Message-Id: <199209100607.AA14144@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
To: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)
Cc: fred@wam.umd.edu
Subject: Re: Tuesday night comment on your rant 
From: nsn@ee.mu.oz.au
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 16:07:45 +1000
Content-Length: 1618
Lines: 39

>noticed  - you used zvaju'o and Sylvia guessed intent from context.  Suggestied
>to use zgana or jundi as the major basis of the word.

Possibly, though I think zvaju'o, or at most nunzvaju'o, is clear.

>"He's getting high on the coffee smells" - No one could figure out anything
>about what you were trying to convey with that attitudinal, even after checking
>the English.  

The .o'enai means I don't empathise, because that's what I take emotional
closeness to mean.

>I see no semantic suggestion on "high" even if I assume the se'inai was 
>supposed to be there.  Explanation?

The translation was a bit loose? :)

>private - you used a me for this - was there a reason for not using sivni
>or a lujvo thereon, which is intended to be associated with this attitudinal.

I was unaware of it. The word would have to be sivyci'o, and not sivni.
But I think me+UI is a powerful construct, worth preserving.

>mitkruca - did you want mutual vs. identical here

Yes, the {mit} is an error for {sim}

>symmetrical - did you consider lanxe vs sarxe.  The English suggests the former
>and the minra was a bit confusing.  Doesn't anyone like dukti? 
>(dukti-mapti lanxe/sarxe?)

minra will have to be there because the equilibrium is one of reflection same-
ness. lanxe is clearly better than sarxe, and maybe te minra rather than
minra, but any expression for symmetrical will have to have a wild metaphor.

>Sylvia is thinking about writing something, but cannot get into the decor/
>atmosphere/conversation with other Lojbanists thread that is going on.  

As Mark's piece shows, one needn't use this current thread.