Message-Id: <199511070052.TAA11402@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 7 Nov 1995 01:33:19 MET
Reply-To: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Subject:      Re: all the chinese whispers
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

> (*) I can't imagine a relationship of returning without there being
> something being returned (assuming that it was x2 you wanted
> obliterated)
(...)
> {zilxru}: I meant {zil} to delete x1 of {xruti} - i.e. go from
> "x1 returns x2 to x3 from x4" to "z1=x2 returns to z2=x3 from z3=x4".

xorxes was right: zilxru *was* an abomnination.

> {taacuu} should have been {taarcuu}. But it was a pretty bad translation.
> I would change it to {casnu} (not {penmi}).
>
> I meant {mutce nu troci} to be understood as {da mutce nu de troci},
> rather than as {mi mutce troci}, which is how Goran understood it
> (japanesely). Evidently we must be cautious with ellipted sumti.

I don't really know how I came to translate it into {mi}. That was an
observative, obviously, and it should have been translated as "Many
tryers for tryers to entertain themselves". Can't see why I didn't do
so.

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

OK, As for pe la xorxes. comment, I think that no'a does repeat its
arguments unless they are overridden, being closely related to go'i, and
knowing that go'i certainly does act that way (because if it didn't, you
couldn't use it to answer questions).

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

Beats me. :)

co'o mi'e. goran.

P.S. Of course I'm in for the next one!

--
GAT/CS/O d?@ H s:-@ !g p1(2)@ !au(0?) a- w+(+++) (!)v-@(+) C++(++++)
UU/H(+) P++>++++ L(>+) !3 E>++ N+ K(+) W--(---) M-- !V(--) -po+ Y(+)
t+@(+++) !5 !j R+@ G-@(J++) tv+(++) b++@ D++ B? e+* u@ h!$ f?(+) r--
!n(+@) y+. GeekCode v2.1, modifications left to reader to puzzle out