From jcrossco@bellsouth.net Sat Jan 05 09:29:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcrossco@bellsouth.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 5 Jan 2002 17:29:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 57345 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2002 17:29:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2002 17:29:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n29.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.79) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2002 17:29:46 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.166] by n29.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jan 2002 17:29:45 -0000 Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 17:29:47 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: crdlus. critique Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2761 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "buzzwyrd" X-Originating-IP: 24.98.21.225 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=83886082 X-Yahoo-Profile: buzzwyrd --- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" wrote: > Also, I'm not sure the use of {du} there is quite right. The > computer should know that {ro da du da}. The question it should > ask is not {ma du le se go'i} but rather {le ki'a se go'i}. I was led astray by the "textual confusion" gloss, which I construed as indicating channel noise. And glosser3 returns it as . But the referance grammar agrees with you. > "Which?" is difficult in Lojban. I noticed that. > > > Person: WHAT IS THE PYRAMID SUPPORTED BY? > > la prenu: .i le jipkubli se sarji ma > > > >Strictly a grammatical issue: {.i le jipkubli cu se sarji ma} Or {le jipkubli ku se sarji ma}. > > Why not just {i ma sarji le jipkubli}? Or, if keeping English > word order is important, {i ma le jipkubli cu sarji}? I had made it my policy for this particular exercise, that of all the possible renderings I could come up with, to choose the one that most closely resembles the original structure, within acceptable limits. It might be worthwhile to distinguish general malglico inherent in a speaker, from malglico that is bleed-thru of the translated text. > > > Person: STACK UP TWO PYRAMIDS. > > la prenu: .i ko poidregau lei re jipkubli > > > >{lei} isn't necessary - the person doesn't care which ones, and the > >computer doesn't care whether they should be considered a mass. > > Hmm... (it should be {poirdregau} or else it means {poi dregau})... It certainly does break up that way. But it got by glosser3. > But {ko poirdregau re jipkubli} means that for exactly two pyramids, > you should stack each of them. You do want to do something to them > together as a mass, not to each of them separately. However, {lei} > doesn't work because the speaker doesn't have two particular pyramids > in mind. So maybe {lu'o re jipkubli}. I'll buy that. The refgram doesn't spend much time on the likes of lu'o, so I was a little skittish about employing it. (But then I charged headlong into using nu'i, didn't I? A closer reading of the refgram makes my error obvious.) > > > Computer: WHILE I WAS STACKING UP THE RED CUBE, A LARGE RED BLOCK AND A > > LARGE GREEN CUBE. > > la skami: .i ca lenu mi poidregau nu'i le xunre kurkubli lo barda xunre > > bo bliku lo barda crino bo kurkubli > > I'm not sure what the place structure of poirdregau is supposed > to be, but here {le xunre kurkubli}, {lo barda xunre bo bliku} > and {lo barda crino bo kurkubli} are each in a different place, > and it is not clear what the {nu'i} is for. The place structure of poirdregau is a truly marvelous edifice of insight and erudition, which this message space is unfortunately too small to explicate. .i zo'o .ije ki'e mu'o mi'e djek