Using "nu"
Ben Foppa
knowledge) trying to translate "Lucid dreams are beautiful" into
Lojban for a forum signature, and this is what I came up with:
melbi fa lonu lo senva cu sanji le sevzi
Aiming for "Self-aware dreams are beautiful", or, more precisely:
"beautiful are dreams which are aware of the self".
Thus, my questions are:
1. Is this correct? I'm a little confused as to how to turn "lo senva
cu sanji le sevzi" into a sumti.
2. I'm thinking that not using "fa" (i.e. "lonu lo senva cu sanji le
sevzi cu melbi") wouldn't work, because it's sort of vague as to what
the "nu" encompasses. Is this correct?
3. Is my use of "lo" twice correct? How would meanings change if I
used:
-"le" and then "lo" (would it imply that we're talking about
specific instances when any lucid dreams occurred?)
-"lo" and then "le" (would it imply that we're talking about any
instances when specific lucid dreams occurred?)
-"le" twice (would it imply that we're talking about specific
instances where specific lucid dreams occurred?)
I realize that's quite a few questions, and I appreciate any partial
feedback or responses, as well as answers to all of them.
Alex Rozenshteyn
I'd have gone with {lo sevzi sanji senva cu melbi}; it has a nice ring.
What you wrote would translate something like "Beautiful is the event of a dream being aware of the self"
Your precise statement is translated as {melbi fa lo senva poi sanji lo sevzi}
In response to your questions:
1. It's correct, but it may not be what you mean. Before you can turn a bridi into a sumti, you have to figure out more specifically what you mean (and first turn it into a selbri).
2. I think your use of two {cu}s is correct, but I tend to avoid {cu} and stick with terminators like {ku} and {kei}; I'm pretty certain that {lonu lo senva cu sanji le sevzi kei ku melbi} means what you want and allows you to avoid {fa}.
3. I'm still working on understanding {le}, but from what I've gathered, you should use {lo} almost all the time. I expect there will be people who can give you (and me) a better understanding of {lo} vs {le} here soon.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
--
Remo Dentato
>
> melbi fa lonu lo senva cu sanji le sevzi
>
> Aiming for "Self-aware dreams are beautiful", or, more precisely:
> "beautiful are dreams which are aware of the self".
It seem to me: "the event of the dreamer being conscious of himself is
beautiful". In other words, you deem beautiful the fact that a dreamer
is (or can be) conscious of himself.
If you meant, instead, that "lucid dreaming" is beautiful in itself, I
would go with: {lo nu sanji senva cu melbi}.
If are the "dreams" that are beautiful, then you won't need {nu} at
all: {lo sanji selsne cu melbi}
I think the tanru {sanji senva} ("x1 makes a conscious type of dream
about x2") renders "lucid dream" quite precisely as in lucid dreams
one is aware of the the fact that he is dreaming, not necessarily he
is aware of his ego.
I still have a problem with {melbi} since it is meant for aesthetic
judgment, I suspect that you meant "beautiful" in some other sense
(maybe {pluka}?) for which there's not a direct translation in Lojban.
Note that dreams can't be aware of anything and they do not have a
"self". Only dreamers do.
> 1. Is this correct? I'm a little confused as to how to turn "lo senva
> cu sanji le sevzi" into a sumti.
It is grammatically correct but I don't think is what you meant. I'm
not sure why you want to convert it into a sumti but the easiest way
is probably to transform it in "the dreamer who is conscious of self"
-> {lo senva poi sanji le sevzi}
> 2. I'm thinking that not using "fa" (i.e. "lonu lo senva cu sanji le
> sevzi cu melbi") wouldn't work, because it's sort of vague as to what
> the "nu" encompasses. Is this correct?
Lojban grammar is never ambiguous. in you case is:
{ << lonu lo senva cu sanji le sevzi >> cu melbi}
{nu} (and all the other abstractions} take an entire bridi so you
simply stop before the second {cu}.
When you're in doubt, try to use jboski (or jbofihe) to check how the
sentence parses. Use the terminator {kei} to define where the
abstraction ends if the default rules give you something different
from what you want.
> 3. Is my use of "lo" twice correct? How would meanings change if I
> used:
{le} is specific in the sense that you're talking about a dream
(and/or dreamer) you have in mind (and possibly identified by the
context of what is being said).
{lo} is more generic but almost always correct. Stay with {lo} as much
as possible and you'll never be wrong :) (I still have problems
following this rule myself).
Enjoy your holiday trip to Lojbanistan :)
mu'o mi'e remod.
ianek
one would like to happen and ponders it, as in "I have a dream". The
sleeping kind of dream I'd translate as {sipxanri}.
The main problem here is that the gismu definitions are written in an
ambiguous language, but synonyms in them are meant to disambiguate.
You wouldn't call an animal {lo stela} if it's {lo pinpedi}. In my
rarbau "sleeping dream" and "daydream/reverie" are completely
different words.
By the way, I've had a half-lucid dream this night. I started to fly
and I knew that it's possible only in a dream, but I didn't care much.
It was a good flight, even if I was mildly concious that somewhere
else I lay on a bed.
mu'o mi'e ianek
On Jun 27, 8:43 am, Remo Dentato <rdent...@gmail.com> wrote:
Stela Selckiku
> What exactly are the rules of "nu"? I'm (with my beginner Lojban
> knowledge) trying to translate "Lucid dreams are beautiful" into
> Lojban for a forum signature, and this is what I came up with:
>
> melbi fa lonu lo senva cu sanji le sevzi
>
> Aiming for "Self-aware dreams are beautiful", or, more precisely:
> "beautiful are dreams which are aware of the self".
What you've written is: "It is beautiful when a dreamer is aware of the self."
> Thus, my questions are:
>
> 1. Is this correct? I'm a little confused as to how to turn "lo senva
> cu sanji le sevzi" into a sumti.
You did indeed turn that into a sumti! A sumti from a bridi, isn't it
magical? You can put them inside of each other forever.
> 2. I'm thinking that not using "fa" (i.e. "lonu lo senva cu sanji le
> sevzi cu melbi") wouldn't work, because it's sort of vague as to what
> the "nu" encompasses. Is this correct?
No you are wrong. It is never the slightest bit vague what the {nu}
encompasses. That is precisely what we pride ourselves upon in this
village. Your fa-less version means exactly the same as the
rearranged one. When you encounter the second {cu}, the {nu} is
assumed to be done because a bridi cannot have two selbri.
mi'e la stela selckiku
mu'o
Michael Turniansky
really a [se] pacna. A se senva is something that is basically a
story line in your head, whether true or false, typically not under
your conscious control. A xanri is something that exists typically
only in the mind of someone, (despite the way it's written in gi'uste
which was done to avoid the le/lo problem pre-xorlo), although it may
be an ideal conception of a real thing, and can very easily be under
conscious control.
--gejyspa
ianek
daydream can be lucid or not.
mu'o mi'e ianek