Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 17:33:02 -0500 (EST)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: TEXT: advert
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HKQG1DE7XG0002ES@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2148
Lines: 68

And:
> > > [This is a version of a text from an advertisement.]
> > I couldn't even guess what you meant.
> I didn't want it to be guessable, only interpretable (which it
> evidently isn't).

I think it is best not to send the translation, at least until
people try to understand what it means. Otherwise, we never know
whether Lojban can be really used to say what we want, since
obviously we'll be biased by reading the translation.

> > > Suho buha cei ka da kau vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe
> > > zohu
> > The prenex is grammatical:
> >  There is at least one predicate bu'a = "is the property
> >  of who likes whisky", such that:
>
> Why not "is the property of being a liker of whisky"? That's
> what I wanted. [You would want "ka keha vusnei", but this
> isn't official, is it?]

{ke'a} is not official, but {dakau} certainly does not work for that.
Didn't you read the example where I contrasted {dakau} with the lambda
variable? Do you disagree with that?

> > > naho ku ge loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu gi
> > > lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda
> > This part is not grammatical.
>
> I want:
>     naho ku loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu
>     .i naho ku lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda

Still ungrammatical.

> I thought NU is a selbri that optionally takes a bridi as its
> complement.

No. NU <bridi> is a selbri, and the <bridi> part is not optional.

> Here I meant puhu to be a selbri without a bridi
> complement. If that's ungrammatical, then I guess I'd want
>
>     naho ku puhu buha be lo gligicnau

You don't need the {be}.

That would be something like "typically there's a process of some Englishman
having such property".

> > From the prenex bu'a doesn't have an x2
>
> If buha = ka ... kei, shouldn't x2 be the possessor of the property?
> "Lo se ka"?

I suppose it makes sense, just like {lo se li'i ...} is the experiencer,
but my cmavo list doesn't have it.

> I will post the original text in due course, but I would like to see
> if I can get across its meaning independently.

Let me guess:

le ka vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zo'utu'e lo'e gligicnau ra prucycpa
ije lo'e kotnau ra cerda tu'u

Jorge