From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sun May 21 12:43:19 1995
Date:         Sun, 21 May 1995 12:45:24 EDT
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: {prenu} vs. {remna}
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <gb-XXTbZOXD.A.OwE.xt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
>  > > mi pu cusku lu
>  > >   .i lu ro remna
>  > >   co'a le nu ri se zbasu li'u sinxa ro co'a cinfo fi mi
>  > > li'u
>  > >
>  > > .i la xorxes. di'u di'e spuda .i lu
>  > >   i xu do djisku zo simlu ba'ibo zo sinxa
>  > > li'u
>  > >
>  > > .i na pu go'i
>  >
>  > i ki'a go'i
>  > to ki'u la'e do'i mi stidi le nu na dukse pilno zo lu toi
>
> {.uanaicai} Sorry, I'm going to have to temporarily switch to English;
> otherwise, this could go on for weeks.  I think my use of {sinxa} was
> correct--do you disagree?  Do you think {simlu} would have been better
> (to avoid excessive {lu}'s)?

{sinxa} is ok, now that I know what you meant. My comment about {lu}
was only that your {go'i} doesn't repeat my sentence inside the lu-li'u.

I don't believe in using lu-li'u instead of the usual ">" for this type
of dialogue.  If you were writing a book or a formal paper, then of
course you would quote things with {lu}, but here the only reason to
copy what the other wrote is as a reminder or indication of what you are
responding to.  Using {lu} in this context would be almost as bad as
using it when talking.  You ask a question and I respond by repeating
your question in quotes and then answering.  If you quote something with
{lu}, you are actually saying it.  By convention, something that appears
with ">" is something someone else said, and appears in your post only
as background, just like other people's words are a background to what
you say when talking.  You can use {go'i} etc. to refer to that
background, but not to refer to things inside {lu} quotes.

>  > > .i lu le te sinxa li'u dunli lu le zgana li'u le
>  > > smuni .i xu do tugni .i mi nu'o pu pilno zo simlu
>  >
>  > i mi se cizra le nu ro da poi co'a cinfo cu se sinxa da'u
>
> What would a "new infant" be other than "a just created person"?

Maybe a "new lion"? I thought you were being metaphorical.  :)
cinfo = lion; cifnu = infant

>  > i cy zbasu lei danlu fa'u lei remna ca le re djedi
>
> According to the gismu list:
>    danlu dal     da'u animal
>    x1 is an animal/creature of species x2; x1 is biologically animate
> Surely this includes humans?

No doubt.  But the Bible still says that animals were created in a
different day than Man. The question is how do you translate that "Man"?
I'd say {remna}, not {prenu}.

>  > > .i ju'ocu'i lei cmugau patfu krice ledu'u le nu la cev. zbasu na'e mulfau>  >                               ^cu krici
>
> .i ji'a zo tipyfau basti zo mulfau

i ue xu tikpa fasnu

>  > i pe'i py krici le du'u ro remna cu se zbasu la cev  i ji'a lei ca remna
>
> .i .uanai .i le nu zbasu piroloi remna ja'abo lo'e remna cu na'e tipyfau

i ie i zo'o le nu catke le bolci sepi'o le jamfu cu tipfau

>
> .i mu'o mi'e. dilyn. .uanai

co'o mi'e xorxes uanaisai