Message-Id: <199412020515.AA18680@nfs1.digex.net> From: ucleaar Date: Fri Dec 2 00:15:30 1994 Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 01 Dec 94 16:06:29 T.) Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 2 00:15:30 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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