Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:10:24 -0300
Reply-To:     "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: A First Words in Lojban
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <903745101.217032.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 3489
Lines: 86


 >Hello.  My name is Brendan.

{coi mi'e brendan} is indeed the most straightforward translation,
but {rinsa i zo brendan mi cmene} or any of the variations proposed
is also quite acceptable.  {ckire} is often used in the same manner
instead of {ki'e}, perhaps because some situations call for a
heavier expression than the simple vocative (not necessarily more
formal situations). The brivla gives you more freedom to get creative,
as in {cerni rinsa}, {spaji rinsa}, {salci rinsa}, or whatever.

>Catapultam habeo.  Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
>immane mittam.

cu'u la djifut
>    mi ponse le rokci renro .i ko dunda fi mi le do jdini .ija mi ca
>    renro lo bardi rokci le do stedu
 >
>"rokci renro" here means "rock thrower".  "seldanti" might be a
>better word for catapult but it's not specific; it would just mean
>some kind of launching weapon.  Perhaps "rokci seldanti".

Yes, I think {rokseldanti) is the best one.
The problem I have with {renro} is its x3, the direction or aim
of the throw. That is not a part of what a catapult is, I think.
Between {renro} and {cecla} I would take {cecla}, although
I don't really understand the point about internal propulsion.
Does a catapult throw with internal propulsion? If you have
to pull a trigger, can that still be considered internal propulsion?
In any case, given that we have {danti} there's no need to enter
into all that.

>"ro'ire'o"
>would be a nice lujvo for catapult -- it sounds nice. :) I don't
>think you're meant to create lujvo casually though.

It should be {ro'inre'o}.

cu'u la lojbab
>Actually, that is PRECISELY what I what people to do when they feel up to
it.

I agree. I create lujvo casually all the time. That's how the language
works, lujvo are not just words that are created once
and for ever. Most will probably be used only the one time.

>And I would not expect them to bother with place strcture determination in
>such an ad hoc coinage, but rather rely on what seems obvious for the
context.

Here I disagree. For example, if someone used {le ro'inre'o} to refer to the
rock thrown by the catapult, no matter how obvious the context, I will still
think it's not a good choice of lujvo. The place structure of the components
is important and has to be taken into account. The x1 of ro'inre'o cannot be
the object thrown.

Joe:
>.i ko cuxna zi'o lenu do dunda le do ro jdini mi kei ce lenu mi renro lo
>barda rokci le do stedu
>Choose from the set "The event of you giving all your money to me" and
>"The event of me throwing a big rock at your head"
>??

Yes, or to avoid {zi'o} you might say: i do cuxna ma le nu...

 >I wanted to use cecla for "launch" rather than renro, but it is missing a
>place for "at your head."  How can you fit that in there?

You can always add a sumti place using a tense:

            mi cecla lo braro'i fa'a le do stedu
            I launch a big rock in the direction of  your head.

...or a BAI:

            mi cecla lo braro'i ri'i le do stedu
            I launch a big rock, experienced by your head.

co'o mi'e xorxes