Message-Id: <m0tB8lQ-0000ZRC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 2 Nov 1995 16:30:11 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: all the chinese whispers
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 2482
Lines: 74

> 1. John Le Carre _The secret pilgrim_
>
>   Next day I come back to the hotel. Meetings all day long.
>   Lot of trying to like each other. And I do, I mean they're
>   nice chaps.
>
> 2. And:
>
>   Ca le lambavdei mi zilxru le xotli i taacuu ca ro donri
>   i mutce nu troci lo dahi nu le noa ri nelci i mi gohi i zaa
>   melpre


{bavlamdei} has been used much more than {lambavdei}. Any reason why
you prefer the latter?

{zilxru} is an abomination. :)  There was consensus to make {xruti}
agentless anyway.

{ca ro donri} means "every day", not "all day". Somehow that sorted
itself out in the end anyway. I suppose {ca piro donri} would be ok,
although that only says at some point during the day. I prefer
{ca'o le donri}, which is what Don and Iain ended up using.


> 6. Iain:
>
>   ca le bavlamdjedi mi ba sezyxruti fo le xotli
>   .i mi ba tavla ca'o le donri
>   .i mi certu le nu troci lenu jai zdile lo'e prenu poi gasnu da
>   .i mi ji'a
>   .i mi zgana lo pluka prenu
>
> 7. Jorge:
>
>   "I will be back from the hotel tomorrow. I will be talking all day.
>   I'm an expert in trying to entertain people who do something in
>   common. I do too. I observe nice people."

I think {sezyxruti} doesn't have an x4 place: "x1 returns themself to x2
from x3", but I assumed it was the x3 because it was the closest.

I didn't understand the {jai} there. Since there was nothing in the x1
it didn't matter in any case.

I wasn't sure what to do with {da}. Is it inside the scope of {lo'e}
or not? Is {lo'e prenu poi gasnu da} "people who do things", or
"people such that there is something that they all do"?

> Translating {le lambavdei} as "tomorrow" is a bit incautious; "the next
> day" is safer.

I agree, even though I did just that.

> As I myself have said I think {noa} leads to selffeeding recursion
> I can't complain at Goran reading it thus.

I don't think it does. It repeats the selbri, not the whole bridi.
The places of {no'a}, if empty, are likely to be filled like those
in the original selbri, but not to the extent of self replication.
Context or an explicit new sumti may override that.

> I can't quite see where Goran's "the participants" came from. I meant
> "the triers".

Well, they are the participants of the trial.

> {le noa ri nelci} was a bit of a risk: I knew it might get taken
> as reflexive rather than reciprocal, but I was loth to use a
> cumbersome {soi} phrase.

That's what {simxu} is for: {mutce nu troci le nu simnelci}.

Jorge