Subject: Re: [lojban] le ze romoi selsku be la Yecus

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:02:47 EST

In a message dated 3/25/2002 12:12:03 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I suppose you meant {le zeboi romoi selsku}. This is
> of the seventeen-tallest-men type. Only one of the expressions
> is romoi. The other six are da'amoi, da'aremoi, da'acimoi,
> da'avomoi, da'amumoi and da'axamoi. They are all ma'uda'azemoi.
> So it should be {le ma'uda'azemoi selsku be la iecus}.
> 

Yes, I probably did ({ze} and {ro} collapse into a single rather odd 
number?). I don't see what {ma'u} does here unless we could have all but 
more than there are, which I suppose is blocked by overriding 
presuppositions. How about {da'asu'ezemoi}?

<Or perhaps you did mean {zeromoi}. Would it be useful/sensible
to define {zero}={ma'uda'aze}?>

Well, I wasn't shooting for that, but, since it seems meaningless at the 
moment, this looks like a good solution to the problem (until the objections 
flood in).

<http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?The%2017%20tallest%20men>

I.m just up to the s's in wiki, but I should have remembered the discussion 
from not all that long ago about this problem.

<I swear that my first take on {papap}, before knowing what
this was about, was "why is he addressing the number 11?"
What's wrong with {doi patfu} or {doi paf}?>

I liked the sound of it -- but the 11 problem does dampen my enthusiasm 
({mamam} doesn't fall under the same curse, though "whatity-what-what" is a 
possible reading, I suppose). The only other natural form is {tatat} which 
has no hooks to {patfu}. {paf} is not a very good sound for "Pop" or "Daddy" 
or...

<>doi ninmu ta ca'e bersa do

I think I prefer {ta do bersa ca'e}.>

I like to get funny moves (like perforatives or questions or ...) as close to 
the front as I can and the parser did not like {ca'e ta} (grammatical but 
wiht a different parse tree).
Putting it in the other prominent place - the tail end -- might be better 
than just getting it toward the fron.

<>ti ba'o mulno

What is {ti}? (I was about to make a comment on the speaker's
difficult position for point at anything, but I better not.)
Why not just {ba'o mulno}?>

Theology. {ba'o mulno} leaves task involved totally up in the air; {ti} at 
least ties it down to the immediate context (of course, what he really meant 
has been argued for 
rising 2000 years, so maybe inspecific is not bad). He would be pointing at 
himself in any case (flexion from the nail wounds).

<>doi papap fi ledo xance fa mi lacri dunda lemi pruxi

I would have said {punji} instead of {dunda}. I take it
that placing on someone's hand can be symbolic of giving,
but giving to the hand seems like too much. Or maybe not,
I don't know.>

The more I think about this, the more I am sceptical of the whole idiom, 
which sounding exclusively European to me now, since it all metaphorical in 
this case -- alng wiht "hand over." I could wish for a direct object to 
{randa} (I wonder why there isn't one) though even that is suspect. For now, 
{punji} is closer, if we are going to use the hands line -- which I would 
really like not to, although it is in the Greek.