From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:52 2010 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 15:39:21 EDT From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Thu May 11 01:34:42 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: coi dilyn i ckire fi tu'a lei pinka > > i le de'e lisri cu xe fanva lo spano xe fanva be fo le bangrxaimara > > First: what are the principles of formation of 'bangrxaimara'? In order to borrow a word from another language: 1- lojbanize the spelling (the word should end in a vowel). 2- If it starts with a vowel, add an initial x- 3- Choose a lojban gismu as a "classifier". (Common ones would be bangu, for languages, cidja for foods, gugde for countries, tcadu for cities, etc.) 4- Change the last vowel of the gismu to an r and join it to the rest. If this produces a double r, use instead an n, if this causes a double n, use any consonant you like (I think). Any consonant can be pronounced between n and r, anyway. That insures that the word can't be taken for a lujvo. When the original word ends in a consonant, it may be a good idea to use the vowel dropped from the gismu as the final vowel. Examples: tcadrlondonu, pemcrlimriki. > (Incidentally, what is the English orthography for > {aimaras}?) Aymara. > > .i zuku zuku le fetygunse ku joi le fetlorxu cu tavla simxu .i le gunse > > Out of curiousity, how would one rephrase the first bridi without using the > tanru {tavla simxu}? I think {simxu le nu tavla}. > {zunri} should be {zumri} and {gruzi} should be {grusi}, right? Yes, I'll correct them for the next version. > > .i le gunse cu spusku lu lei me mi pu se jukpa .i mi glare jukpa ri > > le nu nerpu'i rori le toknu .i e'u ko jukpa lei me do .i aupei mi > > bregau le toknu sei le gunse cu cusku li'u > > It strikes me as a bit odd to repeat 'le gunse cu cusku', but it's > properly marked. Yes, it looks odd in the Spanish version, too, but that's how it seems to be done in the original. Probably not very elegant in Lojban. > Shouldn't the paragraph be marked with {ni'o}? I tend not to use {ni'o}, but you may be right. > > le toknu .i xu me ti li'u .i ly lebna loi bliku mu'i le nu zbasu > > Is {lebna} really right here? From the gismu list, {lebna} has an x3 > place, the person x2 is taken from; 'seize' seems to be the closest > English equivalent. Wouldn't {cpacu} be better? I agree, I'll change it. > > .ibabo le gunse cu cusku lu e'u ko klagau lei do panzi ti .i mi'o > > In the first bridi, why {ti} instead of {vi}? {vi} is not quite right because the action {klagau} doesn't happen nearby. I think {ti} works for "this place". > Can one person {klama ru'u le toknu} (come around the oven)? Why not? I don't like the many irrelevant places of {klama}, but what can I do? Any suggestions for how to say "go around the oven"? > > .i ki'unai le nu lei lorpanzi cu dunku klaku kei le lorxu na jundi ra > > gi'e nerpu'i ra le toknu .ibabo ua co'a spoja fa lei betfu be lei > > lorpanzi .i roroi ca le nu lo betfu cu spoja kei le lorxu cu sruri > > klama gi'e gleki cusku lu paboi li'u fa'ubo lu reboi li'u fa'ubo > > lu ciboi li'u fa'ubo lu voboi li'u fa'ubo lu muboi li'u > > Now's a good a time as any to inquire about the distinction {lo} vs. > {le}. Ah! One of my favorite topics! lo lorxu : at least one of all things that are foxes. le lorxu : each one of all the things that I'm calling a fox. loi lorxu : some fraction (taken as one entity) of the mass of all foxes. lei lorxu : the mass of things that I'm calling foxes (taken as one entity). > Why is it, e.g., {lei betfu} in the second line but {lo betfu} in > the third? The difference between using {le} and {lei} is that with {le} the sentence describes more than one relationship (unless it's the simple case {le pa lorxu}, while with {lei}, it is always one relationship. So: le ci lorxu cu tavla lo gunse Each of the three foxes talks to a goose. (Three events, there could be three geese.) lei ci lorxu cu tavla lo gunse The three foxes (together) talk to a goose. In my case, I could have said {le betfu be lei lorpanzi}, but that would emphasize each betfu separately, which was not my intention. In the other case, I could have said {pa le betfu} instead of {lo betfu}, but I preferred the shorter one. In any case, I want to individuate them: Every time, that _one_ of the belies explodes... > I'm not sure why {fa'u} was used in the last bridi, rather than, say, > {ce'o}. Because I want them distributed with {ro}, i.e. the first time he said {paboi}, the second {reboi}, etc. Let me give a shorter example: le re prenu cu cusku lu paboi li'u fa'ubo lu reboi li'u Each of the two people said "one" respectively "two". If I had used {ce'o}, it would mean that each person said both. Or, in the case of the fox, it would mean that every time he said the whole series. > > .ibabo ca le nu le lorxu cu barle'a lei ri panzi le kevna kei le gunse > > cu mutce darnu bu'u le lalxu .i le lorxu cu barle'a lei ri panzi noi > > ba'o tabybi'o > > Again, I'd question the use of {lebna}. I'll change {barle'a} to {barcpa}. > The spatial tenses confuse me here; earlier, the goose went far away by > route of the lake; but now the goose is far away _at_ the lake? Yes, I guess she's in the middle of the lake. What's the problem? > > .ibabo ly tcefengu gi'e cusku lu ai mi ba sudgau le lalxe li'u .i ly > > pinxe ce'o pinxe mu'i le nu sudgau le lalxe .i ku'i ki'unai le nu > > mutce pinxe na snada le nu sudgau le lalxe .i le ly betfu ba'o plana > > {lalxe} should be {lalxu}, no? Oops, yes. > Could {le ly betfu ba'o plana binxo} also be written {le ly betfu ba'o > plana} or {le ly betfo ba'o binxo (lo/le) plana}? {ba'o plana} suggests to me that it is no longer plana, so I don't think that would be right. The other seems ok, with either {lo} or {le}. > The meaning of the last two sentences seems very weird to me. Is > "The fox dared to go while she was losing water from her back. She > cried out in warning, 'Be careful! Sharp leaf, don't cut me!'" a > correct translation? Where's the fox going? What on earth is a {kinli > pezli}? {dar} is the rafsi for {darno}, not {darsi}, so {darkla} would be "go away". A {kinli pezli} would be something like a prick, I think. Other suggestions welcome. > > .i badri je klaku klama fo le cmana .ize'iku lo kilpezli ly batci > > Any particular reason you use the lujvo {kilpelzi} here and the tanru > {kinli pelzi} above, or is it just stylistic? No reason, I probably should have used the lujvo both times. co'o mi'e xorxes