Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rDXA8-00007FC; Fri, 2 Dec 94 14:32 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2531; Fri, 02 Dec 94 14:32:44 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2526; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:32:44 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3546; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:29:25 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 01:01:14 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 01 Dec 94 16:06:29 T.) Content-Length: 1546 Lines: 44 Goran: > > lo ni fa le vi nanmu cu pinji > > vau bancu le lakne zei linji > > .i zmabra .i gohu > > cu mukti .oirohu > > le spepli be lo cmadesminji > Translation: > (Amount-of: the-man-here is a penis) type-of > exceeder of probable-line > . Bigger. That Maybe "trabra" might have been better. > motivates > spouse-use of vibrator > > Comments on the language: > 1. The {fa} is not necessary (just a 'warning', not an 'error' - if you do C > programming - like, dunno if you wanted it there, so I better warn you :)) > 2. I believe you want {se pinji} in the first line... "fe" > 3. You better put in a {cu} after {vau}, or replace the {vau} with {ku}, > else you wind up making a tanru {ni}+{bancu}, and you don't get a > complete sentence Quite right. "Ku" it should be. > 4. Your use of {linji} is metaphorical - doesn't work for boundary (sorry > to ruin your rhyme) - {linji} is 1-dimensional, continuous set of points. > 5. I find {spepli} quite vague for a lujvo - tanru would be quite OK. Poetic licence. "Linji" would be better "korbu", if you take it as "beyond the bounds of probability"; or you can take it as "off the end of the scale of probability". As you say, it's a metaphor, & NB it was LE linji, not LO linji, so no solecism there, I hope. "spepli" is vague for a lujvo, but lojban does insist on eating up the syllables, so lujvo it had to be. "Cmadesminji" is too vague for a lujvo, too. Thanks for your comments. Do they have limericks in Croatia? --- And