Message-Id: <9203310430.AA19972@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Mon, 30 Mar 1992 15:53:47 BST
Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!C.J.Fine>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!C.J.Fine>
Subject:      Re: Quine text
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id>; from "nsn@AU.OZ.MU.EE.MULLIAN" at Mar 29, 92 1:17 am
Status: RO

Thanks for your kazypensykai je nunpensyri'a comments, Nick
>
> >ra'i le seme'e kalti beloka jetnu ku nefi'e la .uilrd. kuain.
>
> Hmhmhm. {seme'e} to indicate that this is really a cmene? Nice try, but
 really,
> {la} would do the job {seme'e} is doing here better.

I was trying for something that was a concept in its own right (Pursuit
of Truth) as well as naming something. It probably doesn't work.

>
> >.ira neki'unai le valsi
> >kaunai beke'a ge'u co'i simlu leka ckini fa lei nunselga'e tosa'a
> >pamoi pinka toi  lei saske tidyci'i
>
> First, the {kaunai} is not strictly speaking necessary; the "whatever" here is
> really a {ba'e ro valsi zo'u}.

I found this one very hard. Perhaps (taking a tip from a later comment
of yours) "neva'onai lero valsi beke'a"

> Second, I find this use of the place structure
> of {simlu} unnerving. To me, the x2 of simlu is a cleft containing x1, so
> {simlu leka te ckini lei nunselga'e lei saske tidyci'i}. (Which doesn't
> counter what you had, but you seem to be treating simlu as a copula, which
> it ain't.

I find it rather hard to get my mind round the difference, but I agree
that yours is neater because there is a "ke'a" that is elided inside
the abstraction. I think however that this is a special case because
"ckini" happens to have a suitable place.

>
> >.i .eifu'e cu pamoi ledi'u jorne porsi fa lesu'o jufra goi fo'a zi'epoi
> >jibni je selbirti ckini lemi nunselga'e
>
> That {cu} shouldn't be there.
Correct. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed a "cu" even when there
isn't a preceding term, but you are right at present.  (pei doi lojbab.)

> {cfari} is more helpful than {pamoi}.

Unfortunately not, since "cfari" now hasn't a second place. "krasi"
might be better.

>
> >.i rofo'a ckini co gu'e na'e
> >dukti be pisu'o loi nunselga'e gu'i je'a dukti be pisu'ori
>
> {cu}, not {co}, and {gi}, not {gu'i}.

"gi", indeed. But "co" is what I meant. It looks like you are parsing
"rofo'a ckini" as a sumti, which it ain't. "rofo'a" is the x1 sumti, and
"ckini" part of the selbri.

> {dukti}? I'd have chosen {fapro}, or {to'e mapti}.

I first had "fapro", but I don't think it's right. "mapti" isn't bad. I
suspect my favourite is
"gu'e mapti be pisu'o ny. gi dukti be pisu'ori"

>
> >.i fo'a ka'e se spuda file nuntugni .onai le nunto'etugni fele ganse goi ko'a
> >fau lenu mapti nunselga'e ku saunai loba sisku ku ki'unai leca
> >selgasnu kaunai be ko'a
>
> {loba sisku}? Preferably {lonu ba sisku}. {ki'unai} should be {va'onai}.

Good, on both counts. I particularly like "va'onai"

> >.iva'i fi'o na simsa lo xe skicu belo selci'o ku fo'a ka'e se spuda
> >file mintu fero selbanka'e zgana bele fasnu fu'o
>
> {pa'anai} could do the job of your {fi'o na simsa}, which, I fear, makes no
> sense in Lojban as a BAI for "unlike". Better, though: {lo xe skicu belo
> selci'o na go'o .isi'anai fo'a ka'e se spuda} or some use of {seba'i}. Some
> use of {ne} should have been used with your BAI: it's the {fo'a} that's being
> {nase simsa}, and you should say so.

"pa'a" is indeed the thing. I was puzzled that I couldn't find a "like"
BAI - the reason being that I was working from a basic ma'oste where
"pa'a" is glossed as "additionally" - I had assumed it was from "cpana"!
I don't agree that "fi'o na simsa" makes no sense - I would construe it
as "with .... not resembling", though "fi'o nase simsa" would be better.
I don't particularly like your two-sentence solution, though it would be
OK in afterthought. You are quite right about the "ne".

".i va'i fo'a nepa'anai lo xe skicu li'o"

>
> >ni'o fo'a nunzgaju'e ca'e mu'u lu carvi vau li'u
>
> The {vau} is no longer essential; it kept showing up in JL because of
> limitations in Lojbab's parser.

