From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Tue Jan 28 11:07:37 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Tue, 28 Jan 92 11:07 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA18363; Tue, 28 Jan 92 08:54:43 EST Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA18325; Tue, 28 Jan 92 08:37:00 -0500 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA29055; Tue, 28 Jan 92 08:08:12 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA14682; Tue, 28 Jan 92 07:55:36 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (via uunet.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA19496; Tue, 28 Jan 92 06:29:28 -0500 Message-Id: <9201281129.AA19496@relay2.UU.NET> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 6050; Tue, 28 Jan 92 06:28:14 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 3855; Tue, 28 Jan 92 06:27:07 EST Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 22:24:50 +1100 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn Subject: repai X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Cc: nsn@ee.mu.oz.au To: John Cowan Status: RO Damned if we haven't seen the first occurence of the whole net overturning one not-unweighty (ti'ezo'o) Lojbab. I'm damned anyway, of course. earth. "ce" or "a". > mulno fa le tsani .ebo le terdi .e piro loi jenmi girzu pe ri I wondered about "ebo" - it looked as if you were trying to group, which is significant syntactically but not, I think, semantically, since "e" is associative. Having read your note about "ri" I see what you were trying to do, but I'm dubious whether it works. I'm very dubious about "jenmi girzu" - I only know the word "tz'va'ot" in this context, so it could be that your translation is accurate, but I would much prefer to translate it as "so'irmei" or "(so'ir)xabju". > . . . I am fond of using afterthought > possessives (as oppoed to"le vo'a tarmi"), especially here where it's > actually a place, and because in Hebrew the possessive is a declension > affecting chiefly the end of the word also, or else another word > afterwards. Besides, you can be so much more specific with "po/po'e/pe" if > you use afterthought. Note also that I had to attach the "ta'i" to "loi > remna" otherwise you get "'god' is-a-creator...with-form...", which again > isn't what we want. Is there a better way to do this? I agree about the afterthought possessive, particularly here. Another way to do the "ta'i" is .i tarmi be vo'a finti fa la cevni loi remna I can't see a way to get the word order as the original though - "co" won't do, because he is a "finti" not a "tarmi". > .i seri'a loza'i se tarmi le tarmi be la cevni cu finti fo'a (???) I would definitely prefer a "kei" before (or instead of) "cu" - this was about the hardest line in the whole passage to make sense of - in fact, first I thought the whole sentence was a tagged sumti, then I missed the fact that everything up to the "cu" was governed by the tag, and thought "le tarmi" was the x1. What you've written is grammatical, but it confused me. > Again remembered "vo'a". Is it okay to use it inside a "noi" clause to > refer to the x1 outside, or does that have to be flagged? Seems right to me. > > .i cesto'edapma (/?!/) fa la cevni le zemoi djedi gi'e cesri'a ri ki'u lenu > ca ri cadysti piro lei se gunka poi la cevni cu finti je zbasu > Holy-opposite-of-curses "god" the seventh day and holy-makes the-last > justified-by the-event: during the-last idly-ceases all-of the-mass-of > that-worked-on which-rest. "god" invents-and-makes. > Again that "blesses" lujvo. Should that be "poi" or "noi"? Is it okay to > use "ri'a" in "cesria", or do I need a different causative? How about "cesygalfi" (don't know the rafsi offhand)? Kolin c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk