me if I read it in excessive haste.

Is there at present any offical way of indicating which sumti the ka
is the property of? Lojbab has opposed your keha suggestion. You
mentioned a while back that it was discussed at the last lojfest,
and that some proposal involving kau was made (I forget the details).

> > > naho ku ge loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu gi
> > > lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda
> > This part is not grammatical.
> I want:
>     naho ku loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu
>     .i naho ku lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda
> Still ungrammatical.
> > I thought NU is a selbri that optionally takes a bridi as its
> > complement.
> No. NU <bridi> is a selbri, and the <bridi> part is not optional.

Oh dear. Any idea why the <bridi> is obligatory?

> > Here I meant puhu to be a selbri without a bridi
> > complement. If that's ungrammatical, then I guess I'd want
> >     naho ku puhu buha be lo gligicnau
> You don't need the {be}.
> That would be something like "typically there's a process of some
> Englishman having such property".

Yeah. I'll have to think about it. Do you reckon it means "Typically,
the Englishman having such property is a process"? If so, this is
what I want. Revise to:

  naho ku ge puhu buha lo gligicnau kei gi lo kotnau ku zohe ge se
  buha gi cerda

> > > From the prenex bu'a doesn't have an x2
> > If buha = ka ... kei, shouldn't x2 be the possessor of the property?
> > "Lo se ka"?
> I suppose it makes sense, just like {lo se li'i ...} is the experiencer,
> but my cmavo list doesn't have it.

Mine does.

> > I will post the original text in due course, but I would like to see
> > if I can get across its meaning independently.
> Let me guess:
> le ka vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zo'utu'e lo'e gligicnau ra prucycpa
> ije lo'e kotnau ra cerda tu'u

"lohe ka vusnei" my intuition says. The "zohu" here I can't fathom.
But yes: you have it. So I think I may give you the original:

   "An Englishman's taste for whisky is acquired. A Scotsman's is
    hereditary." [Or it might have been "inherited".]

Now what originally caught my attention about this is precisely that
"lohe gligicnau/kotnau" is not appropriate here - or at least "lohe
gligicnau" is not appropriate. The typical-generic Englishman does
not have a taste for whisky - or at any rate, the ad doesn't imply
this. Rather, the ad is saying that if the Engman has a taste for
whisky than the taste is acquired. And the best way to do this, I
felt, is to have "lo gligicnau" within the scope of "naho". On
reflection, I am far from convinced this is adequate, but it is too late
at night for me to get my head round a solution. I welcome suggestions.

-----
And