From cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson Mon Jul 22 15:32:26 1991
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Date: Mon Jul 22 15:32:26 1991
Message-Id: <9107221728.AA24448@relay2.UU.NET>
To: cellar!marquidf
Cc: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
In-Reply-To: cellar!marquidf@uunet.UU.NET's message of Sun, 21 Jul 91 17:29:23 EDT <oVeg61w164w@cellar.UUCP>
Subject: Completely Destroying My Reputation...
Status: RO

I'm probably one of the less-qualified people to critique this, but I will
anyway, if only to give the heavyweights an opportunity to kill two birds
with one stone by correcting us both at once.

 
>pasosopanac zemast renoded
>1991year    7month 20 day

Last I heard, dates were kind of flexible, so I suppose this isn't
horrible.  But bear in mind that you've got three cmene there in a row,
without so much as a "la" anyplace.  I'm not sure if that's grammatical.
 
>la xanict zvati le ckafyzda me'e "kairos"
>The Sixday at the coffeenest named "Kairos"
>Saturday at Cafe' Kairos

You're thinking in English/Esperanto.  Your sentence means "The Sixnight is
at the coffehouse, (and is?) named "kairos."  The first sumti in the
sentence, "la xanict." is the x1 place of "zvati."  This sentence isn't an
observative, you're telling me where this "xanict." thing is located.  The
use of "me'e" attaches to "zvati" in this situation, so it implies that the
act of being at the coffehouse or something is somehow named "kairos."  You
should use "beme'e" or "peme'e," depending on whether you follow me or la
nitcion.  Also, it should likely be "zo .kairos." to quote the word.
Since you're just trying to set your action, maybe a better sentence would
be "ca la xanict. vi le ckafyzda beme'e zo kairos."  I'm not sure that's
grammatical, though ("during the 'sixnight,' at the coffeenest named
'kairos.'")
 
>mi na ca lifri le zabna ri .e mi .a'ije.ai na [cru]dunku vo'e 
>I don't now experience that which is favorable to me and I (effort,intention) 
>won't (speak-)anguish about it
>I don't feel good tonight but I'm not going to bitch about it.

This sentence game me mounds of trouble.  All through, I think you're
mixing up ".e" and ".ije" and "je."  If I remember and understand aright
(fat chance!)  ".e" joins sumti, making the of the bridi asserted for both
of them ("mi .e do cu tavla" == I and you speak.  Not working together on
it, as that would be "mi joi do" == "mi'o").  You also do weird things with
your sentence structure.  "zabna" means "favorable connotation of...used
by...for...."  This isn't how you're using it.  "lifri" has only one place,
you've given it three (assuming that the ".e" in your sentence is really an
".ije").  Breaking the sentences before the ".e," we get "I don't now
experience the favorable connotation (of something) ???? the (same)
favorable connotation."  "ri" refers back to the last anaphorable sumti,
"le zabna."  Perhaps "le xamgu" would be a better gismu?  I'm not sure.
I'm not real good at gismu.  You don't need "je" between the two UI words,
they join without it.  (are you allowed to use it anyway?)  Also, remember
that in tanru (and lujvo as well), it's the *last* root that counts.  So,
if you use "crudunku," that means "speaking-anguish" or something.  "mi na
dunku" means "I am not anguished/distressed."  But you just said you were!
That's still okay, because you could be saying that you weren't feeling
good, but it wasn't really bothering you.  But that's not what you were
meaning, given your translation.  Maybe dunkcru?  Or better still, pante.
So, how about this version: "mi na ca lifri le xamgu .ije mi na pante fi
ri." (I do not now experience something good, and I do not complain about
it.)  Still doesn't capture the English sense of "feeling good."
 
>.i glare je jaurvacri 
>(observed) hot and water-air
>It's hot and humid (weather). (author's note: 97f/39c)

This looks pretty good.  Note, though, that this is not equivalent to "it's
hot and it's humid."  That would require "gi'e."  This is more like
"(something is) hot-and-(water-air)."  Not bad.

>.i su'e pare remna cu ca zvati ti 
>at most twelve persons are now at here
>There are a dozen people here tonight, at most.

Okay.  The "cu" could be dropped here, but it sounds good.  Maybe "prenu"
would be more general than "remna," but that's academic and a matter of
style.  BUT, you must use "le/lo remna," otherwise it's a brivla and gets
confusing.  Using "ti" isn't necessarily as clear as you might be.  I think
".i su'e pare lo remna cavi zvati" (At-most 12 really-humans here-now
are-at) might be better.
 
>.i mi caca'a kakne le nu cusku lojbo
>I now actually am able to do the event of expressing Lojban
>I can really work in Lojban now.

That's kind of a malglico usage of "ca'a," I think.  (what do I know?)
Also, your tanru is backwards.  It means "expressing kind of logical
language."  I doubt you'd have us believe you can be a language!  Maybe "mi
ca kakne le nu lojbo cusku" (I now am-capable-of the-event-of
lojban-expressing) or even "mi ca kakne le nu cusku bau la lojban." (I now
am-capable-of the-event-of expressing in-language Lojban).
 
>ni'o la lusis je la marias cu tavla vo'a
>(new) Lucy and Maria talk to each other (x1)
>Lucy and Maria are talking to each other.

Again, you're using "je" funny.  I think you mean "la lusis. .e la marias."
You could probably use "ri" instead of "vo'a."  Which brings up a question
which has long bothered me.  How would I distinguish in a sentence like
"ko'a tavla ko'a" between "it1/they1 talk(s) to itself/themselves" and
"they1 talk to one another"?  And does "ri" work okay in a sentence like
this, with a compound sumti?
 
>.i la lusis pa'a ca citka xiltitna'a [glibau "doughnut"] 
>Lucy also now eats a wheel-sweet-bread [English, "doughnut"]
>Lucy is also eating a doughnut now.

Using "ca" here implies that it's happening at the same time as the
previous sentence.  This may well be true (table manners aren't so stuck-up
at coffeehouses), but it seems less likely in later sentences.  I don't
know that "pa'a" is really helpful in this sentence, except that it sounds
like the English structure.  Actually, I doubt it's right.  Remember, it's
a modal, a BAI word.  It's not an discursive, which is how you're using it.
There's probably a discursive (UI or something) which has the meaning
you're looking for.  And remember, you need that "le" before "xiltitna'a"
or it's a brivla, and you want a sumti.  Don't think of "le" as "the," we
leave out "the" lots of times in English where it's needed in Lojban.
 
>.i piro mi'a cu zukte zo'o ka masno
>all-of us-not-you act (activate humor spin) the quality of slow
>We are all moving kind o' slow.

That's not the right usage of ka masno.  If it were a sumti (you missed the
"le" again), it would be what you're all doing.  Doing the quality of
slowness doesn't really work for me.  You want *how* you're all acting.
For that you need some modal or another.  Also, using zo'o here seems to
imply to me that you're not really moving slowly, but in fact are
moving very fast and are speaking ironically.
 
>ni'o lo nanmu pu cusku le si'o zoi "mocha" 
>(new) a man expressed the idea that "mocha"
>se krasi be la banxauaii 
>originated from the Hawaiian language
>A man said that the word "mocha" is from the Hawaiian.

Using "pu" here means that it happened before the current moment in the
story.  This is likely what you want, but maybe not.  Just pointing it out.
You can't use "le si'o" to mean "the idea that...." in the sense that you
are.  Remember, "si'o" has the same grammar as "nu."  Also, to quote one
word, use "zo" not "zoi".  "zoi" takes paired delimiters and all that.  I'm
not positive you need "be" there.  And "le" probably works better than "la"
here, since you're making a le'avla, not a cmene.  Perhaps "ni'o lo nanmu
pu cusku lu zo moka. se krasi le banxauaii. li'u"  (A man expressed
"'mocha' has-source the hawaiian-language").  Bleah.  I don't like the
required use of direct quote.  I tried using "jei," but didn't come up with
anything grammatical.  Anything better out there?
 
>.i mi pu na djuno la'edi'u
>I did not know (previous reference)
>I didn't know that.

This looks good.  Maybe, maybe, you might want to use "pupu" instead  of
"pu" to indicate the pluperfect past, because the man told you also in the
past. 
 
>.i mi pu pensi poi ke'o se krasi be la banritalian
>I thought such-that that originated from the Italian language
>I thought it was from Italian.

Again, just maybe "pupu" would be in order, but that's a matter of taste
and style.  I think you typoed on "ke'o," which is a vocative asking for a
repeat.  You never assigned "zo moka." to a pro-sumti, and it's too far
away for "ri" (which would hit "le banxauaii."), so you might want to use
"ra" and hope for the best.  You can't use "poi" to modify a selbri.  "poi"
sticks on to sumti.  You were thinking too Englishly.  Again, the "be" is
superfluous, I think.  And why "le banritalian" when you had "le
banxauaii"?  It's not really consistent.  Either "le banritali." and "le
banxauaii." or "le banritalian." and "le banxauaian."  And I think for the
last two you'd have to use "la" 'cause they end in consonants and so
they're cmene, in which case why bother with the le'avla construction?  I'm
not sure that the structure of "pensi" has what you want, unfortunately.
Besides, you don't want "pensive," you want "believe."  So perhaps ".i mi
pupu krici le jei le banritali. krasi ra" (I had believed the-truth-value
the-italian-language is-the-source-of something-mentioned-before).  I have
my doubts as to this use of "jei," though.
 
>ni'o la djysten goi ko'a ca co'a tavla fi la syr,gauuen 
>(new) Justin who is he-1 now starts talking about Sir Gowen.
>Justin just started talking about Sir Gowen.

If you use "ca," you imply simultaneity with previous occurences.  Best to
leave it out and let story time proceed apace.  He said it afterwards.  Or
did the use of the tenses in the previous sentences screw up the time
origin?  I'm not sure about the grammar of co'a, so I'll not comment on it.
Otherwise, it looks okay.
 
>.i e. ko'a se tavla lu -- ko sisti -- li'u la .ouyn
>And he-1 gets told "make-it-true-that-you stop" by Owen
>Owen tells him "stop".

tavla hasn't got a place for the thing said.  It looks like "you stop!"
told him about Owen!  You want a command, anyway.  Hmmm.  Looks like minde
doesn't have the places I need.  Maybe a tanru is in order: ".ije ko'a teke
minde cusku lu ko sisti li'u la ouyn." (and he1
is-commandingly-expressed-to "you stop!" (by)  Owen).  Maybe minde bacru?
 
>ni'o la stiv je la bet puze'a klama ti
>(new) Steve and Beth for a period before came here.
>Steve and Beth came in for a little bit.

Perhaps "joi" would be a better connective, since they came in together.
Or not.  But you should use ".e" and not "je". 
 
>.i stiv goi ko'a pu djica le nu ko'a tavla la tcip la ko'a
>zgika sanze'a 
>Steve who is he-1 wanted the event he-1 talks to Chip about his-1 music 
>sound-increaser
>Steve wanted to talk to Chip about his (Steve's) amplifier.

Well, you're re-assigning "ko'a" which is your prerogative as speaker.
Since you're not running low on pro-sumti, maybe you should use "ko'e" in
case someone misses the re-assignment.  You missed the "la" before "stiv."
and it should be "*le* ko'a zgika sanze'a".  Otherwise, it gets things
across.  Be careful with those tenses tho. 
 
>.i seba'i la'edi'u la stiv pu lebna leko'a sanze'a la kairos
>instead of the last thing, Steve took his-1 amplifier from Kairos
>Failing that, Steve took his amplifier back from Kairos.

This is probably an okay use of seba'i, getting across something like the
meaning you want, but it's risky.  You're using it as a discursive, which
it isn't, but are probably getting something close to the right meaning
anyway, by luck.  Remember what BAI words are!  You're mixing up tenses
here, I'm not sure when this stuff happens.  You'd do better to leave it
out altogether, and let story time take over.  It's not entirely obvious
that this sanze'a is the same thing as the zgike sanze'a in the previous
sentence, but that's not really risky.  Maybe  a "ra" here wouldn't go
amiss.
 
