Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Sat, 29 Feb 92 00:56 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA14676; Sat, 29 Feb 92 00:23:22 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA18742; Fri, 28 Feb 92 22:50:49 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA20123; Fri, 28 Feb 92 22:50:19 EST Message-Id: <9202290350.AA20123@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 7973; Fri, 28 Feb 92 22:48:46 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 3187; Fri, 28 Feb 92 22:47:14 EST Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 14:46:19 +1100 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn Subject: Re: Wallops #7 X-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 92 10:26:44 CDT." Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sat Feb 29 00:56:22 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN >>la men. lu .i mu'i la'edi'u ko stagau le greblo gi'e denpa .iku'i da poi na se >>ponse mi cuka'e se lebna do tai ma.ianai li'u >Does this {gi'e} imply a temporal sequence? Actually, um, er, {.ije} *is* taken to imply a temporal sequency in "storytelling time", so I assumed {gi'e} can too. If this doesn't convince "the people", then {gi'ebabo} isn't that hard... >>la xar. lu .i la'edi'u to'e vajni le greblopre .i do bilga lenu pleji le fepni >>.i lenu na go'i na se curmi li'u >{to'e vajni} seems to strong to me (I'd have gone with {na'e} or even >{no'e}), but that's a matter of taste and style, and besides, you have the >original in front if you and I don't. Actually the original has "these [things are] nothing to the ferryman". So the {to'e} is my responsibility. >>la men. lu .i loi dembrlupino. do'a kujo'u le sanmi pe la xekates. tosa'a Um, {loi} does mean "at least some of the whole mass of", so I don't see the problem with its use here. >>la xar. lu .i do benji doi xermes. levi gekpre tosa'a zemoi pinka toi fo >>ma >He's not really asking this question to get the answer, but to complain. >It's close enough to a real question that I don't see a need for a {paunai} >anywhere, but an {.oi} or something wouldn't go amiss. Done. >>la xar. lu .i.e'unai ca lenu mi krecpa do; li'u >Some indication of the trailing-off threat that the English has would be >nice. Like the, um, semicolon? (Which means a pause longer than a . , but which not many people seem to be aware of. I suppose I'll just have to go back to "...". I could stick in a {po'o}, but don't want to. >>.i la xermes. cevni fi lepa'anu benji loi morsi la xades. >Why {lepa'anu}? In addition to what? In addition to being the protector of merchants, messengers, hermaphrodites, thieves... >>.icimai la MEnipos. ce la antistenes. ce la di'ogenes. ce la krates. noi >>tadnrfilosofo le'a la kinik. cu paromei lei na klaku bevi la mromunje gi'e >>roroi cmila je ckasu {romei} it is. This is what Lojbab means by slavish translation of idioms; yes, in this case ropamei/paromei doesn't work. >Nitpick: {role drata pajni du la minos li'osa'a} does *not* mean "all the >other judges are Minos & co...". So I did leave out the {cu}: a persisitent problem for me with GOhA cmavo, which I don't intuit as tanruable. Ta stax.