Date:         Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:41:14 -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: Poesy (WAS Re: Online learning)
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <906508501.101649.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 3274
Lines: 74


la robin cusku di'e

>.i .e'o doi solri ko kurji ro'i
>.i .e'o le mi cinmo cu  prami gi'e gleki
 [...]
>.i .e'o lei jmive cu panpi gi'e zifre gi'e gleki

Very nice!

>A few points ....
>
>1.  It's always a problem finding a comprise between metricality and
>grammaticality.  Apart from the last line, it should all fit roughly
>into tetrameter or trimeter (second verse), but sometimes you have to
>"scrunch" some of the cmavo.  Fine in English, but I'm not sure if
>Lojban is supposed to be syllable-timed or stress-timed.  If the atter
>is the case, this obviously wouldn't work.

I think I've always assumed syllable timing. But Lojban grammar
is more flexible than it meets the eye, it is usually possible to
accomodate metricality. For example, instead of  "cu prami gi'e
gleki" you might want to say "ge prami gi gleki", with exactly the
same meaning and saving that extra syllable. Or you might like
"cu prami je gleki", with very nearly the same meaning.

Also "le cinmo" instead of  "le mi cinmo" is very acceptable,
if you don't mind losing the touch of egocentrism. After all, the
prayer probably refers to the universal "mi", not the individual.

>2.  "cinmo" was an attempt to translate the metaphorical use of
>"heart".  I was really more after something like "soul" as it (or rather
>its equivalent, which I've forgotten) is used in Russian or Early Modern
>English, rather than "pruxi", which implies "ghostly/ethereal".

I think "cinmo" is all right. But notice the difference between "cinmo"
and "pruxi" also has to do with their place structures. "cinmo" is like
"pensi", x1 feels x2, x1 thinks x2. "pruxi" is like "menli" and like
"xadni":
x1 is the spirit/heart/soul of x2, x1 is the mind of x2, x1 is the body of
x2.
We might say that "pruxi" is to "cinmo" as "menli" is to "pensi", and
"xadni" to "ganse". The first is the part of the person used to do the
second.

If anyone has been reading the series of exchanges between
Michael Helsem and myself under the subject "jbopemci", they may
recognize that we've been using "pruxi" in the soul/moral/emotional
sense rather than the ghostly one. (Has anyone, BTW?)

>3.  "klina" and "sarxe" were attempts at "lucid" and "calm" (as mental
>states), which is stretching things somewhat.

How about "sanji" and "surla"?

>4. I'm not sure exactly what the difference between "pe'u" and "e'o" is,
>except that I have never seen "pe'u" outside an imperative selbri.  I
>stuck with "e'o" as it seems more flexible and general, and is also used
>in lojbab's translation of the Lord's Prayer (the first draft used
>"pe'u" in imperative selbri and "e'o" otherwise).

The difference is more in their grammar than their meaning. "pe'u" is
a vocative so it must be followed by a name. You could say  "pe'u doi
lunra",
but not "pe'u le mi cinmo", unless you were addressing "le cinmo".

co'o mi'e xorxes