Subject: More Laudz

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:25:27 EDT

'lonu zasti ce lonu na zasti cu finsi'u
.i loka nandu ce loka frili cu riksi'u
.i loka clani ce loka tordu cu mresi'u
.i loka galtu ce loka dizlu cu bapsi'u
.i lo voksa joi lo sance cu saxsi'u
.i caku lo purci lo bavli cu katyje'i'
from Craig Daniel

1: {nu} is probably necessary for some notions of "produce", but both 
{lodu'u} ({ka}) and just {lo} might work. {finti} seems odd here, {zbasu} 
maybe slightly less so, but both require materials. I'd prefer {rinka}. I'm 
not sure how these compounds are defined, but the {ce} creates a set as first 
argument and it is then rather difficult (logically) to get inside and sort 
out the two items. It would probably be best to define the compound as "x1 
creates x2 and conversely" and leave the two just as separate terms. 
Illogically, however, {simxu} asks for a set and then gurantees the 
separation needed. 
2. For reasons frequently discussed, I like {lodu'u} rather than {loka}. 
Now {rinka} doesn't seem to fit; this is not production, but completion, 
fulfilment, maybe complemention -- the words for which all have the wrong 
structure in Lojban. Suggestions?
3. Aside from the "[agent]} and "[quantity]" notes, {merli} is pretty good 
here (or somewhere in this list).
4. Ditto mut mut {bapli} here
5. {sarxe} is inevitable. Whether voice and sound are involved here or pitch 
and accent or some other technical terms of (long lost) Chinese musicology is 
a problem for specialists -- but they should somehow be a contrast, though no 
common translations make them such. The {joi} works poorly with {sarxe}, 
which just needs the two separate objects and does the {joi}ning itself. I 
suppose that {sarxe} is automatically reciprocal.
6. {balvi} (all the rest is esthetic choices). Having both {kalte} and 
{jersi} seems like overkill, though the image is nice. But the point is 
probably just about sequences, that each follows the other in a sequence. 
Why is the mutuality missing here (or is {je'i} a misprint for {si'u})? 
Surely the intention is that the future pursues the past as well (so using 
{lo}, rather than {loka}, may be a mistake here). What is the point of the 
{caku}, which breaks the pattern? All of these are presumably eternal facts 
(indeed, one variant reading has just that claim about the list).