From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 6 22:55:49 2010 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:29:50 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3544; Wed, 07 Oct 92 09:28:21 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 5054; Wed, 07 Oct 92 09:28:20 EDT Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:56:04 EST Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: CAFE.INT lo ke'unai lisri pe la jbolanzu kafybarja X-To: "(Lojban Mailing List)" To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: ; from "I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK" at Sep 30, 92 11:25 am Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 7 17:56:04 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: <71NOtgeCPjC.A.sKB.130kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Quoth I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK: Quite legible and clear, Iain. It still has the standard lojbanitis of being a bit dry - in other languages, it would sound more whimsical than it does in Lojban, and I'm not sure if putting in attitudinals will help. >.i bazi lenu mi'a simxu lenu rinsa kuku lo nanmu poi nanca li so'a >cu klama fole na'e sirji ne'i le barja gi'e co'a zutse ca'u mi What isn't straight? ("Apart from me", he stops himself from saying :) :) The two axes? Not that obvious in context. >.i le nanmu goi ko'a cusku le se du'u ri puzi se gunta lo puzu respa >pe la'o ly. Saurischia ly. Given that Cowan decided {cusku} takes a {lu...li'u} as its 2nd argument, shouldn't this be {du'u}? I thought a {se du'u} was a {nu}. I was a bit alarmed by {puzu} - after all, if it was extinct, one should say {puzuba'o} or something of the like. But the point is that *this* Saurischia is still around, so yes, {puzu} is actually very appropriate. >.i lu<< .ila'aru'e go'i .iboku'i simlu fa lenu naku su'oda zo'u >da cusku di'u ra cu'usa'a ko'a "Noone told it!" --- somehow, that doesn't translate as well as it might. An attitudinal wouldn't go astray; maybe also {snada cusku} or {jungau} (inform). >.isemu'ibo lego'i cpedu lenu mi curmi lenu te dunda lenu bilga >lenu kurji ko'e I'm not at all comfortable with this use of {dunda}. Not that it's necessarily relevant, but I'm reminded of Schank's distinction between PTRANS (physical transfer) and ATRANS (abstract transfer --- I think) in his semantic primitives. >.i mi je'a curmi gi'eja'ebo kiku nu'i bi'ogi cala'edi'u gi caku >dunda loi cidja .e loi djacu ko'e >gi'e satre ko'e gi'e fi lenu cadzu cu kansa fe ko'e Your grammar is garbled here. Where does the termset end? And your {gi'e} has no selbri following it. >.i lu<< na birti .i mapaunai jimpe le stura bele menli belei puzu respa I'd rather {no prenu cu jimpe}, myself... >.i mi'a puzi klama zo'a lo bende belo xanto .ijeseki'ubo mi >mu'i lenu djica lenu fanta lenu damba noi cumki fa lenu ke'a >se jalge lenu ko'e se xrani cu cusku >lu<< ko se kajde fi tu'a le mabru >>li'u Uh, I *think* I got it :) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia. nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au "Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this nation's number one killer" --- Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie. ______________________________________________________________________________