Message 1: Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:25:50 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: CAFE.INT lo ke'unai lisri pe la jbolanzu kafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier .i bazi lenu mi'a simxu lenu rinsa kuku lo nanmu poi nanca li so'a cu klama fole na'e sirji ne'i le barja gi'e co'a zutse ca'u mi .i le nanmu goi ko'a cusku le se du'u ri puzi se gunta lo puzu respa pe la'o ly. Saurischia ly. .i lu<< .iku'i loi respa pe la'edi'u cu puzu ji'esti >>li'u se cusku mi .i lu<< .ila'aru'e go'i .iboku'i simlu fa lenu naku su'oda zo'u da cusku di'u ra cu'usa'a ko'a .i lenu mi'a simxu lenu kansa cu nanca li reno .i mi co'aki kurji ko'e goi le respa ca lenu ri ca'o citno .i mi jinvi ledu'u le mamta be ko'e cu morsi ba'o lo nanca beli so'o .ije cumki fa lenu ko'e romoi lu'i le jutsi .i le pendo be mi zu'apu kurji ko'e gi'eku'i puzi co'a speni gi'e gasnu lenu cfari fa lenu lanzu kuku gi'e jinvi ledu'u vo'a na kakne lenu tu'ari xamgu ge ko'e gicabo le lanzu .isemu'ibo lego'i cpedu lenu mi curmi lenu te dunda lenu bilga lenu kurji ko'e .i mi je'a curmi gi'eja'ebo kiku nu'i bi'ogi cala'edi'u gi caku dunda loi cidja .e loi djacu ko'e gi'e satre ko'e gi'e fi lenu cadzu cu kansa fe ko'e .i ca le vanci mi tavla ko'e so'i klesi be lei te cilre be'o nemu'u le citri be loi jmive beva'o le terdi be'obe'o .e loi jicmu bele saske bele munje poi vanbi ma'a .i jetnu fa lenu ko'e na kakne lenu tavla .ijeku'iseki'unaibo mi su'oroi jinvi lenu ko'e jimpe la'e le se cusku be mi >>li'u .i lu<< .iku'i mu'ima va'o la'e so'odi'u ko'e co'a bradi do >>li'u .i lu<< na birti .i mapaunai jimpe le stura bele menli belei puzu respa .i seki'unai la'ede'u mi pupuziki gasnu lenu xendo ko'e .i mi'a puzi klama zo'a lo bende belo xanto .ijeseki'ubo mi mu'i lenu djica lenu fanta lenu damba noi cumki fa lenu ke'a se jalge lenu ko'e se xrani cu cusku lu<< ko se kajde fi tu'a le mabru >>li'u >>li'u mi'e .i,n. Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:56:04 EST Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: CAFE.INT lo ke'unai lisri pe la jbolanzu kafybarja X-To: "(Lojban Mailing List)" To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: "I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK" at Sep 30, 92 11:25 am Quoth I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK: Quite legible and clear, Iain. It still has the standard lojbanitis of being a bit dry - in other languages, it would sound more whimsical than it does in Lojban, and I'm not sure if putting in attitudinals will help. >.i bazi lenu mi'a simxu lenu rinsa kuku lo nanmu poi nanca li so'a >cu klama fole na'e sirji ne'i le barja gi'e co'a zutse ca'u mi What isn't straight? ("Apart from me", he stops himself from saying :) :) The two axes? Not that obvious in context. >.i le nanmu goi ko'a cusku le se du'u ri puzi se gunta lo puzu respa >pe la'o ly. Saurischia ly. Given that Cowan decided {cusku} takes a {lu...li'u} as its 2nd argument, shouldn't this be {du'u}? I thought a {se du'u} was a {nu}. I was a bit alarmed by {puzu} - after all, if it was extinct, one should say {puzuba'o} or something of the like. But the point is that *this* Saurischia is still around, so yes, {puzu} is actually very appropriate. >.i lu<< .ila'aru'e go'i .iboku'i simlu fa lenu naku su'oda zo'u >da cusku di'u ra cu'usa'a ko'a "Noone told it!" --- somehow, that doesn't translate as well as it might. An attitudinal wouldn't go astray; maybe also {snada cusku} or {jungau} (inform). >.isemu'ibo lego'i cpedu lenu mi curmi lenu te dunda lenu bilga >lenu kurji ko'e I'm not at all comfortable with this use of {dunda}. Not that it's necessarily relevant, but I'm reminded of Schank's distinction between PTRANS (physical transfer) and ATRANS (abstract transfer --- I think) in his semantic primitives. >.i mi je'a curmi gi'eja'ebo kiku nu'i bi'ogi cala'edi'u gi caku >dunda loi cidja .e loi djacu ko'e >gi'e satre ko'e gi'e fi lenu cadzu cu kansa fe ko'e Your grammar is garbled here. Where does the termset end? And your {gi'e} has no selbri following it. >.i lu<< na birti .i mapaunai jimpe le stura bele menli belei puzu respa I'd rather {no prenu cu jimpe}, myself... >.i mi'a puzi klama zo'a lo bende belo xanto .ijeseki'ubo mi >mu'i lenu djica lenu fanta lenu damba noi cumki fa lenu ke'a >se jalge lenu ko'e se xrani cu cusku >lu<< ko se kajde fi tu'a le mabru >>li'u Uh, I *think* I got it :) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia. nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au "Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this nation's number one killer" --- Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie. ______________________________________________________________________________ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:55:46 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: Re: CAFE.INT lo ke'unai lisri pe la jbolanzu kafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier > >.i bazi lenu mi'a simxu lenu rinsa kuku lo nanmu poi nanca li so'a > >cu klama fole na'e sirji ne'i le barja gi'e co'a zutse ca'u mi la nitcion. zo'u > What isn't straight? ("Apart from me", he stops himself from saying :) :) > The two axes? Not that obvious in context. No, it was meant to be the _route_ (or the manner) by which he came in which wasn't straight. It sounds like this doesn't work. Perhaps I could try {pu'e le na'e sirje}. > >.i le nanmu goi ko'a cusku le se du'u ri puzi se gunta lo puzu respa > >pe la'o ly. Saurischia ly. > Given that Cowan decided {cusku} takes a {lu...li'u} as its 2nd argument, > shouldn't this be {du'u}? I thought a {se du'u} was a {nu}. You had me worried there for a moment :) There was a long exchange about this about two months ago, involving la kau,n. and la lojbab., which I eventually managed to dig out, the outcome being that the published definition of {cusku} is wrong. It _does_ take a {lu ... li'u} as its 2nd argument, but this is a {se du'u}. {le du'u broda} is the same as {la'e le se du'u broda}. > >.isemu'ibo lego'i cpedu lenu mi curmi lenu te dunda lenu bilga > >lenu kurji ko'e > I'm not at all comfortable with this use of {dunda}. Not that it's necessarily > relevant, but I'm reminded of Schank's distinction between PTRANS (physical > transfer) and ATRANS (abstract transfer --- I think) in his semantic > primitives. I wasn't too keen on {dunda}, but {benji} specifically says "no (complete) alienation from origin is implied", which is not at all what I wanted. Answers on a postcard, please :) > >.i mi je'a curmi gi'eja'ebo kiku nu'i bi'ogi cala'edi'u gi caku > >dunda loi cidja .e loi djacu ko'e > >gi'e satre ko'e gi'e fi lenu cadzu cu kansa fe ko'e > Your grammar is garbled here. Where does the termset end? And your {gi'e} > has no selbri following it. You might be right, but I don't see it at the moment. The termset ends with the {ku}, which I don't even think is strictly necessary. Which {gi'e} were you worried about? The last one has {kansa} as its selbri. Oh, I see the problem - you're right. That's annoying, all the sumti have to _follow_ the selbri after a gihek. I might use {.ije} instead. > >.i lu<< na birti .i mapaunai jimpe le stura bele menli belei puzu respa > I'd rather {no prenu cu jimpe}, myself... Wot, no rhetorical questions in Lojban? Iain. Message 2: Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:45:22 GMT Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: CAFE.INT.REV lo ke'unai lisri pe la jbolanzu kafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier .i bazi lenu mi'a simxu lenu rinsa kuku lo nanmu poi nanca li so'a cu klama pu'e le na'e sirji ne'i le barja gi'e co'a zutse ca'u mi .i le nanmu goi ko'a cusku le se du'u ri puzi se gunta lo puzu respa pe la'o ly. Saurischia ly. .i lu<< .iku'i loi respa pe la'edi'u cu puzu ji'esti >>li'u se cusku mi .i lu<< .ila'aru'e go'i .iboku'i simlu fa lenu noda ve cilre la'edi'u fo ra cu'usa'a ko'a .i lenu mi'a simxu lenu kansa cu nanca li reno .i mi co'aki kurji ko'e goi le respa ca lenu ri ca'o citno .i mi jinvi ledu'u le mamta be ko'e cu morsi ba'o lo nanca beli so'o .ije cumki fa lenu ko'e romoi lu'i le jutsi .i le pendo be mi zu'apu kurji ko'e gi'eku'i puzi co'a speni gi'e gasnu lenu cfari fa lenu lanzu kuku gi'e jinvi ledu'u vo'a na kakne lenu tu'ari xamgu ge ko'e gicabo le lanzu .isemu'ibo lego'i cpedu lenu mi curmi lenu basti filenu bilga lenu kurji ko'e .i mi je'a curmi .ijeja'ebo kiku nu'i bi'ogi ca la'edi'u gi caku dunda loi cidja .e loi djacu ko'e .ijebo satre ko'e .ijebo fi lenu cadzu cu kansa fe ko'e .i ca lo'e vanci mi tavla ko'e so'i klesi be lei te cilre be'o nemu'u le citri be loi jmive beva'o le terdi be'obe'o .e loi jicmu bele saske bele munje poi vanbi ma'a .i jetnu fa lenu ko'e na kakne lenu tavla .ijeku'iseki'unaibo mi su'oroi jinvi lenu ko'e jimpe la'e le se cusku be mi >>li'u .i lu<< .iku'i mu'ima va'o la'e so'odi'u ko'e co'a bradi do >>li'u .i lu<< na birti .i nodaru'a jimpe le stura bele menli