OK, continuing with my exploration of Michael Turnianski's translation of a passage by {La.Ja.Jax.Rusox} (is X an ok terminal consonant?).
Might I suggest: {jan jak rusol}. In French, L-final often became U, and in this case, not before people with that name went to Britain to engender today's Russells. I believe Fr. 'Jacques' was pronounced as Lojban {jak} in Rousseau's time, as it certainly is today.
je rêvois en marchant à celle que j'allois voir,
walking, I mused on her whom I would be seeing,
.i ca le nu cadzu ku mi pensi ko'a goi le ba se viska be mi
contemporaneous-with the event of walking, I think-about...
and here Michael has used the assignable it-1 (refgram 6, part 13) but inverted it, presumably to match the natlangs: he has literally, ...it-1 (ko'a) which-is-assigned-to (goi) the-described future (x1?) thing-seen by me.
When I look at the words I get what he's trying to do, but am dubious if the actual grammar holds up. What other way is there of saying "à celle que j'allois voir"/"of her that I will see" -- it will be handy to have ko'a defined, as "she" comes up repeatedly in following sentences.
The grammar holds up. It also means what the author almost certainly means. Except gejyspa chooses not to indicate the gender. In French indicating the gender the default choice; leaving it ambiguous would require a circumlocution. In Lojban of course it's (kinda) the other way round. I went with { le fetsi poi ba se viska be mi ku }, a half-measure I'm not proud of in retrospect, but still a correct translation (with an unnecessary {be} that I forgot to remove). mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan