Message-Id: <9202281259.AA22079@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 1992 23:54:46 +1100
Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn
Subject:      Re: Wallops #7
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 92 19:00:57 GMT."
Status: RO

Thank you millions for your comments, Colin. You have just overtaken James
(Cooke!) Brown on my coolness scale :)

>> la xar. lu .i ko pleji ke'u mu'i lemu'e mi capu grebei do li'u
>        "mu'i"? With purpose? I would prefer "ki'u"

I think you're right.

>> la xar. lu .ixu.ianai su'o remna na ponse su'o fepni li'u
>        "fepni" - I would be inclined to use "sicni" throughout.

The original "obolos" is a fepni... I'll think about it.

>        "fedgau ledo besyvau" - what's wrong with "porpi ledo stedu"? Or
>                        "sedbo'u" if you want to be a little more
>                        specific.
Actually, the verb "dialusw" used in the original means "dissolve" in Modern
Greek, as well as being a cognate etymologically; so I was shaky as to its
interpretation.

>> la xer. lu .i zau la zeus. mi.ei se sidju.uuse'i .ijo mi caba pleji ji'a.ue
>        I didn't get the idiomatic sense of this at all.

I know. Has anyone any better ideas for "By Zeus"? (Ne: De:).

>> la xar. lu .ixu do caba ropamei jgici'i lenu mo'ifa'avi ba'o na'e pleji litru
>        "jgici'i" - "proud explain?" perhaps you mean "jgicu'u"?

Make that jgiskicu.

>> la xar. lu .i do cusku lo cpina .i go'e mu'i lenu mi la .ai,aKOS. tosa'a
 vomoi
>> pinka toi lenu go'e cu se cnemu loinu mi se xadyxra li'u

>        "cnemu" for "punish" is rather good, provided it can actually
>        mean this, and does not have a necessarily favorable sense. If
>        it does, you need something like "je'unai" and maybe "zo'o".

Hm. I think I was overinfluenced by the tranlations here: the original seems
to have merely "receive". But I can't think of many words other than "cnemu"
that'll do the work even of this "receive".

>        You seem to be asserting "go'e": "I'll do it because he rewards
>        me for doing it ...". Is there something missing?

Ouch! Cultural-linguistic presumption alert! Make that {mu'izo'o} or
{mu'i.ianai} "Yeah right, I'm gonna do it, so as Aeacus gives me a thrashing."
This {.ianai} is ending up meaning "irony" rather than "disbelief".

>> la xar. lu .i.e'unai ca lenu mi krecpa do; li'u
>        "krecpa" is "hair-get" - I don't know what you meant by it.

ke'ucpa. Not the first time I've erred thus; sorry.

>        As far as I can make out, "ra'ivi" is not grammatical.

Aargh! It parses alright, but as {ra'iku vi la gadaras.} Uch. Make that
{gi'e se krasi vi la gadaras.}

>> jdini vencu
>        "jdini vecnu" is rather good, though it confused me at first.

Nasty little turn of phrase, isn't it? I was bemused to find that ancient
Greece had usurers (particularly when the Greek for usurer, tokoglyfos,
sounds so funny (similar to "interest-licker").

>>        .i so'o selfinti tcita
>> cu romei lei se finti be ru be'o poi se sanji mipeca
>        I'm a bit unhappy with "so'o li'o tcita cu romei lei se finti
>        li'o". Are they titles or works?

Titles. Which makes this a clumsily handled metonymy (well, maybe not: the
titles are inventions of Menippus' too).

>        I also wonder about "sanji". I take that to mean that these few
>        items are all we know *about* now (the only ones whose existence
>        we have heard of), not just that they are the only ones we know
>        (have the text of). Is this your meaning?

As far as I understand the original, the only text of Mennipus is the titles
of some works. Like "All that remains of Shakespears oeuvre is a tuthree
titles. Who knows what "Hamlit" or "Mac Beef" were about". Since I have an
old bias that {djuno} only applies to facts ({ledu'u...}), I tend to sanji,
but I think the misunderstanding here will make me change it to djuno.

>> .i ra so'oroi pilno lo se tavla be la MEnipos. be'o tu'a levo'a se
>> finti
>        "He sometimes used people (who actually were) talked to by M."
>        Is this right?


Aaargh! {te tavla} ("Topics of Menippus")

>>.i ko'a vajrai prenu ci'e so'i morsi je drata nu casnu pefi'e la lukiaNOS.
>        "so'i morsi je drata nu casnu" I think expands to "so'ida poi
>        morsi nu casnu gi'e drata nu casnu", i.e. each of the
>        discussions is both dead and other.

You seem to have a penchant for pointing out erroneous usage of logical
connectives. Rightly so. {fa'u}

>> .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
>        I think the "noi" only applies to "la krates". I don't know how
>        to get round this.

Not the first time this has come up. I don't think {lu'a} in the new ma'oste
is the solution, though it will make the grammar work. Some sort of grammar
mod to allow higher sumti grouping precedence would be worth considering.

>> .imumai la lukiaNOS. skicu le tadnrfilosofo bele'a la kinik. fo lo dasni bela
>> tribonion. ce lo gacri bukpu co xaksu kuce lo dakli pe le janco ge'u ce lo
>> ganra .i le dakli cu vasru loi dembrlupino noi cidja loi pindu
>        I like "ce" even less here. They're wearing clothes, not a set.
Um... Aren't they in extension with {ce}?
>        I can't find "pindu" in my gi'uste. Is it supposed to be "pikci"?
pindi

>> .ixamai la xekates. cu vipsi cevni fika'u le se cibylajykruca
>        Has the place structure of "cevni" changed? I have only two
>        places in my gi'uste. (I've just realised I haven't looked
>        it up in the new logdata list, but that's not official yet, is
>        it?)

"With dominion over x3" is in the 1991 list. The 1992 list will be official
on publication; meanwhile, with his insistance on things like the new {cadzu}
struct for ages, Lojbab has undermined the old list a lot.

>> .iseki'ubo se
>> pirskicu fo ci tarmi pere'o lo kamju
>        "Three shapes next to a column"? Is that what you meant?

On a column - as in painted on it. I can think of no other cmavo for {ka sefta}

>> .i ra
>> citka ve vimcu fi le sanmi
>        I'm not clear on this. Does it mean "leftovers"?
Yup. Alternate wording suggestions welcome.

>> .i le jdacuvri'a
>> se friti nemu'u lo sovda cazi se lebna lei pindu ki'u lenu leka xagji cu
>> jdikyri'a leni cesna terpa
>        I can find neither "jdik-" nor "cesna", so it's hard to
>        translate this. I guess it means "The offering gets taken by
>        beggars because their hunger overcomes their ? fear", but the
>        last bit doesn't parse. I think you want "leka xagji kei"

jdika is a new gismu, meaning "decrease (intr.)" censa, he mutters, flaggelating
himself. The {cu} elides out the {kei}: a standard trick. {leni ri xagji cu
jdikyri'a leni ri censa terpa}, I suggest, realising that my elisions aren't
always that helpful.

Thanks again. My next will be either Plato or See Spot Run.

Nick.