Message-Id: <m0s8dDQ-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 8 May 1995 19:52:30 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Questions
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 4322
Lines: 116

> Greetings!

coi dilyn

> >From the text:
> >.i mi fi do ca cusku doi pendo fe ledu'u mi mu'inai loi cazi li'i nandu joi
>                                                          ^^^^
> >se steba cu ca'o pacna da .i da mutce se jicmu le'e merko se pacna

[Instead of {le du'u ...} I would use {le sedu'u ...}, because the x2 of
{cusku} asks for a text, not a fact.]

> "cazi" is a tense indicator, "now" "short time distance".  I don't
> know what it would mean, though.  The English has "the difficulties of
> <today and tomorrow>" around here.  The structure of the whole tale
> end of that birdi eludes me.

{nandu joi se steba} would mean "x1 is difficult/frustrating for x2"

{li'i nandu joi se steba} would be "x1 is an experience of something
being difficult/frustrating for someone". From context, I would
understand that the experiencer is the one for whom something is
difficult/frustrating, and not the one that is difficult/frustrating.
I think it would be mopre clear to say: {li'i se nandu joi steba}.

{cazi} means "now", but the {zi} adds a little uncertainty as to the
exact position of the now. It could be "just now" or "any time now".
So {cazi li'i nandu joi se steba} means "x1 is, about now, an experience
of difficulty/frustration}.

Then {loi cazi li'i nandu joi se steba} would be {some present
difficulties}.

A more literal translation perhaps would be {lei cabna joi balvi nandu}.


> >.i mi pacna lenu levi natmi baco'a virnu gi'e tarti tu'a le fatci smuni be
>                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >leri kriselsku po'u <<lu mi xusra ledu'u ledi'e jetnu si'unai se jimpe .itu'e
> >ro remna cu jikydunli co'a lenu ri se zbasu li'u>>
>
> I believe "fatci smuni" is a translation of "true reason".  But
> "fatci" seems like a poor translation of this use of "true"; "fatci"
> seems closer to the English word "correct".  Wouldn't something like
> "jicmu smuni" be better?

I understand {fatci smuni} as "the real/actual meaning", which seems
right. {jicmu smuni} would be "the most elemental meaning", opposed
perhaps to a more sophisticated one.


> Because of these two and what strikes me as an overabundance of tanru,
> I'd guess that Nick wrote this while he was still experimenting with
> his lojban style.  Is this right?  Is there a better text for a
> beginner to start with?

Perhaps Nick would like to comment? Are you listening, Nick?

I think we are all still experimenting, but probably his texts
have the most elaborate style.


> >- the box is bottle-shaped, making ta1 both a bottle and a box;
> >- the box contains one or more bottles;
> >- the box is made of one or more bottles;
> >- the box is the contents of one or more bottles;
> >- the box is the material used for making one or more bottles.
>
> The 4th and 5th examples here perplex me; they violate the only
> meaning I could give to the earlier quote.  Anybody?

The x1 of {botpi tanxu} is a box. I suppose that the 4th example
means that it's a box inside a bottle, a "bottled box", although
{se botpi tanxe} might be more clear. I don't understand the 5th
example either.


> -------------------
>
> Another question:
>
> >From the "Diagrammed Summary of Lojban Grammar", line 1619:
> >This construct may be combined with the modal construct discussed just
> >previously to identify a sumti:
> >
> >      la djan. ne pu la mark. [ge'u] [cu] melbi tavla [vau]
> >      -------- <  >. --------       |     ===========
> >     John, who was (incidentally) before Mark, is a beautiful-talker.
>
> Doesn't this show exactly the confusion about {pu} mentioned earlier?
> {la mark.} is not an event.

I agree with you. It might mean, I suppose, that John lived before
Mark was born.


> mi ckire do ro danfu
>
> .i fe'omi'e dilyn. trsTON.
>
> (Speaking of which... why don't multi-word cmene introduce ambiguities in
> the phonetics?)

Anything that ends in a consonant is a name. To see where the name starts,
you go back until you find a pause or a {la}, {lai} or {doi}.

If it's a pause, and the previous word ends in a consonant, you repeat
the process.

That's why a pause is needed after {mi'e}, which if you write the dots
should be written {mi'e.}

You don't need to capitalize TON, because the o is the only vowel and
so it already has the stress anyway.

co'o mi'e xorxes