From pycyn@aol.com Wed May 10 11:05:40 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
Received: (qmail 27980 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 18:04:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2000 18:04:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.1) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2000 18:04:44 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.3a.4ede595 (3853) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Wed, 10 May 2000 14:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3a.4ede595.264afeb7@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:04:39 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] More adventures of Max the Dog... pro-bridi, brevity, and tone
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2638

In a message dated 5/9/00 5:50:01 PM CST, nellardo@concentric.net writes:

<< So, more fun with Max.
 
 English:
 
 Max the dog loves to go for walks.
 
 Big walks or little walks.
 
 Long walks or short walks.
 
 Walks to the park, or walks around the block.
 
 Max loves walks.
 
 
 This being a highly informal English, I'd think that the lojban
 translation would be sticky, and so it appears to be. One thought I had
 was to use pro-bridi.
 
 la maks. poi gerku cu se pluka lo mu'e cadzu cei broda>>
I think the {cei broda} breaks things up toward more complex structure; why 
not use the afterthought GOhA
 
 <<.i broda lo mu'e ze'i cadzu
 .i broda lo mu'e ze'a cadzu
 .i broda lo mu'e ze'u cadzu
 
 .i broda lo mu'e ve'i cadzu
 .i broda lo mu'e ve'a cadzu
 .i broda lo mu'e ve'u cadzu
 
 .i broda lo mu'e vi vi'a cadzu la xabji
 .i broda lo mu'e vu vi'i cadzu la panka
 
 .i la maks. broda
 
 This is of course repetitive as all get out. >>
Repetition is good in a children's book; in fact, it practically defines the 
genre (I will not eat in a car, I will not eat on a star, ...)
Incidentally, I find the combination of point events with time intervals odd 
at least (but probably not contradictory).  {zu'o} still seems more natural.
 
 <<But when using "broda", how does one distinguish between *replacement*
 of a sumti, and addition of a sumti? I.e., when I say:
 
 .i broda lo mu'e ze'i cadzu
 
 did I mean:
 
 la maks. poi gerku cu se pluka lo mu'e cadzu lo mu'e ze'i cadzu
 
 Max the dog likes to go for walks, under conditions of short walks. (Max
 likes to go for walks, so long as they are short.
 
 or did I mean:
 
 la maks. poi gerku cu se pluka lo mu'e ze'i cadzu
 
 Max the dog likes to go for short walks. (conditions unspecified).
 
 Is the sumti following "broda" a replacement for x2? Or a new x3? And
 how about with la xabji and la panka? How do those group? I suppose they
 need grouping cmavo.....>>
Replacement, according to the examples in the book (which are all, 
admittedly, for x1 for is explicitly generalized)

 
 <<Note, too, the three categories compared to the english two - it seemed
 more "lojbanic" to use lojban's concept of small-medium-large built into
 tenses than to stick with the literal English adjectives (which, like
 much of English, are very dualistic - one or the other).>>
Inevitable and good pedagogy
 
 <<So let's use some logical connectives among the tenses.
 
 la maks. poi gerku cu se pluka lo mu'e cadzu cei broda
 
 .i broda lo mu'e ze'i ja ze'a ja ze'u cadzu
 .i broda lo mu'e ve'i ja ve'a ja ve'u cadzu
 
 It seems however, that you can't get rid of the repetition of "lo mu'e"
 and "cadzu". Am I right? Or did I miss something? Is there some kind of
 "pro-cmavo" for "broda" where you mark what will be substituted or what
 you are substituting?
 
 
 More later.... >>
The conjoined tenses seem cluttered to me -- too much packed too tight, 
repetition is better in a kids' book:
{i go'e le zu'o ze'i cadzu e le zu'o ze'a cadzu e le zu'o ze'u cadzo} and so 
on (the z's work for me too, and in the next line, the matching ve' V series 
picks up nicely.)  Again, the repetition is good, as it is in the English.  
I hope to se the more soon.