On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 07:37:07PM -0400, .arpis. wrote:
> .i drani
> .i nilji'a sumji fi li ni'u pi mu ki'u lo du'u pe'i ge lo jbobau cusku
"the lojbanic speaker"
> lo
> glibau cusku na smuni dunli gi ge lo se go'i
{lo se go'i} here refers to the (unfilled) x2 of {.i drani}
> noi se se curmi da'i ke'a ku'o na ka'e gasnu gi drata
ki'a sai
> ni'o glibau co'e zoi gy
>
> VALID
> -0.5 points, because the lojban meaning is not the same as the english (ta'o
> is there a way to say that more concisely in lojban than what I said),
{le lojbo na xamgu panra le glico} is probably what I've had said.
> and because the second sumti is not an agent (and doesn't fit in
> the first place of {curmi}),
Had to go back and find the original; quoting it would have made
things easier. Anyways, it was
{ko'a se curmi lo nu javni zbasu ze'i lo su'e djedi be li pa}
How I would have rendered your objection:
{lo fasnu na curmi}
Further levels of explicit include using {da poi fasnu} and {na
sumti zo curmi li ci}, and possibly throwing in a {mapti}
> Also, if we assume {curmi} rather than {se curmi}, ko'a is not specified to
> be "players in the game", and I would read it more like "someone", and that
> someone is giving the permission, not being the one permitted.
Yeah, {lo kelci} would be better.
> It's also not clear whether you mean that each person may post a
> rule no more than once every day, or that each day no more than
> one person may post a rule.
Indeed; make that {ro kelci}.
{ze'i lo su'e djedi be li pa} is pretty iffy in general; {su'e} is
in a very weird place there.
Here's my version, fwiw:
{ro kelci cu finti su'e pa javni .e'a ze'i ro djedi be li pa}
And now that we apparently have a judge (although no theme ;'( ) I
suppose I should stop kibbitzing and make a rule, huh?