I know. This sort of context seemed to me to be just right for putting
them in, to emphasise when what I'm quoting is a sentence and when just
some words. Possibly the choice of "lu" against "zo" or "lo'u" would
also make the point.
>
> {lo remna cu morsi} doesn't make me think of "Man is mortal". Go for {loi
> remna}, or {ro remna zo'u ri ba morsi}.

Point taken, but "loi remna" is just plain wrong. Perhaps "ro remna cu
(paroi?) morsi".

>
> >.i go'i
> >zu'unai tai lo bridi nemu'u lu levi bidju cu blanu vau li'u goi ko'a
>
> {zu'unai} against {mu'u}? {ji'a}, I'd say. {ta'i} is better than {tai}.

It's not "zu'unai" against "mu'u", it's "zu'unai" against an unexpressed
"zu'u" plus a "mu'u". I think it's OK, as is "tai" - but your
suggestions are OK too.
(I guess I really meant "tai tu'alo bridi").
>
> >.ijo su'odapele tcini  su'odeperi zo'u
> >du'o le nunselga'e ku le selkanxe .e le terkanxe cu jetnu ra'a da fa'u
>
> The {nunselga'e} is not the {djuno}: {le ganse} xor {tedu'o}. This jufra
> is a tad awkward.

Perhaps I meant "ra'a le nunselga'e". I don't like either of your
suggestions. But I don't like my translation either - I found this
*very* hard to translate - partly because the arms of the kanxe are
different sumti places.

>
> >.imu'a le blabi bidju viku jo'u le blanu xrula vaku
>
> Not grammatical. I propose {le vi blabi bidju kujo'u le va blanu xrula}

OK. I think what I wanted to say was "le blabi bidju pevige'u jo'u le
blanu xrula pevaku

>
> >ku'i cu ralgau lerejei se jufra gi'e se sarcu lenu ri gumna ja
> >badykruca se mansa
>
> {keigi'e}, I think. {mansa} might not be the best word.
"keigi'e" indeed. Suggest a better word - I checked its gloss, and it
seemed to me that a "jei se jufra" was a very good candidate for an
"evaluator".
>
> >pamai le nunselga'e ca'e be da noi na'o ganse prenu bei de noi na'o
> >fasnu be'o cu sa'e porsi befi loka balvi be'o klesa role da batyterzga
> >poi ca'a te zgana fida fode
>
> {za'e batyterzga} :). I take it this means you map {xyxipa nunbroda xyxire
> xyxici} into {xyxipa nu xyxici broda xyxire}, rather than {xyxire broda
 xyxici}?
> I register my disapproval.

I've just worked out that this is two separate comments, and you're
merely suggesting I mark "batyterzga" as nonce. OK, but I don't intend
to go around marking all my lujvo just because I don't happen to have
seen them before. (On first reading, I thought "batyterzga" was the
topic of the following comment).
 This is an interesting one. You may note that I didn't actually use any
arguments for "nunselga'e" - it was only when defining it that I felt it
necessary to consider them.
 I *think* you're objecting to my making the subject the x2 of
"nunselga'e" when the subject (as the senser) is the x2 of "selga'e",
right?
I did it that way, of course, because that's how Quine defined
"stimulation" in the English. There's no reason why the arguments of
"nunselga'e" shouldn't be reversed from what I said.
 I think this gets us into a deep area of lojbanic language-use. By the
time I came to translate the definition of "nunselga'e", the word had
become opaque to me (and in any case I had started off rendering it via
"selga'e" = "stimulus", which had also become opaque). I was no longer
conscious that there was a "ganse" in it, so that was not a factor in
choosing the place structure.
 I can't claim to be a fluent lojbo, but if that happens to me, it's
going to happen even more when people start talking the stuff. I think
it's entirely reasonable to think very carefully about the composition
and place-structures of lujvo that go in the dictionary, and take them
apart - but nonce words aren't going to work that way. "selbri" and
(sometimes) "tervecnu" are atomic to me unless I stop and think about
them, and I can quite imagine that I'm going to coin nonce-lujvo on them
without thinking about the place-structures of "bridi" and "vecnu".

>
> I hereby appoint Colin head honcho stylist: he dismantled a syntactically
> convoluted text into relatively straightforward Lojban, something I've been
> consistently faulting Lojbab for failing to do, and failing to do myself
> recently.

Too kind, boss. I wouldn't call the result "straightforward Lojban"
myself, but....

                        kolin