>ni'o la endis je leko'a xlipe'o poi 
>(new) Andy and his girlfriend such that:
>ke'o ponse xunre kerfa cu ca klama
>she has red hair -- come
>Andy and his girlfriend, who has red hair, have come in.

I assume you mean "ke'a" and not "ke'o".  Also, leko'a xlipe'o is still
Steve's girlfriend!  You should use "le ri."  Unless Andy has many
girlfriends and you're telling me which one he's brought (the redhead), it
would be better to use "noi" instead of "poi."  Again, watch what you're
doing with the tenses and connectives.  Also note the "girlfriend is a very
English construction.  If you don't mind losing a lot of the cultural
meaning, fetpe'o would likely be slightly better understood.  But to get
the real meaning across, you're gonna have to mention "love" or
"relationship" or something.  Probably "leri prami" (his lover--no sex (or
gender) implied!) would be best. And don't forget the article before xunre
kerfa.  Otherwise it means "she is (possessing-type-of-red) type-of hair".
Not what you want.  Maybe "ni'o la .endis. joi leri prami noi [ke'a] ponse
lo xunre kerfa cu klama" ([new para] Andy teamed-with the-last's lover
who-incidentally-is-such-that [she] possesses red-hair come(s)).
 
>ni'o la patsis.klain cu sanga lu lezu'o cadzu ba la midycte li'u
>(new) Patsy Cline is singing "Walking After Midnight"
>ra'i le zgidribra 
>from source the music-ribbon-apparatus
>Patsy Cline is singing "W.A.M." on the tape player.

You can probably use "ra'i" the way you are, so that's okay.  Note that
you're implying that Patsi Cline is singing *the words* "walking after
midnight" (or maybe "lezu'o cadzu ba le midycte"?) from the tape player.
Maybe using "la" to indicate the name of the song?  And I get the image
that Patsy's standing inside the apparatus and singing!  But I don't see
an easy way around it.  I'd probably have come up with a very similar
sentence.
 
>.i patsis na'o sanga loi driselsanga poi glibau zoi blues do'u
>Patsy typically sings those sad-songs which (English) are "blues"
>Patsy sings sad songs which are called "the blues" in English.

Don't forget "la" before a name!  I don't know the grammar of "na'o," so
I'll assume you're using it correctly.  It sounds right to me, anyway.
Your relative clause, however, it a bit weird.  It implies that the songs
are English-language spoken by "blues" or something.  Better, ".i la patsis
na'o sanga loi driselsanga poi se cmene zo bluz. bau le glibau"  (Patsy
typically sings the mass-of sad-things-sung which-restrictively-are
(something) is-named "blues" in-language English-language.)
 
>ni'o cabna fa .endis je ko'a xlipe'o cu cliva 
>(new) now Andy and his girlfriend leave
>Andy and his girlfriend are leaving now.

Too many selbri in this bridi.  Somthing is Now, and Andy's leaving ...
I'm lost.  How about "ni'o la .endis. joi leri prami ca cliva"?  ([new]
Andy and his lover now leave).  You missed "la" and "le," and are still
talking about Steve.  Using "ca" here (your cabna is incorrectly placed, I
think), gives a simultaneity you don't mean.  Better to leave it out
(delete from my sentence.)
 
>.i co'o se cusku
>partings are expressed
>We say goodbye.

Remember, what follows "co'o" is what you're saying goodbye *to*, unless
otherwise noted (as with "mi'e")  And it sounds like you're saying goodbye
to the listener (me), because you didn't quote it.  How about "zo co'o se
cusku" ("goodbye" is expressed).  A simple change, but an important one.
 
>ni'o pa drata xunkrexli cu ca zvati 
>(new) one other red-hair-girl is now here
>Another red haired girl is here now.

Do you need a "le" before "pa" here?  I'm not sure.  I'll assume not.
Looks decent, then.  Note that "here" is not expressed at all, but is the
default, I think.  Otherwise, you'd want "vi" someplace.  Take care with
"nixli," as many tend to have different definitions (e.g. a seven-year-old
or something.)  I might use "ninmu" (woman) to be sure.  
 
