[lojban-beginners] Re: Lojban Reader

[Alex Joseph Martini <alexjm@umich.edu>]

> > .i ti cukta fi la .alex lo jbobau cilre
>
> Pointing at non-phisical existences is illegal; at least xorxe taught
> me that...  In addition a period should go after Your name, too, so:
> {la .alex.}.
>
> > fi'o valsi le valsi pe lu velcli befi la lojban. bei loi co'a cilre
> > li'u
.ie This was a pretty shakey translation on my part to begin with --
had to pull out the dictionary quite a few times on this part.
> A {la'e}, "referent of..." must be attached, hence: {la'e lu velcli
> befi la lojban. ... li'u}.
>
> > remo'o
I'm not sure if this is considered its own sentance {.i remo'o .i ni'o
la pikis. cipni .i la pikis. blabi } or if some of these should join
together and omit the {.i} between them
> Is this a new sentence? If so, that ought to be indicated with an {.i}
> besides every tabulation or newline characters or anything.
>
> As to all the further sentences generally, I'd advise You to use {lo}
> quasi everywhere instead of {le}.
>
> > .i la maris. klama le vecnu fu la pikis.
>
> How could she do that? :O
The idea is that Pikis is a very large bird, but I can't really express
that without the gismu {barda}, and that hasn't been introduced.
Ideally, I would like to add illustrations like any introductory level
book would normally have but at the present I don't think my artistic
skills are quite up to what's needed.
> > .i le vecnu cu vecnu loi kabri
>
> This one must be a misunderstanding that caused quite a few problems
> to me, too.  {loi} means - according to me - that there is a mass of
> objects or some uncountable thing the name of which (the *whole*) is,
> let's say, broda. If I'm talking about loi broda, I'm thinking about
> something the exact parts (lo broda) of which are not important, not
> worth counting - which is not the case when we're talking about
> selling distinct items.  I always think of {lai loglandias.
> kontrapozitivos.} to clarify the situation for myself.  (Notice there
> are no {la loglandias. kontrapozitivos.}.)
>
> Thus the correct version most likely is {.i le vecnu cu vecnu lo
> kabri}, or more simply {.i le vecnu cu kabri vecnu}.
>
> Though I may be wrong.
Actually, neither of them should be there -- {lo} isn't introduced until
Lesson 3. I think I will have to just use another {le} for now.
> > .i fi le rokci cu kabri
>
> Wow. I'd never have thought about that. Nice solution.  (I would have
> written sthing like {.i le kabri cu rokci} or such.  Oh, it's the next
> sentence exactly. :))
This form was in one of the Parallel 2 example sentances which I may
have actually copied exactly.
> > .i la djonas. fanva fi la lojban la gliban le cukta
>
> The result is not the book which he tranlates, it is another.  .i
> fanva le cukta fu lo cukta
Again, is there a way to say this without lo? If not, I may have to
settle for the meaning that le gives.
> > .i la djonas. tivni lo jungo
>
> Now IMO that is where a {loi} can be useful.  .i dy. tivni loi jungo
> Please correct me if I'm saying nonsense.
>
> mi'e darves.

ki'esai mu'omi'e .alex.