le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

>Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:34:45 -0500
>From: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
>X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
>>Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:25:18 -0400
>>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>>In-reply-to: CJ FINE's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST

[ ... ]
>>Those work.  I'm not dead-set on changing what's there, since that
>>works well for me also, but if we really wanted to avoid selbri-less
>>jufra (which I think are to be avoided in general, though not
>>necessarily to the point of fanaticism),

>  I agree. I think in belles-lettres we'll have to flex a little bit.

Yes.

[ ... ]

>>>>>.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da

>>>>I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time-
>>>>interval past)"..?  Oh, "it's now a long time that..."  Hrrrm.  I
>>>>let John >>>Cowan be the judge of that, if he gets a free moment.

>>>  Was built along the lines indicated in 'Imaginary journeys'

>>Yes, tense probably works.  Though I've been thinking that {na'e}
>>might not be the right negator.  "I was other-than-a-smeller-of it1
>>(the smell of coffee)" --- well what were you of it, then?  Maybe an
>>emitter?  {na'e} usually implies negation to somewhere else on the
>>scale, but there's not much of a scale in {sumne}.  Really what
>>you're saying is that the relationship of {sumne} didn't hold for you
>>and {da} (in whatever tense). You smelled other things, and {da} was
>>smelled by others, and you had other relations with {da} (you thought
>>about {da} perhaps), but that particular relationship didn't hold.
>>That's precisely the sort of negation provided by {na}, if I remember
>>the negation paper properly.  I think {na} might be a better negator
>>here.  Any other notions?  Is {na'e} really better?

>  The tense was the reason I used {na'e}. If you put in {na} and
>  export it to the prenex you get:

>naku zo'u mi ca ze'upu sumne da

>  which isn't the meaning I want (?). Now afterwards reading the
>  negation  paper, I think I ought to have had {nai} instead of
>  {na'e}:

I dunno.  It looks to me like that *is* the sense you're trying to get
across.  But you're right, though: the {nai} is definitely better.

>>>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au

>>>>Thinking about drunk coffee?  Maybe.  I might be thinking about {le
>>>>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not
>>>>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee.
>>>
>>>  Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of
>>>  drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the
>>>  stuff.
>>
>>I dunno.  I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}.
>>
>>~mark, tea-drinker.

>Now about {loi selpinxe ckafi}. Does it bring to mind the beverage or
>the coffee beans/powder the beverage is made of? I had the beverage
>in mind and I want to have the gismu {ckafi} in a position where I
>can tack the attitudinal on it. Well, now I have it : {loi selpinxe
>co ckafi.au}. What do you think? Better? Or was it you just couldn't
>imagine someone thinking more the beverage than the actual act of
>drinking? Many a time have I been sitting and enjoying the fragrant
>smell of tea, this being an essential part of the total enjoyment
>when the tea isn't just something nondescript. Same goes for coffee.
>There are brews and BREWS. And think of the Japanese tea seremony,
>to take an extreme example. In the seremony the act of drinking is
>really almost superfluous.

I think the problem is that I was interpreting {pinxe} wrongly, or at least
too narrowly.  I didn't take {se pinxe} as "beverage", but rather as "thing
drunk", if you see the distinction.  Hmm.  You may not.  That is, I was
considering {loi selpinxe ckafi} as (probably) expanding to {loi ckafi poi
selpinxe} --> {loi ckafi poi zo'e pinxe ke'a}: coffee which is drunk.  This
isn't quite the same as "beverage coffee", and I couldn't figure out why
you were thinking about drunk coffee, sliding down someone's throat.
Your interpretation is likely more correct than mine.

>------------------------------------------------

~mark