Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 17 Aug 1993 05:16:50 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 17 Aug 1993 05:16:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199308170916.AA14778@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2865; Tue, 17 Aug 93 05:15:32 EDT Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@YALEVM) by YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9475; Tue, 17 Aug 1993 05:15:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 10:15:43 +0100 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: TEXT: Re: TEXT: Imagist To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Tue Aug 17 11:15:43 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET And replies to me: ++++++++++> I have piho down as a rafsi for pipno "piano" - I meant typing = piano writing. >++++++++++ .u'uro'e do na.e mi srera ++++++++++> I don't understand what you mean. I thought "n" is a legitimate hyphen, & necessary because otherwise piho + ciha would fall apart. >++++++++++ You do indeed need a hyphen. What I'm querying is whether 'n' is a permitted option to the standard 'r'. ++++++++++++> In my rafsi list "xem" is the rafsi assigned to "xe". >++++++++++++ As John has just explained in another mailing, that has now changed to 'xel', but several people (including me) thought it was already 'xel' .i nu'i mi fo lo purci nu'u .e do fo lo balvi cu srera +++++++++++++> I meant the x1 of ciksi. I have not studied the gismu places thoroughlt enough to know whether I would recant on this. I interpret the "x1 (person)" as a non-defining feature. I wonder, incidentally, how to translate "explain that [clause]" - the x2 of ciksi seems also to be the x4 of ciksi. >++++++++++++ 'person)' may be non-defining, but I infer '(agent)' in the x1: 'x1 provides explanation x4 for x2 to x3' The x2 is the thing explained (about), the x4 the explanation. So 'explain that I made an error' is 'ciksi fo le du'u mi srera' However I'm not happy about that, because I've just realised that there are two meanings of 'explain' in English - one is definitely covered by 'ciksi', one might not be. They are: 'explain the workings/mechanism/details/purpose of some system' (definitely ciksi) 'explain the justification for some action' (dubious, because it typically implies 'justify') 'Explain that' is often the latter, and I think 'krinu cusku' or even 'zungi vimcu troci' is often more appropriate. Colin ps I wonder what the current rash of entirely Lojban postings is having on less committed or less expert readers of the list. Comments anybody?