From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri Oct 9 09:45:38 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:45:38 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9442; Fri, 09 Oct 92 09:44:05 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 9556; Fri, 09 Oct 92 09:44:04 EDT Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:55:46 BST Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: Re: CAFE.INT lo ke'unai lisri pe la jbolanzu kafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: > >.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 la nitcion. zo'u > What isn't straight? ("Apart from me", he stops himself from saying :) :) > The two axes? Not that obvious in context. No, it was meant to be the _route_ (or the manner) by which he came in which wasn't straight. It sounds like this doesn't work. Perhaps I could try {pu'e le na'e sirje}. > >.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}. You had me worried there for a moment :) There was a long exchange about this about two months ago, involving la kau,n. and la lojbab., which I eventually managed to dig out, the outcome being that the published definition of {cusku} is wrong. It _does_ take a {lu ... li'u} as its 2nd argument, but this is a {se du'u}. {le du'u broda} is the same as {la'e le se du'u broda}. > >.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 wasn't too keen on {dunda}, but {benji} specifically says "no (complete) alienation from origin is implied", which is not at all what I wanted. Answers on a postcard, please :) > >.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. You might be right, but I don't see it at the moment. The termset ends with the {ku}, which I don't even think is strictly necessary. Which {gi'e} were you worried about? The last one has {kansa} as its selbri. Oh, I see the problem - you're right. That's annoying, all the sumti have to _follow_ the selbri after a gihek. I might use {.ije} instead. > >.i lu<< na birti .i mapaunai jimpe le stura bele menli belei puzu respa > I'd rather {no prenu cu jimpe}, myself... Wot, no rhetorical questions in Lojban? Iain.