>.i mi pensi loi nixli cu nelci le kerfa xunre
>I think the-mass-of-thouse-which-really-are girl like hair red
>I think the girls all like red hair.

Take care not to reverse your tanru.  Looks like girls like hairy red
things otherwise.  Again, "pensi" is probably not the right word, you want
krici.  Also, you have two selbri again with no way of distinguishing which
is the main one.  You need an abstractor someplace.  Maybe ".i mi krici
leza'i loi nixli cu nelci le xunre kerfa" (I believe the-state-of
the-mass-of-girls like red-hair).  Is za'i better than jei?  I'm not sure I
like this one either.
 
>ni'o leli'i ciska cu sutra sesi'u le mi mu'e cilre lojbo 
>(new) the experience of writing, fast helps my learning Lojban
>Writing is helping me learn Lojban fast(er).

Either you've reversed a tanru again, or (more likely) you missed an
article (I learningly am-a-loglan?).  Also, it looks like the experience is
fast, and somehow as part of that predicate it helps something.  Remember,
modals aren't predicates!  I also don't know about using mu'e together with
mi.  Perhaps "ni'o leli'i ciska cu sutra sidju le nu mi lojbo cilre" ([new]
the-experience-of writing quickly-helps the-event-of I Lojbanically-learn).
Or "... mi cilre la lojban." (I learn the-thing-called Lojban).
 
>.i mi pu lifri lemu'e pa'a cilre la banresperanton 
>I experienced the achievement also learning Esperanto.
>I also experienced this while learning Esperanto.

Can you have lemu'e without a selbri?  I don't think so.  Maybe just refer
back with "ra" to the earlier experience?  And "pa'a" again seems
misplaced.  As John Cowan is fond of pointing out, Lojban is only
secondarily a word-order language, so you can't just blithely place modals
where they "sound" right and expect them to mean what you want.  Can
le'avla end in consonants?  I thought they couldn't.  I think you're
thinking of the E-o accusative too much.  How about "mi ji'a pu lifri
la'edi'u ca lenu mi pu cilre la banresperanto" (I (additionally)
experienced the-previous during the event of I learned Esperanto).  I'm
fairly certain that la'edi'u is the wrong thing here, but I couldn't think
of anything better.
 
>.i mi zabna cilre tai ti
>I favorably learn by method this
>I learn well this way.

Looks okay, though we're not sure about what "ti" is.  You can't be vague
in Lojban in the same way that you can in English (that is, you can be
vague, but not necessarily so glibly).
 
>ni'o mi caba tcidu lojban lemi lojbo kasrcku 
>(new) I now-will read lojban from my lojban together-book
>I'm going off to read some Lojban from my assembled Lojban book.

What does "caba" mean?  Now/later?  I think it's probably legal and has
decent semantics, but likely it's not what you mean.  I'd just stick with
"ba."  You can't use "lojban" just like that without a "la" in front of it.
And anyway, you're actually reading something which is written in Lojban,
so say so.  Also, look at your translation.  You have "assembled" modifying
"lojban book."  If we take lujvo as binding more tightly than tanru (which
makes sense), your lojban sentence has the modification the other way
'round.  I'd interpret that as "my lojban binder" or some such.  Still
okay, but not what you had in the English.  I'd have "ni'o mi bazi tcidu zo'e
pe bau la lojban. lemi lojbo kasrcku" ([new] I later-immediately read
(something) restrictively in-language thing-called "Lojban" from my
lojbanic together-book), leaving your tanru/lujvo untouched.  I'm not
positive I'm allowed to do that with zo'e.  Perhaps "da" would be more
correct?  And does "bazi" give the right semantics?
 
>.i co'o cabna
>partings (observed) now
>Bye now.

Again, you're confusing the vocative co'o with a sumti.  It isn't one.  I'm
not sure how to put just what your English has into Lojban, but I don't
think it's the way you have it.  Probably just "co'o".
 

Sorry to rip into you so hard, but the others will probably whale on me
just as much.  It's a good start, and I probably should get on some serious
writing myself.  Try not to think so much in terms of English and
Esperanto, and concentrate more on the grammar.

~mark