Message-Id: <9208191406.AA06322@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:57:17 -0400
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Subject:      lemi malfri
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  Marquis de Freud's message of Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:20:22 EDT
Status: RO

Hey!  Good to see you again, Dave (*hug*.  What has a hug to do with
bisexuality, Nick?)

Yes, I still have my thoughts/corrections on your journal, somewhere (I
don't throw things out... but I do misplace them sometimes).  I'll post
that soon.

>Date:         Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:20:22 EDT
>From: Marquis de Freud <dbt%CELLAR.ORG@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu

>le pamoi nu mi citka le mrajymledi snexu'i no'u la lysydys

>pukucaki .i ca le pasobino nanca ku mi pamoi pilno la lysydys .i mi citka
>renono mikrygrake be le xukmi .ibabo mi xanka denpa le xuksne

I'm a little fuzzy about that {pukucaki}... oh, wait, I see it.  I think.
You're establishing the sentence in the past and making its tense sticky?
I'm still unsure.

{ca le pasobino nanca ku} means "during the one thousand nine hundred and
eighty years" (given base 10).  NOT what you were after.  I think {ca le
pasobinomei nanca} would work better:  the year you describe (by Western
conventions) to be the 1980th.

{grake} has no x2 place, in my gismu list, and neither, I suspect, would
{mikrygrake}.  Thus, attaching with {be} doesn't work.  How about {le xukmi
pela'u renono mikrygrake}?  The {pe} may not be necessary, but I think it's
better to have it.

>ni'o lemi patfu to'ercliva le lanzu zdani .i ko'a goi la pat. bevri lo cnino
>ke vidnyveibra

Who's Pat?  It took me a second to work that out.  You *CANNOT* assume that
names made from rafsi will be interpreted as having anything to do with the
rafsi.  {ko'a goi lego'i} or {ko'a goi le patfu} or anything.  I suspect
you should use {le cnino li'o} and not {lo}, since it was a particular one
in question, but I have pretty much never seen anyone use le/lo in this
way; people get drawn into the English the/a usage, which is not-lojbanic.
It's something we should work on.

>ni'o ko'a klama lemi kumfa noi mi denpa .ilu doi deiv tu'a ko rinka lenu se
>sazri le vidnyveibra le li'u

{lemi kumfa noi mi denpa} is a little too vague for my taste: "My room
which-incidentally-is-such-that: I wait".  Huh?  What has your room to do
with your waiting?  I'd have been a little more explicit: {lemi kumfa noi
mi denpa ne'i ke'a}.  Oh, and there's an extra {le} before the {li'u},
which is not in the later line-by-line presentation.  Typo.

>ni'o cfari lemi lysydys xuksne .i mi mutce djica lenu cmila .i mi gasfri le
>ka vo'a frica .i mi cuxtinbe le nu mi ba cikre le vidnyveibra kei ko'a

Nick's already spoken about {*lemi lysydys. xuksne}.  Oh, and for VSO order
like in the first sentence (which I think is well-chosen), you should use
{cfari fa lemi ...} (rather, say, than {selcfari ...}).  I like it better,
anyway.

>ni'o .uecai mi drani gasnu la'edi'u .i ko'a babo ckire mi .ibabo mi vreta
>lemi ckana mu'i zgana le xuksne selviska

{mu'i le nu zgana li'o}.  You need that {lenu}.

~mark