From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Fri Mar 6 16:04:15 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Fri, 6 Mar 92 16:04 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA10632; Fri, 6 Mar 92 15:03:42 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA04662; Fri, 6 Mar 92 09:27:14 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA10502; Fri, 6 Mar 92 09:27:01 EST Message-Id: <9203061427.AA10502@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 8682; Fri, 06 Mar 92 09:25:18 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 9648; Fri, 06 Mar 92 09:23:43 EST Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 00:21:42 +1000 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: Hans Christian Andersen X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Cc: nsn@ee.mu.oz.au To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO >[Note - I am using "ki'u" and "ni'i" the way suggested in a previous >mail on the subject] Allowing an ambiguity in the interpretation of .i+BAI+bo is intolerable; and if you can't change the lojban community's mind on this one (well, not that most of them have an opinion) by protodictionary time, your text will have to be changed back to the traditional inconsistency. >.i ko'a djica lo nolraixli .i ri mulno >beloka nolraixli be'o jo se zanru beko'a My first problem is that {mulno} is starting for me to mean {ba'o}. OK, that's just me. The second is that your use of {zanru} is for me vague: I'd rather you state what the princess was approved for. But the places of zanru are not unclefted (you can't say x1 approves x2 for x3-ing; only x1 approves that x2 happen). Thus, if we suppose marriage (to be approporiately reactionary :) , we need to say {.i ri mulno loka nolraixli .ijo lenu lego'i speni ko'a cuse zanru ko'a}. But you lose your {jo}. You'd get it back with my experimental cmavo {xe'e}: {.i ri mulno beloka nolraixli be'o joi xe'e se zanru be ko'a beifai lenu ri speni ko'a}. You don't have to give the extra explication of what the princess is approved for; but your phrase does not exclude the interpretation "If she was an utter princess, he'd say "Jolly Good!", and move off to the next." You can actually get around this by saying, say, {jo se spezau beko'a}. It'd work, and sort of satisfies my dikyjvo sensibilities. >gi lorinika nolraixli ku ko'a na se birti .uu OK, having seen the English, I know what you mean by {ni ka}, but I still think the phrase {leni ri nolraixli} is sufficient (assigning a fuzzy-logic truth value to all predications, like the amount by which *the predication* "they are princesses" is true. Yes I know, not all princesses are princesssish; what you are really saying is {leni ri mele'eka nolraixli}. Still, if you can see nix better, stick to {nika}. >.i ri selkecmlu .uuse'inai ri'a lo carvi .e lo xlali viltcima {ri'atu'a}. Actually, the {tu'a} rule is becoming irritatingly rote-ish, but what can you do... cause != causer (inanimate != action) >.i ni'a flecu lo djacu vi le kerfa .e le taxfu {ni'a} is "below"; {mo'ini'a} is "downwards". >.i cusku fara ledu'u ra nolraixli mulno I don't think {ra} works; the referent is *way* back. But {ru} could pick up the king. Either anaphorise on appearance (which will be hell in unselfconscious prose, I know, all this mess of {goi}), or say {le nixli}. >re bacru noda ku'i This should be {ri} >i rogo'i se verta le nolraixli goi fo'a ca'o le nicte vreta >ni'o co'i le cerna cu preti fofo'a feleli'i fo'a capu sipna ge'ekau I feel like {ge'ekau} is a son I sired and no longer recognise. Though I force myself to do so comfortably, I aknowldedge that this is a perceptive expression. >.i lu .oi mabla seisa'a selcu'u fo'a A {sei} clause can only have SOV syntax. The above is equivalent to {mabla fo'a seisa'a selcu'u}. >.i mi su'eso'uroi .uu ganga'i le kanla ca'o piro le nicte *ganga'i*?! Well, maybe, but I don't like it. Lojban may never obtain a general-purpose factitive (-ri'a necessitates tu'a [or xe'e]), but I don't think -ga'i is it, though I must admit it is plausible. I'd just say gangau: {mi gansu lenu lemi kanla cu ganlo} -> {mi kangau lemi kanla}. As opposed to {tu'a mi rinka lenu lemi kanla cu ganlo} -> {tu'a mi kanri'a lemi kanla} >.i doi cev. pei do'u ma nenri le ckana I see you're having trouble with "By God!" phrases too ;) I don't find this rendering satisfying. >ni'o ni'ibo co'i djuno ledu'u fo'a nolraixli mulno ki'u lenu fo'a fi le >reno sairdicne jo'u le reno gacykicne cu ganse fele dembi {fi le}... strictly speaking, this should be {fi tu'ale}; the matresses are not themselves the conditions of sensing. >.i lo ckaji loka ganse du'ila'edi'u cu nolraixli mulno ju'o I think you mean {lo ckaji be loka ganse pedu'i la'edi'u} >ni'o le nolrainanla goi ko'a galfi fo'a le speni {tu'a le nolrainanla}, to be Lojbab-pedantic; and I don't think {galfi} is necessary. {co'a speni} or {spegau} should be enough. >.i le dembi pu se punji fi la larkumfa {pu}? I'm never sure about story-telling time, but I think you should escape story time into the present (flashforward) before saying this {pu} ({pu} for us, {ba} in story time): {.ikibo le dembi pu se punji} >.i pamai le lujvo po'u zo cucyzbi cu satci te fanca fezoidy. Naesen paa >Skoen dy. .i mi nelci ledi'u bangrdanska tanru that's {fanva} Apart from the points mentioned above, you handled the grammar and vocab well (I particularly liked the use of {co'i}); the style is straightforward, though not as "colourful" as the English translation. In contrast to what I get with Ivan's text, what I get with Colin's is a lot of "Huh? Oh, no, that's right." cpana punji, fi'o sefta and ge'ekau were examples of that here. This suggests to me (and Colin's choppy sentences, almost reminiscent of his earlier "colloquial" piece, seem to confirm it) that my stereotype of Colin is more of an "explorer" with the language than my stereotype of Ivan is. (To detour: even Ivan's counterexample of his being explorative with {fi'a} is revealing. {fi'a} is the more natural, less detail bound way of asking ("um, it's just an argument"). Most of us, having in mind the answer for the second use of {fi'a}, would have veered off to {cu'e}. In any case: Colin's tale seems to me to set the tone for standard prose; its sentences are choppy and to the point, ellipsis is applied but not abused (as I suspect I have done), UI are used moderately (neither too few, like me, nor too many, like Lojbab, whose JL articles - I say this not having read them for 3 months - read like eyebrow raising exercises :) . It thus annoys me that, despite the fact that the above-mentioned points are not critical at all, the tale still comes out somewhat dry, certainly so in comparison to the English. I don't think this is Colin's fault; I think the problem lies in the language's lack of a culture and colloquial usage. I certainly know that I could only do worse than Colin has. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia. nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au "Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this nation's number one killer" - Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie _______________________________________________________________________________