Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Fri, 3 Jul 92 01:26 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA25840; Thu, 2 Jul 92 17:37:57 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA17515; Thu, 2 Jul 92 16:53:04 -0400 Message-Id: <9207022053.AA17515@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0752; Thu, 02 Jul 92 16:52:31 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf033) id 9280; Thu, 02 Jul 92 16:47:51 EDT Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 16:56:35 BST Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Wallops #8 To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: nsn@AU.OZ.MU.EE.MULLIAN's message of Wed, 1 Jul 1992 12:11:54 +1000 <1540.9207021234@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jul 3 01:26:30 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMB.BITNET!LOJBAN > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 12:11:54 +1000 > From: nsn@AU.OZ.MU.EE.MULLIAN > > melu la xrist. na.enai la pacrux. seljdadji da li'u > Neither Christ nor the Devil wants him. Does {da} here work for `him'? > gi'e bacru lu pe'ipei xu do jinvi ledu'u <...> li'u > and said "Pray tell, do you think <...>?" {xu do jinvi ledu'u} is the same as {pe'ipei}, and is malrarna anyway - I'd make it {ju'i .i pe'ipei ...}. > le kakpa cu me cai ba'e mi > the plougher is all mine {me cai} is either illegitimate or very cute. > .i mi'o fau lenu do na krici lenu go'i cu .e'u klama ca le cermurse > leko'a cange poi ko'a tsise'a > is all mine. If you don't believe me, let's go to his farm next dawn when > he's ploughing. Er, `_when_ he's ploughing'? I'm missing this part; instead, the Lojban contains an extra `[his farm], which he ploughs'. > .i do vi le cange cu ba'a zgana lenu ko'a me mi li'u > There you'll see he's mine." {vi le cange} is a long way of saying `there', isn't it? > kruce jdaxanmu'u > make the sign of the cross {kruca}. That's just an intersection, though. Is it enough for `cross'? {jdaxanmu'u} ought to have been {jdakemxanmu'u} (it is a religious hand-movement, not a movement of a religious hand, though actually it is both). > .i lu .e'o ko zgana .u'a to'i la pacrux. bacru toi > "See?" said the Devil. There ought to be an attitudinal for this - perhaps {.uo.uapei}. > .i ko'a cu sai me mi Just what does {cu sai} mean? :-) > "He's mine. If he was yours, <...>" "If he _were_ yours". > .i ca ri ko'a co'a citka .i do ca zgana lenu ko'a jdaxanmu'u > Then he'll eat. You'll see him making the sign of the cross then. Surely not {do ca zgana}. That would be the time of the conversation. > .i ko'a co'a citka gi'enai jdaxanmu'u > The plougher started eating and didn't make the sign of the cross. Doesn't {gi'e} imply that he didn't cross himself _after_ he started eating? > gi'eji'a.uero'a cladu gapyvi'i > and to top it all off, let off a huge fart! Interesting translation of `to top it all off'. But. {.uero'a} - _social_ surprise - well, he was alone there, wasn't he? What is socially unacceptable is discussing the subject. :-) Is there a good reason why {gapyvi'i} doesn't mean `breathed out'? Carbon dioxide is a gas excreted through the nostrils. Ivan