From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMB.BITNET!LOJBAN Wed Jul 1 18:42:23 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Wed, 1 Jul 92 18:42 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA25381; Wed, 1 Jul 92 17:34:16 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA19746; Wed, 1 Jul 92 17:16:42 -0400 Message-Id: <9207012116.AA19746@relay2.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1030; Wed, 01 Jul 92 17:13:23 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf033) id 5766; Wed, 01 Jul 92 17:11:13 EDT Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 17:08:50 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Wallops #8 X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Wed, 1 Jul 1992 12:11:54 +1000 Status: RO >Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 12:11:54 +1000 >From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Some comments, mostly on the grammar and stuff, not vocab. >melu la xrist. na.enai la pacrux. seljdadji da li'u >.ika'u la pacrux. klama la xrist. gi'e bacru lu pe'ipei xu do jinvi ledu'u >leti cange bakykakpa goi ko'a xriso li'u .i lu pe'i go'i li'u selcru la >xrist. i lu do srera to'i la pacrux. spuda toi .i le kakpa cu me cai ba'e >mi sa'e I don't like your usage of {ko'a me mi} for "he's mine". {me} is one of lojban's ambiguity-flags; the converted sumti could mean just about anything. In general, I'd be *far* more likely to figure that {me mi} meant "is me" (similar to {du mi} or {mi'e}) than "is mine". That interpretation is consistent with ways I've seen {me} used quite a bit (even by you, Nick.) I'd go for {ko'a srana mi} or {ko'a se ponse mi} (maybe), or some such. Stylistically, I'm not sure I like the {selcru}. In this case, you really mean a plain {bacru}, just with inverted places. I'd prefer to see {se bacru} than {selcru}, even though both mean "is-a-thing-uttered[-by...]." A minor nitpick. Maybe {cusku}'s better than {bacru}, too. >ni'o ca le bavlamdei ke clira clira la xrist. joi la pacrux. klama le cange >po ko'a gi'e se mipstu loi stani You seem fond of doubling brivla in tanru for emphasis, I'm not sure it's a good idea. I think Ivan has picked up on you for that once or twice. The tanru as a whole looks a little awkward, and I suspect that {je'a clira} is better than {clira clira}. > .i le kakpa cu sutra sutra klama gi'enai >kruce jdaxanmu'u gi'e lasna le bakni le kakpybra gi'e co'a renro lei tsiju Ditto here. {sutra sutra} is even more confusing than {clira clira}. I think you can get into real trouble with this in cases like {kandi kandi}, or other "negative" words. Does the first {kandi} augment or diminish the second? Is something that's "dimly dim" *very* dim, or "dim at being dim" in the sense of just barely dim? (Bad example, I know). Just some thoughts, I liked the story! ~mark