Message-Id: <9202042030.AA13533@relay2.UU.NET>
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 1992 15:26:39 EST
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Subject:      Wallops #6
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu's message of Fri,
              31 Jan 1992 22:15:59 +1100
Status: RO

I've finally scanned through all of Wallops #6 (the "religion" thingy).
One problem with huge amounts of text is that reading it as well as
critiquing it appears quite daunting.  Thus, I'll have only a few comments.

For starters, in some way I think I liked this one better than most
of the stuff I've seen, I think because of the heavy (and very good) use of
the UIs.  The article itself was interesting in the first place, and lent
itself well to an informal style, and the dialogue format encourages lots
of attitudinals.

There were quite a few typos (that I noticed; I didn't check every blasted
cmavo); often fairly straightforward ({co} instead of {cu}, missing {cu},
misspelled gismu, stuff like that).  Too much nit-picking about word-choice
will drive everyone nuts, so I'll keep that low.  Lessee....

>di'e pagbu la'elu lei xelso ranmi li'u pefi'e la nikos.tsiforos. noi natmrxelso
>xamfinti je pilno be le to'e ritli jaitai cusku bei lenu larsku zi'ene la
>1900nan ce'o la 1970 .itu'e

Wouldn't a lujvo, {natmyxelso}, work better than the pseudo-le'avla
{natmrxelso}?  Someone else pointed out that {xelso} isn't anything in
Greek; I don't presume to speak any Greek, so you'll have to set me
straight on this.  {xamfinti} makes me think {xamgu finti}, not {xajmi
finti}.  Bleah.  Nothing for it though.  Do you want {to'e ritli}?  Maybe
{na'e} or {no'e}?  Isn't there a way to indicate ranges?  Your dates imply
that he wrote in 1900 and then in 1970, but in between he wasn't doing
anything.  Leastways your translation does.

You translate "hate for destroying" into {lenu xebni semu'i le nunspo}.
The English is unclear whether that's the meaning or {lenu xebni le nunspo}
is ("hatred, resulting in destroying" vs. "hatred of destruction").  I
assume you're working from either your opinion or a clearer expression in
the original.  You have "struggle for surviving" (in w-f-w, "fight
motivated by surviving") as {lenu dapma mu'i le nunrevni}.  {dapma} is
"curse", not "fight".

>.i le lidja ba'o cusku le ve tcica do va'onai le du be vo'a .i ra mipri
>ckasu gi'e jarco bacru lu .i'edoi se xaurfunca li'u

I don't like {le du be vo'a}.  The whole reason why there's no gismu for
the English "is" is that it's too broad a concept (remember E-prime?).
What exactly does this mean?  Its form?  Its implementation?  The things
associated with it?  *Say* so.  I'd go for {tarmi}, 'cept that implies
physical shape.

>.i le se cusku cu xlali .ice le kulnu tcaci zo'u .a'o.ianai citka le tance
>gi'e .e'u muvdu vo'a le cazi stuzi .iku'i .ie.i'enai le selsku cu jetnu
>.ilu do ja'aba morsi to'i le lijda cu bacru toi .icabo lei xrula cu makcu ca
>le vensa .ice lei cmari'e cu flecu le rijno .ice lei re'urjupcarbra cu carna
>ja'e lenu cpina leka sumne .ice lei citni'u cu dasni le matli pastu .icajeba
>melbi fa roda .i go'i fa lei gusni ve'usni .e lei karce .e lei nurma ctisalci
>.e lei toldi poi dansu ru'u loi gusni li'u

Maybe {palci} instead of {xlali}.  I think of {xlali} more in the sense of
"no good" (i.e. bad for a purpose) than plain "bad".  And this case really
does border on moral baditude.  The long, almost run-on sentences do a good
job capturing the feeling (BTW, just 'cause I didn't comment on the
dialogue before doesn't mean I didn't really like the attitudinals...).
One thing, though:  where you use {gusni}, it looks to me like {te gusni}
or {tergusni} would go better.  We use "lights" elliptically to mean "light
sources" in English; I don't think it washes in Lojban.

> .ibaza re remyma'utei no prenu
>tadni tu'a do to ma .ianai tadni le riryriryrirni toi

missing {cu}.  Should be {no prenu cu tadni tu'a do li'osa'a}, or you get
a tanru.

>.i le lijda cu denpa la'edi'u .i denpa lenu pe'a renro do le to'e pacna
>jinto condi po'a .icabo dunda le xance do

Here's a rare case wherein {di'u} is better than {la'edi'u}.  Religion
wasn't waiting for you to be be-lucked by something bad, she was waiting
for *the sentence* "Eek, dammit.  I'm belucked by something bad."  So
{di'u}, to my eye, looks better.  More precisely, she's waiting for *you to
say, "Eek, dammit..."*, in which case the previous sentence should have {do
cusku....} and stuff.  If you do it this way, then {la'edi'u} works, but as
it stands I think I like {di'u} better.  It's obviously very debatable; I'm
not fully convinced myself.

>.ilu ko kansa mi li'u                          lu ki'a li'u

Maybe {.uanai}, not {ki'a}.  very debatable.  is he asking "waitasec, I
don't follow what you said" or "I don't think I caught that right."  Hmm.
looking at the English, I think {ki'a} is better, as you have it.

>lu to'unai .e'o ko jimpe .i do baje'u morsi .iku'i tu'a mi rinka lenu mo
>.i rinka lenu mo .u'a li'u

The doubled question is even more confusing in Lojban than in English.
Maybe {rinka dapoi mi rinka ke'a}, to parallel the English.  Or something
similar with {bu'a} and {cei}.

For referencing the "Visitez les Canaries", maybe {mela'ezoi} instead of
{mezoi}.

>ni'o la'eda'u ca'a tcini .i zo'e pu cusku lu le lijda cumelo kagni poi fatri
>loi curple co pa'urponse be lo na'e zasti kuncpastu .i mi na cmemo'i fi lego'i
>.iku'i pe'i se cusku mi .iji'a no te fatri cu cpacu lo prali befi tu'a le
>curple .i le turni kanmi be le kagni cuku'i romei le xamgu citka .ipe'i
>di'uji'a puza se cusku mi .ikau .i'a mi se jdadapma

I think {da} works better than {zo'e} in the second jufra.  {zo'e} is too
vague.  You're asserting "There exists an X that said...", and I think {da}
makes the point better.  {xamgu citka} means that they eat well in the
sense that they're good at it, not that they have a lot to eat.  Maybe {se
mansa citka} or even {mutce citka}?

OK, that'll do for now.

~mark  (shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu)