interactive story

["G. Dyke" <gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch>]

There is only one story line here, so I'm posting it with my various
comments: (Robin wrote the first bit to start everything off and the bit
about noone being interested, Jordan wrote the rest)
--
"This story is in lojban"
{lo vi lisri cu jai se bangu la lojban.}

I can't think of any abstraction containing {lo vi lisri} which is a user of
the language lojban.

why {lo vi lisri}? (come to think of it, why not? there is only one object
in the universe which can {vi lisri})

It seems that the language has to be attached with {bau} : {vi lisri bau la
lojban}
--
{le nu cuxna le klesi po lo lisri cu krasi le nu finti lo lisri}

there are problems of quantification here, {lo lisri xi pa}={lo lisri xi re}
I again can't figure out why you're using {lo} on {lisri} and not on {klesi}
or {nu cuxna/finti}

{mi djica lo skefi'a lisri
 mi na djica lo skefi'a lisri }

{tu'a}, each time. for the second, I'd put {lo na'e skefi'a lisri}, to
suggest you want some other type of {lisri} or {na'ebo lo skefi'a lisri}
(again, we have problems of quantification here) {da poi skefi'a lisri zu'o
mi djica tu'a da}, I think {lo'e} might be be better.
--
{ni'o ta'iku le xagji je kensa prenu cu klama .i mu'i tu'e leza'i ri djica
lenu citka lo remna .iji'a le terdi be tu'a ra cu zdani du'e da tu'u }

I hate periods of discussion about gadri, I keep wanting to put lo'e instead
of lo all over the place. It's probably ok though.

I don't think {le terdi be tu'a ra} works (read: I'm sure it doesn't) try
{le ra terdi}
--
{ni'o le kansa prenu poi traji leka xagji cu facki lo remna poi kukte gi'e
citka ri .i ky. py. tactungau le ctebi gi'e cisma}

(kensa)
He is the hungriest???
is ky.py. just one sumti?
--
{ni'o ba'o lenu le kansa prenu cu vasru lei remna noi kukte kei}

(kensa)
why {lei remna} all of a sudden? (especially as le would work just as well)

{ri na djuno ledu'u ri djica makau poi ka'e citka ke'a }

noda poi fasnu cu ka'e citka

I'm not sure how negation with na works with a makau, better {na'e} to be on
the safe side

{.i lei remna pu kutke .iku'i na banzu lenu citka mulno
.isemu'ibo ky. py. klama le zarci noi jibni .i ra co'a
sisku da poi cinri je kukte cidja}

It should be {jai cinri je kukte}

 gi'e bazi facki le
cidjrpitsa gi'e citka ri

ni'o taiku le kansa prenu cu jdice ledu'u ba noroi citka
loi remna mu'i leza'i jinvi ledu'u lo'e cidjrpitsa cu zmadu
ra fi leka kukte }

why {loi}??

(I've been wondering, can events {mukti}, can they {krinu}? can they {other
because-brivla}? i'm pretty sure they can)

the fi is superfluous
--
{le kansa prenu cu vamtu lei cidjrpitsa }

what's this frenzy of masses?
--
{.oi le kensa prenu cu morsi .i ja'o ko bilga lo nu na citka lo cidja poi do
na birti tu'a le ka xamgu }

I get what you're saying, but I can't figure ou why you use such a
complicated way (or whether it works)

What was wrong with {li'o do na birti le du'u xamgu}

{ni'o ku'i no prenu cu se cinri le kensa prenu .e le nu le kensa prenu cu
morsi}

ick! {li'o cu se cinri tu'a le kensa prenu .e le nu py. morsi} This looks
like a sentence of the type

{le kensa prenu jai cinri noda fai lenu ri morsi}
---
{ni'o ca lenu le kensa prenu cu mrobi'o kei le bi'u
cmalu smaji cu tolcanci .i ri goi ko'a cu prije gi'e djuno
tu'a le kensa .e le kensa prenu}

The tu'a doesn't go on both of them. I'd have {djuno fi le kensa .e le kensa
prenu}

{ni'o ko'a cadzu le xadni be le kense prenu gi'e sutra bajra
klama le ri xelkla gi'e pilno ri lezu'o cliva le terdi be
loi remna .i mu'o lenu cliva kei ko'a cisma gi'e jai cfari
fai lenu klama le terdi be loi smaji }

I suppose that {jai} works, but couldn't you just have put

{co'a klama le terdi li'o}

mu'omi'e

greg