Return-Path: Message-Id: <9106062118.AA02484@relay2.UU.NET> From: cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson Date: Thu Jun 6 20:27:04 1991 To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Subject: Chapter 4 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jun 6 20:27:04 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson It's me again. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but every time I look real closely at a lesson, I find some questions. Today I flipped through lesson 4, and here are one or two of the questions I have. First off, in the elision rules, page 4-17, it says, near the bottom of the page, that kei can always be elided before an explicit cu. I'm not so sure. We know that cu can occur within a tanru, so I can see cases where it would matter. Let's see if I can cook up an example. Um, maybe not. I guess I was wrong. I won't delete the question because I might be right and not smart enough to prove it. This way, the rest of you all can chew on it, and maybe figure it out. The other weirdness I found is on page 4-28. It gives the translation for (sexually neutral) parent as 'se panzi'. Now, from the place structure of 'panzi', that could only mean the mother, since panzi is defined as "x1 is an offspring of mother x2 and father x3". For father, we'd need 'te panzi' (assuming I remember my converters right). Defining places for mother and father separately in these family relationships seems a little weird and non-Lojbanic (as if I have a real feel for what's Lojbanic). It would make more sense to have one place for "parent(s)" and use a compound sumti to indicate both. Then, 'se panzi' would work quite nicely for sing. and pl. parent(s), and all will be right with the world. Ditto for bersa and tixnu. After all, bruna has only one 'parent' place. I think this is one of the few times where I'm actually right about a thing-to-be-changed in Lojban. This has an elegant fix. Oof. Just turned the page. Page 4-29, translation of 'spofa' as "... is broken/inoperable..." I suppose "inoperative" would be better? Sorry to pick nits on a public forum; it just hit me in mid-critique. Am I driving everyone nuts with these little dumb questions (except la nitcion., who is, of course, already nuts .uibu)? ~mark