Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN>
Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19)
	id <m0lKcET-0000lYC@snark.thyrsus.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 92 17:08 EST
Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91)
	id AA06901; Sat, 29 Feb 92 17:04:02 EST
Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA26471; Sat, 29 Feb 92 14:53:45 -0500
Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB)
	id AA04382; Sat, 29 Feb 92 14:53:50 EST
Message-Id: <9202291953.AA04382@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 9265; Sat, 29 Feb 92 14:52:22 EST
Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7654; Sat, 29 Feb 92 14:51:29 EST
Date:         Sat, 29 Feb 1992 17:38:12 GMT
Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
Subject:      Re: Wallops #7
X-To:         nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.au
X-Cc:         Lojban list <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sat Feb 29 17:09:03 1992
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN

Answering Nick answering me commenting on Nick:
> >> 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.

        I suggest that the original obolos is a "fepni sicni". The
        concept in "rupnu" and "fepni" is a sophisticated one.

> >> 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:).

        "ca'i" might be a little better. But it wasn't the "zau la zeus"
        that threw me so much as taking "se sidju" literally.
        The following translation has just occurred to me:
 .i fi la zeus. fe mi banzu .a'o.uuse'i faulenu mi caba pleji da'i li'o
        (if "banzu" means "defend", as I think it does. A more literal
        interpretation of the idiom would be "la zeus. mi banzu .a'o")

> >        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.}

        what's wrong with just "ra'i la gadaras."?

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

        Glad to be of service!

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

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

        I don't think you need both "citka" and "sanmi". "sanmi ve vimcu"?

> >> .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.
>
        You're right - it does, but it is confusing, because of the
multiple abstractions.

                        kolin