Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN>
Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19)
	id <m0lMkwU-0001RhC@snark.thyrsus.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 92 14:50 EST
Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91)
	id AA06261; Fri, 6 Mar 92 14:36:13 EST
Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA00906; Thu, 5 Mar 92 12:25:54 -0500
Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB)
	id AA11400; Thu, 5 Mar 92 12:25:56 EST
Message-Id: <9203051725.AA11400@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 7499; Thu, 05 Mar 92 12:24:16 EST
Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 5177; Thu, 05 Mar 92 12:23:44 EST
Date:         Thu, 5 Mar 1992 17:18:48 GMT
Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!iad>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!iad>
Subject:      mela'ezoiby. MARTenitsa.
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
In-Reply-To:  nsn@AU.OZ.MU.EE.MULLIAN's message of Thu,
              5 Mar 1992 21:03:38 +1000 <28256.9203051210@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Mar  6 14:51:10 1992
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN

>  Date:     Thu, 5 Mar 1992 21:03:38 +1000
>  From: nsn@AU.OZ.MU.EE.MULLIAN

>  <badlai be loi terpu'a velsku beleka zanru joi zanjilra>

.oinaicai.o'ase'izo'o  .iki'ecai  (Can you see me blushing?  :-))

>  <...> Ivan <...> doesn't indulge in <...> the "ooh, let's
>  see what this cmavo does" routine.

I certainly don't mind using an exotic cmavo now and then, as an
illustration of which here's an Oriental anecdote for you:

{  lu  ju'i. lamxa'u  .i zo'e cava bevri lo gunse  li'u
.i lu  go'i fi'a mi  li'u
.i lu  go'i fi ledo selxa'u  li'u
.i lu  go'i fi'a do  li'u }

By {fi'a mi/do} I mean something like `How does this concern me/you?',
`What business is this of mine/yours?' or `Where do I/you come in?'.
No attitudinals, because they would spoil the parallelism.

>  The upper world, as we say in Greek. I don't think {mivmunje} will be
>  misunderstood (I've already described Hades as mromunje).

Not really.  The upper world also includes minerals, which don't
belong to {mivmunje}.  I'm not even sure Hades is really {mromunje}
(after all, the souls there are just as alive as they have always
been, even if their bodies are not).  What is wrong with {garmunje}
and {nitmunje} for the Greek concepts?

>  There is a good reason for prenrblgaria: the vocalic r gives away
>  the split between rafsi classifier and loan stem.

Ah, yes.  Zo'e might try to decypher {preblgaria} as {prebw} (where
"w" is any vowel) called {lgaria}.  This doesn't make it taboo, but
raises the value of the longer word.  (Generally I prefer keeping my
Lojban expressions as short as possible, so as to neutralise their
natural tendency towards getting very gross in comparison to their
rarbau counterparts.)

>  even {blgaria} is theoretically, if not politically, acceptable.

Good idea.  {blgaria prenu} should work for {pre[n[r]]blgaria}.

>  >vo'epedi'u se cmene zoiby. MARtenitsa by. noi zo mart. noi valsi la
>  >cimast. le banblgaria cu te zbasu
>
>  (remember, we
>  don't process in terms of nesting, whatever the TG=UG dreams of foolish and
>  possibly non-existent people)

True.  But you can afford several passes when you're reading.  If I
were speaking, rather than writing, I wouldn't have used this kind of
embedding (the main reason being, of course, that I wouldn't be able
to generate it on the fly  :-)).

>  {noi se zbasu fi zo mart. noi valsi la cimast. le bangrblgaria}.

This is fine, of course.  I generally avoid inverting my brivla unless
it helps me to economise a {zo'e}, but then you spared a {cu}, so it's
a bargain.

>  Another psycholinguistic no-no I can see already
>  is two {lenu}s in a row: {lenu lenu broda kei brode} is quite hard. {lenu
>  ledu'u}, though, is fine.

Selma'o NU contains quite a lot of cmavo, and I [would] like to see
more of them in action.  I think {nu} is overloaded in current usage.

>  You have used {cusku} in a novel manner. I don't
>  condemn it at all, it is almost delightful (not quite, because it's still
>  a plausible usage :).

I used it because I couldn't come up with anything else.  (Not that I
tried very hard  :-).)  Suggestions for `x1 can serve as evidence or
clue for conjecturing x2' welcome.

>  I do prefer {lego'i} to {vo'apedi'u} still.

.oiro'ese'i  I never thought of that.  (I had {vo'epedi'u}, so make
it {lesego'i}.)

>  >ni'o .a'ocai ro lei lojbo se bangu baze'u kanro

I said {baze'u} because I knew that {su'opa lojbo se bangu ba'e ca
na'e kanro}, so hoping for that was pointless.  How is {lepu'u la
.atlstan. ka'urbi'o} going, doi djuno?

>  co'o iVAN.

You need at least one full stop between the two words.

>  i mi ba tavla fi lenu mi co'a ritli tadni

.i'esairo'e lu ritli tadni li'u

>  le gernylanlyske tozoi gy. syntaxis gy.toi

Isn't that {zoi gy. sintaksis. gy.}?  Doesn't Lojban spelling holds
within {zoi}?

>  .i le rolbau gerna to.ubu.gy. bau la glic. toi cu xajmi .iepei

You'd have to clarify here to whom this question is directed.  It
can't be I, because {co'o} undoes the assignment of {do}.  So I assume
that you are addressing all recipients of the list.  I happen to be
one of them.  My reply:  {.ieru'e}.

Ivan