On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis
<felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 March 2012 19:32, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> to minimize confusion,
> all the uses of tV that referred to a location are now vVku.
>
happens that
the textual substitution gives
{mi zvati viku} === {mi vi zvati} === {viku mi zvati},
which might work.
(I have not made up my mind about how to read space/time tenses in selbri
that have places for position/time)
Anyway, please consider the possible confusion of taking {viku} to be a sumti.
To someone unacquainted with lojban, all evidence in the text points in that
direction. Particularly misleading is
> 36. sy: mi zvati ma
> cy: doi.sam. do zvati vaku
where a sumti-question is answered with a tense.
Right then. In that case, I'm going back to the way I had it, because I find the idea of readers confusing something which is not a sumti with something that is entirely unacceptable, and I am also unwilling to risk the confusion caused by referring to both places and things with tV. (Panel 12 would be {tu zvati tu}, for example.)
Below some random things I spotted.
> 56. lo mi'a bersa cu zvati viku .i lo go'i cu barda zmadu lo vu nanla .i se
> cmene la.bil. .i la.bil. bersa mi'a .i lo go'i xabju kansa mi'a lo mi'a
> zdani
> .i se
> cmene la.bil.
la -> zo
Just when you think you've gotten them all, another one pops up.
> .i lo go'i xabju kansa mi'a lo mi'a
> zdani
This sentence has no selbri. Maybe you wanted
{.i lo go'i cu xabju kansa mi'a lo mi'a zdani}?
Yes.
Anyway, I am not sure {lo mi'a zdani} is a kansa3, but it is xabju2,
{.i lo go'i cu xabju be lo mi'a zdani be'o kansa mi'a}.
No, not exactly, k3 of this would be {lonu xabju lo mi'a zdani}, but I'm not sure introducing abstractors at all in this is a good idea.
Thinking about it
Anynyway, the simple
{.i lo go'i cu xabju kansa mi'a}
looks equally informative to me.
No, it doesn't say anything about where they live together. My friend Tom does not live in the same house as his mother, but he does live in the same city, so this information is in fact important.
Thinking about it, I think I'll change it to {lo go'i .e mi'a kansa xabju lo mi'a zdani}.
> 57. cy: lo do tixnu cu zvati ma
> by: go'i tu .i re vu nixli cu tixnu mi'a
Here you left the {tu} to denote a place, in contrast with 36. Overlooked?
Yes. Thank you.
As I said, I actually prefer this {tu} version.
By the way, why did you choose to always answer sumti-questions with
a full bridi, as opposed to a simple sumti?
?
> 72. mi nanca li civo .ije lo mi nakspe goi la.sam. nanca li cixa .i lo go'i
> cu zmadu mi lo se nanca li re .i lo mi'a tixnu cu zmadu lo mi'a bersa lo se
> nanca li vo
>
zmadu3 is a dimension, so it should be {lo ka ce'u nanca makau kei}.
Since this is the last utterance, and it appears to be decipherable,
you might want to play with the reader and leave it like that. A more
friendly alternative is to use a tanru like {nanca zmadu}, as in 56.
z3 is not a dimension. It is a property or quantity. lo se nanca is a quantity.
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.