[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
PFO'S strikes again.
Got PFO'S's comments from Lojbab yesterday. Something about that guy
annoys me. He had one page of comments and marked up the brochure (though
many fewer markings than before). I'll type in his comments, with some
clarifications of my own in square brackets.
----------
English comments:
1. [Getting his name wrong, space between "de" and "S."] Yes, there ought
to be a space between the "de" and the "S."
2. Lojban/Lojxbo
2a. [contention that it's entranched Esperanto style] With Esperanto, more
than with Lojban, there are many non-standard usages. I cab understand
"Lojban," the original spelling; "Lojxbano," despite its ambiguities with
"ano" and "bano;" Lojxbo, as in the _extremely_ familiar _le lojbo karni_.
What I don't understand is the non-English, pseudo-accusative,
pseudo-adjectival form "Lojxban," corresponding neither to English, nor to
Lojban, nor to Esperanto, nor to any known language.
2b. [accent-shifting] If we were very authentically with some Esperanto
text from a century ago, then I'd say, "Let's preserve this
accent-shifting, as a historic relic." We are _not_, however, re-enactors
portraying the genuine folk ways of Zamenhof et al. We're just starting,
why not do it right?
2c. [capitalization] I agree with the capitalization. I'll add another
usage note, though: "volapuki" usually has no capital letter, and no
umlaut either in spelling or in pronunciation.
2d. [lojxbo is not what lojbanists call the language] Bogus! "Germana" is
not "deutch;" "angla" is not "English;" and so on. "Lojxbo" even has the
same pronunciation as an indisputable Lojban word with the same meaning.
Would you make the same requirement for discussing the "cxina" language?
2e. [Zipf's Law refuted] Anyone who learns the language at all well _must_
learn to use the form "lojbo." Even were that untrue, even were there no
Zipf's Law, why, oh why, would you want a form like "Lojxban-ano" which
sounds bananas both in English and in Esperanto?
3. ["Loglan" instead of "loglo"] Okay; we don't really need an Esperanto
word for Loglan yet.
4. [Scads of pronunciations taken out] Yes; let's limit the number of
pronunciations.
5. ["Ockham" instead of "Occam"] I thank you. The town of Ockham thanks
you.
6. ["komputila" and not "cibertnetika"] Thank you very much for putting a
hyphen in "por-komputila" so that it doesn't look like "porko."
7. [apostrophe is unvoiced, not voiced] You're right, according to lojbab.
It's an unvoiced sound.
8. [Were Greeks first to invent logic, as we say? We're just translating,
not researching] Okay.
9. ["suficxe-a en starvico" is intentionally ungrammatical] Okay.
10. ["Metalingvistika" to "eksterlingva" and not "translingva" or whatever]
Okay.
11. [Computer language is Ada, not ADA] Okay.
12. ["aliuloj" for "aliaj", per his comments] Thanks.
13. ["-in" debate, just pointing out that it exists] Masculine suffixes
like K"udiger Eicholz "-un-" are non-official, like many, if not most,
Esperanto roots, but these suffixes are _not_ non-existent.
14. ["Ekesti" instead of "eki"] Okay.
15. ["Lojxban-lingvanoj" defended via "anglalingvanoj"] "Lojxban-istoj" and
"Lojxbistoj" are better forms.
----------------
Other than that, he (again) corrected every single "Lojxban" in the text to
"Lojxbo" (capitalized this time), and "Lojxba", "Lojxbajn", etc...
Last line in third-to-last paragraph on page 2, corrects "li" to "pli",
saying "[li =/= pli]". I haven't checked into this, but I suspect we have
"pli" and it just got dropped out of my printer. My printer has an
annoying tendency to do that fairly often, though I try to detect such
errors with proofreading. They're most likely to be missed on the last
line of a paragraph, though, where I don't have the clues of botched
justification to help me out.
Next line, corrects "predikatan strukturon" to "predikatostrukturon".
Third line on page 3, corrects a period to a comma. I suspect the comma
showed up as a period on his copy. Haven't verified.
Third paragraph on page 3, changes "prepoziciumaj" to "prepozicieskaj",
commenting "["-eskaj" estas pli placxa ol "-umaj"]" I've never heard of
"-esk" as a suffix, nor has my dictionary. Hey, maybe he meant "-ecaj", in
which case I might be inclined to agree.
Second-to-last paragraph on page 3, changes "Lojxban-uzantoj" to
"Lojxbistoj", saying "["-istoj" estas pli placxa ol "-uzantoj"]".
First major heading on page 4 ("Se oni inventis..."), changes "oni" to
"iu". Comment: "["oni" ne povis inventi; "iu" inventis]" Where's this guy
been? That's very very very common usage to avoid Esperanto's icky
passive.
Last line in the next paragraph: He corrects the final word, "Lojxban" to
"Lojxbo", as usual, and continues the sentence, placing a comma and adding
"kaj la _gismu_-formo estas "lojbo" (lojxbo)." I'm not sure we ever
mention the word "gismu", or at least not much, and I doubt we explain
carefully what it means.
Changes another period to comma in fifth paragraph on page 5.
In last two complete paragrphs on page 5, changes "same kiel" to "samkiel",
saying "["samkiel" estas pli placxa ol "same kiel"]".
Comment on top of page 6: "[Akademiano Eichholz uzis la masklan sufikxon
"-un-" en sia _Bildvortaro_.]" (shouldn't that be "Ajhxholc"?), and
corrects "analogan" on the first paragraph to "oficialan", noting
"[analogan =/= oficialan]". Presumable a reference to comment #13.
Page 7, end of first paragraph: corrects "Lojxban-lingvanoj" to
"Lojxbistoj", with his usual biting comment, "["-istoj" estas pli placxa
ol "-lingvanoj"]".
Fourth paragraph, changes "predikata gramatiko" to "predikat-gramatiko"
saying (wait for it), "["predikat-gramatiko" estas pli placxa ol "predikata
gramatiko"]".
Eighth paragraph, changes "deklaritaj" to "deklarataj", saying
"["deklaritaj" estas pli akurata ol "deklaritaj"]". Gee, I didn't know
words could be punctual. Presumably he meant "prava". Eeek! Run and
hide! An atist! I think I've gone over to the itism camp, btw.
Page 8, has footnote numbers after Internet, Usenet, CompuServe, and
FIDOnet, referencing them with question marks. Presumably, he knoweth not
what they are. Which doesn't bother me. If, upon reading the brochure,
you don't know what it's talking about nor whom to ask to find out, it
doesn't apply to you.
Page 9, second paragraph. Underlines the 1992's and marks in the margins
"1992?" A good point. We should update these things.
Towards the bottom of the page he seems to allow us to use
"Loglan-a/Lojxba" and "Loglan-on/Lojxbon" for "Loglan/Lojban". A partial
victory, I guess.
At _every_ mention of "le lojbo karni", he underlines the "lojbo" and marks
in the margin, "[Notu "lojbo!"]".
Notes similar question marks on page 12, on things like UUCP, USENET,
INTERNET, etc.
Note on top of order form, in different handwriting, I'd guess Lojbab's,
saying "Please update per JL16". Can't argue with that.
~mark