WikiDiscuss

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 08:38:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> rlpowell:
> > da'i le ninmu cu ponse le pano rijno sicni gi'e cirko pa ri i xu
> > ny na cikygau lo tergu'i gi'e lumci lo zdani gi'e junri sisku
> > co'u lo nu facki
> >
> > Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she
> > not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she
> > finds it?
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1. You don't "awaken" a lamp in my universe. I read that as
> > "become concious of the light". Not sure what goes there, but
> > please not cikygau.
>
> How could it possibly mean "become conscious of the lamp"? {cikygau}
> can only mean "x1 makes x2 awake", that's as standard as you can get
> with lujvo. "Become conscious of" is {sajbi'o}. {cikna} and {sanji}
> are different things.

Sorry; that was me being confused.

> As for lamps being awake when they light up, I welcome other
> suggestions.

Something with sazri and/or cfari and/or gasnu.

> I used this already in the Petit Prince translation.

La la la la not listening!

> I don't see much of a problem in extending cikna to non-living things:
> "x1 is awake/alert/conscious/switched-on/functioning".

I see your point.

> > 2. It seems to me that that doesn't fit the current definition of
> > co'u. It certainly doesn't fit my understanding of it. The current
> > definition says "at the ending point of". It seems to me that that
> > means that "broda co'u le nu brode" is "broda occurs at the ending
> > point of le nu brode" or maybe "at the same time as the ending of le
> > nu brode".
>
> The current definition of co'u as tcita is as you say "at the ending
> point of ...", but I propose that it should be "ending at ...", which
> agrees better with usage and with all other non-ZAhO tcita.

OK, *that's* the kind of thing I want to see in the definition please,
as a key-word or otherwise. It should be easy for someone *not*
familiar with the issues to understand exactly what your definitions
mean.

> > This is not a criticism per se, since your definitions are more
> > consistent with the rest of za'o, I just wanted to make sure it was
> > pointed out and if I'm right and this does constitute a change, it
> > is clearly marked as such.
>
> Yes, all ZAhO as tcita definitions are a change with respect to CLL
> (but not always wrt usage).

OK. Please make that more clear.

-Robin