[lojban-beginners] Re: la melpelkre .e le ci cribe

["Karl Naylor" <karl.org@gmail.com>]

On 31/05/07, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> You may also want to compare with
> <http://icwww.epfl.ch/~dyke//chrestomathy/goldilocks-txt.html>

Thanks, it's an interesting read.

> > ni'oni'o puzuvuku la melpelkre cmalu nixli
> Missing {cu}?

Ah yes, I forgot that {la} could swallow more than one word.

> > .i la melpelkre goi ko'a cadzu mo'i pa'o le tricu cicfoi
> {mo'i} seems to me to be either redundant, since {cadzu}
> already implies movement, or wrong, because it would seem to
> say that the walking event itself is in movement. {mo'i pa'o}
> characterizes the whole event, not just ko'a.

By similar reasoning I decided that {mo'i} must be necessary, since
the path the event moves along is transfixing the forest.  That is,
the event of walking is moving because the walking-agent (which
happens to be ko'a) is moving.  I dunno.

> > .i ko'a citka piso'u lei mavdja pe le pamoi tansi noi barda  .i .oi ra
> > glare bancu
> {dukse} is probably better than {bancu} in those.

OK.  I wasn't sure if {dukse} was for excesses of material things
only, the gimste definition seemed to imply that.  I'll use {dukse}
since you've confirmed it's OK :)

> The opposite of {ranti} is {jdari}.

Excellent, was thinking there must be something better than {sligu}.

> > .i le pamoi cribe noi patfu cu cusku lu .ue da pu citka lei mi mavdja li'u
> > .i le remoi cribe noi mamta cu cusku lu .i da pu citka lei mi mavdja li'u
> {pu ca'o citka} or {pu citka pi so'u ...} would make things clearer.
> Without {ca'o} or {pi su'o} I read them as completed events.

I prefer {pu ca'o citka}; if I use {pi so'u} then verba cribe can't
truthfully repeat his parents' exact words, which repetition is
something I liked from the original :)

ki'e .xorxes.