Subject: Re: [lojban] Proper 21C IV

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:13:25 EDT

Thanks for the careful reading and the corrections.

In a message dated 7/3/2001 8:26:29 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> u

Loglan interference, I think.

<>gi'e barda citka ca ro lo djedi

That misses it. You might try {salci} or {zdile}.>

Yeah. euphraino isn't about food specifically. Two sources here -- the 
word "fare" in the definition and the table scraps in the next bit. It needs 
some work beyond just a change of selbri

<{laZAR} - it's "la`zar" in Hebrew; the "os" is
just a Greek ending. >

Can't use the Hebrew form, of course, but I don't know why I left the Greek 
ending on, except that this is Greek.

<{not sure where you got {-ki'a} - how about {kapybi'a}?>
I'm a worse typist that writer, {ke'a} -- and I see I have copied it 
throughout. I need the concrete for the licking later.

<"A mass of dogs came and caused something to poke with its tongue the one who
was crying out because he was sick and was associated with something that
exists." Huh?>

Huh? indeed, viewed that way. {tactungau} is an existing lujvo for "lick" 
What is the "something that exists"? Ahah! {de} is already in play, though 
instantiated to Lazarus. Oops! no it isn't-- I changed that line from {de 
goi... pindi gi'e vreta} 

<I'd say {ne'i la .aides}, unless you mean Hades the person, in which case the
Greek would have said "en tw Adou" (is the i of Aides subscript? I've seen it
both ways).>

The i turns up every which way (depending on what the meter needs, 
apparently) subscript, diphthong, separate syllable. 

<{cespre} isn't right for "prophet" - anyone have a better word?>

I agree. I was using the already available lujvo to avoid work (21CIII is 
full of 2nd century theological terms and is driving me nuts).

<By the way, what does "21C" mean?>
21st Sunday after the earliest date for Pentecost in the third year of the 
three cycle of readings, in the Revised Common Lectionary.