From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:35 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 1 Jun 1993 07:00:35 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0157; Tue, 01 Jun 93 06:59:41 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0108; Tue, 01 Jun 93 07:00:59 EDT Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 11:55:12 +0100 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: JimC on Frank's easy text To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jun 1 12:55:12 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: I agre with Jim's approval of Frank's piece. I disagree with the majority of his specific comments: > I anxiously await comments on how authoritative "le cmalu mlatu" is, >that is, whether it means exactly the same as "le mlatu poi cmalu" (not >likely), or is a metaphor along the lines of "broken heart", or whether >you have to kind of guess which cat is referred to. I interpreted it as "le mlatu poi cmalu". What's the problem? >> .i le nu le mlatu cu cliva le mi zdani cu se fanta > Stylistically, it's better to put the main predicate early in the >sentence, e.g. "fanta fe le nu ... cliva ..." I believe that as >written this is an observative, but I can't remember what wriggling is >needed to de-observatize it. I emphatically reject this comment. I too would tend to put the main selbri first (just 'fanta lenu ...') but neither Jim nor I has any business lecturing Frank on stylistics. Lojban stylistics are wide open. As usage has grown up, the category of observative does not seem to be significant - the x1 may be elided like any other tergismu. Probably Jim wil be upset about this. >> .i lo civla cu bartu le mi zdani > >It looks like we have no gismu for "infest", "infect", or even "habitat". True for "infest". I don't see the relevance of "infect". Habitat is "se xabju" (or "na'o se xabju" if necessary). In context, Frank's expression seems quite adequate. > I thought you >asserted that the cats were prevented from living in your house >(pragmatically implying that they in fact don't live there), while you >really mean that subsequent discourse (the ten sentences or so about >cat salad) tells a workaround which prevents the undesired result of >the cats not living in your house. I'm not sure how to express this >right in Lojban. I think you must be misinterpreting "cliva" as 'live'. >I don't have "rorci" on my list. Closest I can come is jbena = born. >Maybe my list is old. Yes, it is: rorci ror procreate engenders/procreates/begets x2 with coparent x3; (cf. rirni, se panzi, mamta, patfu, tarbi) >> .i le mlatu cu to'e nelci le nu vitke le danlu mikce > >A. Who is the guest? Obviously it's the cat, but I would like to see >rules to govern this interpretation, not vague common sense. Insofar as there are rules of interpretation, the x1 (which is here the cat) is the answer. I agree that there are cases which are unsatisfactorily vague: I don't think this is one of them. > >B. I'm not sure of "guest" as the predicate. "le mlatu cu se mikce le >danlu mikce" is semantically better, but because it repeats "mikce" >the sentence is ugly. I agree mildly. I'm not certain about "vitke" - though the meaning is "is a guest/visitor of" and it's not obviously wrong. I agree about the form with "se mikce" - both about its semantic appropriateness, and about its stylistic ineptitude. > > .i mi bevri le mlatu poi nenri le mlatu bevri tanxe ku'o le danlu mikce > >Probably you want "noi" (supplementary subordinate clause) rather than >"poi" (restrictive clause). What you actually said was "among the cats, >pick the one in the box; that's the one I carry." I agree > >Also, this section I think needs a long scope "habitual" tense, but I've >lost track of how to say that. Without it, you focus on one or a few >specific instances. I disagree. I probably would put in such a tense, but it is one of the tenets of lojban that tenses etc are optional. It may be that Jim as a reader will focus on specific instances, but it is not true that that is what the Lojban text does. >> .i mi na djica le nu le mlatu cu krici le nu >> le nu nenri le karce cu nibli le nu vitke le danlu mikce > >This sentence is complicated, but is well constructed, and all parts >are needed. I think "nibli" is not quite right, being (I think) for >things like theorems and logic. I would use "zi se balvi" (future) or >"zi purci" (past), waffling on the causal connection, which cats can't >comprehend. You can use "zi" (short interval) alone like this, can't >you? It's putting the "nibli" (logical connection) in the mind of the cat; Jim may be right that they cannot comprehend that - how does he know? I would tend to use "se jalge", but "zi se balvi" is good too. >> .i le mlatu cu catlu fi'o farna pagre [fe'u] le canko > >So that's why you asked that particular question! "fe'u" would go after >"le canko" because you want the clause to include it, and being terminal, >"fe'u" could be elided. I had a feeling the "fe'u should come after, but didn't check. ======================================================================== There's a monkey on my shoulder | Colin Fine and it's telling me lies | Dept of Computing Just to stop me ever seeing | University of Bradford what's in front of my eyes. | Bradford, W. Yorks, England It tells me what the world is like| BD7 1DP and how I ought to be, | Tel: 0274 733680 (h), 383915 (w) And just what's gonna happen | c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk if I ever dare be me. | 'Morris dancers do it with bells on' ========================================================================