From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 07 07:25:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 7 Jun 2002 14:25:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 36370 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2002 14:25:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Jun 2002 14:25:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jun 2002 14:25:35 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.157.efcfe2f (4231) for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <157.efcfe2f.2a321c57@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:25:27 EDT Subject: More Laudz To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_157.efcfe2f.2a321c57_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_157.efcfe2f.2a321c57_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit '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). --part1_157.efcfe2f.2a321c57_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit      '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). --part1_157.efcfe2f.2a321c57_boundary--