On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM, ianek
<janek37@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> 20. cy: doi.djan. do ralte lo ta mo
It should be. I'm going to call this a typo.
<snip>
> dy: zo.flyfis. cmene
Why not flufis? Ceqli "u" is defined "U as in bOOt".
It seems fairly obvious to me that "flufizo" is a Ceqli-ization of "Fluffy", which is a fairly common English name for a dog. .flyfis. is closer to "Fluffy" than .flufis.
<snip>
> 27. go'i .ijenai lo cy. dalpe'o na gerku .i lo go'i cu mlatu .i lo mlatu cu
Double negation? I think it should be either {go'i .ije lo cy. dalpe'o
na gerku} or {go'i .ijenai lo cy. dalpe'o gerku}. The former is
simpler for beginners, pe'i.
Huh. I thought I'd fixed that. Hm, it must be some other spot that had a double negative I fixed....
> 28. xu la snime cu mlatu .i sny. barda.iepei mlatu
{sny} is not a Lojban word, according to vlatai.
Yes. I know.
{sy} was taken by
Sam, but it refers (without {goi}) to the most recent S-sumti, am I
right?
I don't know. What I do know is, beginner's /won't/ know, and will most likely assume that sy. will still reference Sam.
I thought of saying syny., but I wasn't certain if readers would get that syny. = la snime, whereas I'm fairly certain they would get sny. = la snime
I also thought of using my., but again, I wasn't sure if readers would be able to transition along my. = le mlatu = la snime
I suppose I could say lo go'i...
<snip>
> 40. la.djan. mi speni .i la.djan. nakspe mi .ije mi fetspe dy. .i mi'a me
> lo nakspe je fetspe gi'e kansa xabju
Wouldn't {joi} be more appropriate here, instead of {je}?
Possibly, but it introduces a new concept, and je is still appropriate.
mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe = "myself-and-others are-amongst-those-that-are something-which-actually-is-one-or-more-wives-and-husbands"
<snip>
> 50. lo vu cipni cu danlu gi'enai dalpe'o .i lo dalpe'o cu danlu pendo gi'e
> xabju lo nanmu je ninmu .i lo vu cipni cu xabju lo tricu
Again, why {je}? I thought that {nanmu je ninmu} is some kind of
hermaphrodite... I would say {lo nanmu ja ninmu} or {lo nanmu a lo
ninmu}.
It's not my fault you're assuming {lo nanmu je ninmu} refers to a single entity.
Yes, it should be {lo nanmu ja ninmu}.
<snip>
> 54. cy: xu do'o srana lo verba
I don't think {stuzi} would work here... So maybe let's keep 42 as is.
That was my thinking.
<snip>
> 56. lo mi'a bersa cu zvati ti .i lo go'i cu barda lo vu nanla .i se cmene
{barda fi lo vu nanla}
I'm not sure that barda3 ("standard/norm") works like bramau2, but
ok...
I'll just add zmadu and make it a tanru. I don't like the idea of using yet another new lujvo, but you're right that barda alone doesn't really work.
<snip>
> 60. le ci verba cu bersa mi .ija'a bersa mi .i mi mamta le ci verba .i
The second {bersa mi} sounds redundant, much more than the original. I
would remove it.
I don't consider redundancy in a teaching tool to be a valid reason for removal.
<snip>
> by: ko'a goi zo.zam. .i lo go'i cu bruna la.sam. .i mi fetspe la.sam.
{ko'a goi la.zam.}
Thank you. I must've done that by mistake when I was changing the {la} in the {se cmene la.} occurrences to {zo}.
<snip>
> 63. cy: ta mo
> by: ta patfu mi .i ta se cmene zo.baluz. .i la.baluz. patfu mi .iji'a
> pafspe la.sam. gi'e mamypa'u ci mi'a verba .i la.sam. be'aspe la.baluz.
> sy: coi.beluz.
{baluz} (or {balus}, whatever)
Typo.
<snip>
> 65. ji'a la.baluz. .e la.djin. srana lo bersa noi se cmene zo.jos. .i
In Ceqli "o" is pronounced "ou", as in "boat", so maybe {djous}? Too
bad he'd be another "dy" in sight.
Same thing as with Fluffy. His name is obviously Joe. The "yet another dy." is my reason for not calling him .djos.
<snip>