From - Tue Dec 17 10:15:18 1996 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Date: Tue Dec 17 10:15:18 1996 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: A challenge X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199612131136.GAA09159@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Don Wiggins on Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:35:30 GMT) X-UIDL: 1f95e06ad3283eab645e8e18ed38d0cc X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1910 Message-ID: <80vQqd5i0xN.A.D_B.u60kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> >Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:35:30 GMT >From: Don Wiggins > >>>.i lu mi'a visydonborka'ogei .i ku'i ko smajo'ukemvizyzva li'u >>> " We seeing-(you-well)-glad. However, you! quiet-and-(here-at) " >>> > >>I don't know about making it into a single word, but I probably would >>expect more UI markers! (and maybe fewer predicates. And probably mi >>instead of mi'a: if the speaker knows enough to say that "we" are glad, >>she's probably speaking on behalf of "we"). > >It seems to be really difficult to use fewer predicates, but that way would >certainly be better Lojban. > >>za'a kanro .ui > Evidential-I-observe-that (something) is-healthy and-I-am-happy-about-it. > >.oicu'iro'o for physical-non-complaint. Yeah, that's what I tried for in the second attempt with fu'iro'ose'inai (or fu'iro'odai) >>.i re'inai .ei ko zvati ti > Not-ready-to-receive obligation you! at this-indicated. > >I don't know about that "re'inai", how about "ta'a" 'interruption'. Works too. I was using re'inai to mean "I don't want to hear from you; not ready to process your input. Shut your trap." >>.ui za'ase'i fu'iro'ose'inai ko zvati ti > >>Maybe even some cmavo replacement for zvati? > >.o'e is closeness. That might do it. :) I tried to think of one... >.i lu .oicu'iro'odai .ui .i ta'a o'edai > " Physical-non-complaint-empathy glad. Interruption closeness-empathy > > .e'uga'i li'u >suggest-haughty. " > >That starting to look a lot better. Now if the "ta'a" can be eliminated then >all the cmavo can be squished together and scoped with "fu'e... fu'o" and >we're there. You can still squish them together; why can't you? Because of the vowels? "ta'a.o'edai" is as much a compound cmavo as ".o'edai" is. ~mark