Return-Path: Message-Id: <9208210909.AA06873@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Fri Aug 21 13:22:27 1992 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!oasis.icl.co.uk!I.Alexander.bra0122 Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!oasis.icl.co.uk!I.Alexander.bra0122 Subject: RE: lemi malfri X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Aug 21 13:22:27 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Wow! We've an awful lot of Lojban text all of a sudden. Looks like you've started something Colin :) la'o ly. lemi malfri .ly. zo'u > >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 Mark> I'm a little fuzzy about that {pukucaki}... oh, wait, I see it. I think. Mark> You're establishing the sentence in the past and making its tense sticky? Mark> I'm still unsure. I can't help feeling that {pukucaki} belongs _in place of_ the shortly-following {ca} .i puku caki le pasobinomoi nanca In-the-past, at-the-time-of [sticky] the "1980"[th] year (The missing {moi} is just a typo - it reappears in the interlinear version.) Nick> I don't like {pamoi pilno}, but all the alternative phrasings would be Nick> quite complex; let it be. Why not {pamoi nu pilno}? Mark> {grake} has no x2 place, in my gismu list, and neither, I suspect, would M> {mikrygrake}. Thus, attaching with {be} doesn't work. How about {le xukmi M> pela'u renono mikrygrake}? The {pe} may not be necessary, but I think it's M> better to have it. It has an x2 place in all mine, but it's the _number_ of (micro)grams. The simplest fix, keeping the (malglico? :) order, seems to be renono mikrygrake be sela'u lei xukmi (as-a-quantity-of). My one-time candidate for most Lojbanic phrasing was le xukmi poi mikrygrake li renono the chemical restricted-to being-micrograms-in-number 200 until di'e. {mikrygrake} is a _quantifier_, isn't it? vei ni'e mikrygrake beli renono [ve'o] lei xukmi micrograms-in-number 200 [amount-of] the-mass-of chemical Any takers? {ta'o lo'u le nu to'i basna toi xuksne le'u}, as Nick pointed out elsewhere. > >ni'o lemi patfu to'ercliva le lanzu zdani .i ko'a goi la pat. bevri lo cnino > >ke vidnyveibra Mark> I suspect M> you should use {le cnino li'o} and not {lo}, since it was a particular one M> in question, but I have pretty much never seen anyone use le/lo in this M> way; people get drawn into the English the/a usage, which is not-lojbanic. M> It's something we should work on. I've some things to say about gadri, but I think it's important enough to have a selmri to itself. > >ni'o ko'a klama lemi kumfa noi mi denpa .ilu doi deiv tu'a ko rinka lenu se Nick> Or if you don't like {tu'a}, {ko zukte lenu...}. Or even (why not?) {ko gasnu lenu li'o}. > >ni'o .uecai mi drani gasnu la'edi'u .i ko'a babo ckire mi .ibabo mi vreta ^^^^ What's that {babo} doing there? {.ibabo ko'a li'o} would at least be grammatical, but I don't think it's very useful. Story time marches on :) Iain.