From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Mon Aug 31 18:03:37 1992 Return-Path: Date: Mon Aug 31 18:03:37 1992 Message-Id: <9208311359.AA28775@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: la nitcion. klama le kafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:45:34 +1000 Status: RO Nick, my lad, what can I say? That's one hell of a good start. It was stylistically interesting, and understandable. I particularly liked your use of UIs and COIs, as made clearer by the translation (yes, I read it in parallel with the translation. Sue me). Some typos, and I haven't fine-tooth-combed the grammar, etc. of the whole thing yet, but on the whole, wonderful. I note you've taken to bracketing nu/kei and poi/ku'o clauses. Threw me for a second, but who's to gainsay you? Those symbols mean nothing wrt the lojban, and it's probably very helpful; terminators on those are often missed. You seem to be using {cabdei} in tanru as sort of a pseudo-tense, as a contraction for {ca le cabdei}. Well, tanru can be considered, among other things, to be filling places in, even places not normally present (like {ca...}), so that works fine. Not sure it'd be my preference were I writing it (too natlang-sounding or something), but I understood it fine, it's certainly sensible, and I wasn't writing it. I like {mi cabdei melu.i'inai li'u vau.u'uru'e}. Very good use of {me}. Not sure what you're repenting of, but you don't have to say. Maybe {mela'elu .i'inai li'u}, but that's nitpicking. In situations like that, I'd be likely to use {la'e} or {lu'e}, but not neither (e.g. Colin once referred to {zi'e}-less linked relative clauses as being {zi'e zei cau}, where I'd have said {melu'ezo zi'e claxu}). Personal opinion, nothing more. What's the {mit-} in {mitsarxe} and {mitkruce} doing? I *think* in the {mitkruce} you mean that they cross each other, i.e. are mutual crossers. Wouldn't {simxu} be better (yes, lojbab, *that's* why I wanted a better hyphenator for {simxu}: it'll need it). >.i lei bitmu cu se jadni loi carmi bo vrici joi na'e mitsarxe beja'i le tcaci >.i le re cpare ka'amru poi mitkruca se punji fi le cravro gapru na minrysarxe >.u'iru'e >.i na go'i fa loi drata ke bitmu se punji nemu'u lo dembi poi vreta lo kicne >ku'o jo'u lo slabu tcityta'o nesecu'u lu vi xagrai loi tauzba pe levi >tcadu li'u Doesn't the {na go'i} *negate* the previous sentence, so that you're saying "The climbing axes ... weren't symmetrical. Which is not the case for the objects hanging on the other walls..." --- i.e. they *were* symmetrical! More later, if/when I think of it. ~mark