From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 6 23:00:31 2010 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:30:47 -0500 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1998; Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:30:08 EST Received: from UGA.BITNET by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP id 1842; Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:29:59 EST Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:23:43 GMT Reply-To: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: Re: CAFE.INT: su'u xekri To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 16 14:23:43 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: mi ke'unai spuda la nik. > >"Yes, a real pain. Look, stop being so nasty." > She said, looking at him adoringly... I can't find that in there. Did you mean "iu" rather than "i'u"? > > >"Go on then, make me!" (something had been enough to make the quiet > >detailed (?) friendly and loving relationship which does not normally show > >this behaviour (note 3)) > > Oh! Er, you'll kick me for this: it's a continuation of the previous > parenthetical clause. The repetition of {vlipa} clearly isn't enough to > bind the two parentheticals together, and I'll revise it into an explicit > bind. ("He has shown strength in close friendship/love, which isn't > exemplified by this kind of behaviour! :) ") The {tcila} is obviously weak. Yes I will. (See below) OK, I was wrong with the x3 of vlipa, but I don't think your sumti does what you want. It's a property of (somebody being) quiet, close lovers and friends - I think you probably want the "smaji" outside the "ka". I'm not quite sure what "close" means in this context. How about "lamji"? (like "jibni", this is not confined to spatial adjacency). Otherwise, paradoxically, "slabu" seems to do it. > > Why do I structure this whole narrative on such a rabbit-warren of > parenthetical comments? I don't know, the self-commenting, double-narrative > perplexity, made *formally* possible by Lojban's unambiguous punctuation, > intrigued me; I don't think it was wise to do it so cavalierly though (I'll > still do it, because there's a point to it, but I'll build in more safety > valves.) But you're not using it that way. You're taking Lojban's unambiguous punctuation as the frame, and then clothing it liberally in several of the structures which are specifically not unambiguous, viz tanru, no'ervaismu tergerna (parenthesis) and selru'a sumti (omitted arguments). The result is something rather gnomic and evocative, but miles from the precision that Lojban was (I believe) designed for. In partcular, Lojban says absolutely nothing about the relationship of a no'ervaismu tergerna to the surrounding text; it is therefore formally impossible to relate several such together. (Of course this can be done pragmatically, as you were intending, but that is outside the defined grammar, and even, I suggest, outside any level of semantics which we may somedaay define. This is not to censure you for doing this, but please be aware what you are doing. > > >I understand the words, and > >think I have understood the sense, but for the life of me I can't work out > >what you were trying to achieve by that "co". > > Literally, afterthough tanru modification. Like postposed adjectives in > free order languages. My lack of self-defence competence characterised me, > but is an afterthough to my turning. (And a self-mocking aside, that > shouldn't be foregrounded.) > Fair enough. By this point, I was so concentrating on the wierdnesses of your construction, that I missed this simple intention. Colin New tanru/lujvo used in this mail: no'ervaismu tergerna - no'e vajni smuni te gerna - neutrally-important-meaning grammatical-form 'Bracketed expression' (but could be other kinds of aside such as vocatives too) selru'a sumti - se sruma sumti - assumed argument 'Omitted argument'