belei puzu respa .i seki'unai la'ede'u mi pupuziki gasnu lenu xendo ko'e .i mi'a puzi klama zo'a lo bende belo xanto .ijeseki'ubo mi mu'i lenu djica lenu fanta lenu damba noi cumki fa lenu ke'a se jalge lenu ko'e se xrani cu cusku lu<< ko se kajde fi tu'a le mabru >>li'u >>li'u mi'e .i,n. JL17: .i bazi lenu mi'a simxu lenu rinsa kuku lo nanmu poi nanca li so'a cu klama pu'e le na'e sirji ne'i le barja gi'e co'a zutse ca'u mi .i le nanmu goi ko'a cusku le se du'u ri puzi se gunta lo puzu respa pe la'o ly. Saurischia ly. .i <> se cusku mi .i <> .i <> .i <> li'u>> mi'e .i,n. Nick (on an earlier version of this): >lo nanmu poi nanca li so'a cu klama fo le na'e sirji ne'i le barja gi'e co'a zutse ca'u mi What isn't straight? The two axes? Not that obvious in context. Iain: No, it was meant to be the _route_ (or the manner) by which he came in which wasn't straight. It sounds like this doesn't work. Perhaps I could try {pu'e le na'e sirji}. Lojbab: I actually thought that the original was clear, and the modified version seems less so. The x4 of klama is a route, and a non-straight route is obviously an indirect one that is not the shortest from point a to point b. It is less clear to me what a non-straight process of going is. Perhaps meaning that he stopped to talk to people on the way. I would have used "lo" instead of "le" though, since it isn't clear to the reader listener which indirect route/means is THE one intended. "le" should normally be something specifically identifiable to the listener, and if not, the speaker should be prepared to answer the clarifying question "leki'a" (which?). Lojbab: Note that "du'u" refers to a fact or truth, something known or knowable, while "se du'u" refers to expressions of such a fact or truth. This is being clarified in the dictionary cmavo list. Nick (on an earlier version): >.i lu<< na birti .i mapaunai jimpe le stura bele menli belei puzu respa I'd rather {no prenu cu jimpe}, myself... Iain: Wot, no rhetorical questions in Lojban? Lojbab: I note that the final version uses "noda" with no restriction. So Iain has actually broadened his meaning beyond Nick's assumed "No person understands" to "Nothing understands". Of course, it may to most people be implicit that the x1 of jimpe is itself sufficiently restricting. Iain's original method of expressing a rhetorical question seems valid, though at times one might want to put the "paunai" either at the front of the sentence to forwarn the listener of the rhetoric nature of the question, or to delay it, appending it to a vau on the ned of the sentence, so that the listener starts to seriously think about the question and answer, before being told that no answer is expected. I suspect that the attitudinal system offers a variety of other ways to convey rhetorical statements of this type, including probably some that don't easily translate to English. Lojbab (on Iain's final draft text submission for JL17): .i le pendo be mi zu'apu kurji ko'e gi'eku'i puzi co'a speni gi'e gasnu lenu cfari fa lenu lanzu kuku gi'e jinvi ledu'u vo'a na kakne lenu tu'ari xamgu ge ko'e *gicabo le lanzu This sentence is ungrammatical at the point indicated. "gi" does not bind with a tense like that - it is only a place holder. When you go from afterthought expression: "ko'e .ecabo le lanzu" to forethought, we don't currently have a way to express both logical and tense connective. If we did allow it, it might have to be attached to the connective, as "gecabo", and not to the place-holder word "gi". After all, the idea of a forethought connective is to let the listener know the relationship between the connectands _before_ expressing them. The easiest expression that I think captures your intended meaning is to scrap the connective and use an expanded tense clause. I made only this minimal change to make the result grammatical, but also discussed this with Nora. You might also consider expressing the final clause as vo'a na kakne lenu roroiku tu'ari xamgu ge ko'e gi le lanzu or maybe vo'a na kakne lenu paroiku tu'ari xamgu ge ko'e gi le lanzu or to express the negation as a tense vo'a noroi kakne lenu paroiku tu'ari xamgu ge ko'e gi le lanzu vo'a canoda kakne lenu paroiku tu'ari xamgu ge ko'e gi le lanzu We also played with trying to move the negation down a level (which is very un-English), but I'm not sure that the semantics stays intact. vo'a kakne lenu roroiku tu'ari xamgu ganai ko'e ginai le lanzu vo'a kakne lenu noroiku tu'ari xamgu ge ko'e gi le lanzu