From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jun 27 16:43:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 27 Jun 2001 23:43:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 48337 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2001 23:43:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Jun 2001 23:43:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2001 23:43:46 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.6.) id r.18.e86b351 (3892) for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <18.e86b351.286bc9a3@aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:43:31 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Proper 21CII To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_18.e86b351.286bc9a3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_18.e86b351.286bc9a3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the guidance. In a message dated 6/27/2001 1:22:55 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >Psalm 146 > >ko si'asku la zast vau doi le mi pruxi .i mi ba si'asku la zast. ca'o le nu > >mi jmive .i mi ba si'arsa'a lemi cevni ku ca'o le nu mi zasti > > I would use {ze'a le nu mi jmive}, {ze'a le nu mi zasti}: > The full duration of the main event is given by the event of my > living. Isn't {ai} better than {ba} here? Maybe even {ze'e}? I am feeling my way with some of these cmavo still. I argued about {ai} v {ba}: it is intent here, but the simple future is stronger. The Hebrew is no help, so far a I can see (nor is the English, of course). > > >.i ko na lacri lo turni a lo verba be lo remna iki'ubo le se liste na ka'e > >sidju > > I don't really see any list there, I would prefer {le se go'i}, but "they" > is hard to do in Lojban. Also, the version in Spanish > that I have has {no'u} instead of {a}. I been having this trouble with "they," does {le se go'i} really work? I think this needs some systematic device for this problem, but can't find it. Could we really have left it out? {no'u} is a real possibility in the Hebrew apparently, but I like the stress that the {a} gives. > > >.i gleki fa le se sidju be le cevni be la iakob. ku va'i le pacna be tu'a > >la > >zast. po'u le ke'a cevni > > It should be {no'u}, or {no'uva'i} instead of a single {va'i}, or > le pacna goes as the x2 of gleki. And I don't understand that > {ke'a}, maybe {vo'a}? Worse: as written, it goes as parallel to {le cevni}, if I've counted parentheses right this time, so it needs {ku ku} (didn't we once have a "super ku," to lop off back to the selbri level? > > >zi'e poi zatrgau lei terdi e lei tsani e lei xamsi e le xabju zi'e poi > >roroi bandu le se nupre > > {zatygau}. Also, how about {zukte le se nupre}? > "shamar" seems to have more the idea of protecting, defending, etc. than simply doing it -- but doing what is promises is also involved. I need to work on a good lujvo here. Thanks again. --part1_18.e86b351.286bc9a3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the guidance.

In a message dated 6/27/2001 1:22:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

la pycyn cusku di'e

>Psalm 146
>ko si'asku la zast vau doi le mi pruxi .i mi ba si'asku la zast. ca'o le nu
>mi jmive .i mi ba si'arsa'a lemi cevni ku ca'o le nu mi zasti

I would use {ze'a le nu mi jmive}, {ze'a le nu mi zasti}:
The full duration of the main event is given by the event of my
living. Isn't {ai} better than {ba} here?

Maybe even {ze'e}? I am feeling my way with some of these cmavo still. I
argued about {ai} v {ba}: it is intent here, but the simple future is
stronger. The Hebrew is no help, so far a I can see (nor is the English, of
course).

>.i ko na lacri lo turni a lo verba be lo remna iki'ubo le se liste na ka'e
>sidju

I don't really see any list there, I would prefer {le se go'i}, but "they"
is hard to do in Lojban. Also, the version in Spanish
that I have has {no'u} instead of {a}.

I been having this trouble with "they," does {le se go'i} really work? I
think this needs some systematic device for this problem, but can't find it.
Could we really have left it out? {no'u} is a real possibility in the Hebrew
apparently, but I like the stress that the {a} gives.

>.i gleki fa le se sidju be le cevni be la iakob. ku va'i le pacna be tu'a
>la
>zast. po'u le ke'a cevni

It should be {no'u}, or {no'uva'i} instead of a single {va'i}, or
le pacna goes as the x2 of gleki. And I don't understand that
{ke'a}, maybe {vo'a}?

Worse: as written, it goes as parallel to {le cevni}, if I've counted
parentheses right this time, so it needs {ku ku} (didn't we once have a
"super ku," to lop off back to the selbri level?

>zi'e poi zatrgau lei terdi e lei tsani e lei xamsi e le xabju zi'e poi
>roroi bandu le se nupre

{zatygau}. Also, how about {zukte le se nupre}?

"shamar" seems to have more the idea of protecting, defending, etc. than
simply doing it -- but doing what is promises is also involved. I need to
work on a good lujvo here.
Thanks again. --part1_18.e86b351.286bc9a3_boundary--