From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Apr 08 13:01:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 8 Apr 2001 20:01:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 77576 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2001 20:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Apr 2001 20:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.182) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Apr 2001 20:01:30 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:01:29 -0700 Received: from 200.41.210.12 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:01:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.12] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Bible translation Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:01:29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2001 20:01:29.0523 (UTC) FILETIME=[B363C030:01C0C066] From: "Jorge Llambias" la adam cusku di'e >I have just started translating some psalms into Lojban. I put the >translations at: >http://users.aol.com/raizen311/psalms.html i i'o melbi selfinti Very nice work! >A couple of gripes about Lojban grammar: > >1) The canonical place structure of "xruti" is *very* strange. It's >much more Lojbanic, in my opinion, for it to correspond to the >intransitive verb in English. Yes, I agree. In fact we had a longish discussion about this a long time ago (five or six years already?) and if my recollection is correct, it was decided to change the place structure back to the intransitive verb (that was how it was originally defined), before the publication of the dictionary. I can't look for the pertinent messages now because I can't unzip those archive files from the old Lojban list. It would be excellent if some of the people with computer savvy in this list could unzip all those files and put them up somewhere in an easily searchable format. Lots of times I've wanted to check something that I know is in there but I've been frustrated by that zip. >2) Termsets are awkward for "gapping" (when the selbri of the second >sentence is implicitly that of the first). With termsets, the terms have >to be next to each other (with no intervening selbri), and they also add >extra cmavo. I believe it used to be grammatical to put a bare list of >sumti after "ije", which would be a much easier and more natural way to >specify gapping. You're right, it seems that it is no longer grammatical! You can still do it without {je}: i le moklu be mi le nunmi'a cu se culno i le tance be mi le geirselsanga but it is strange that you can't do it with {ije}. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.