& Message 2: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:57:13 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Well, I finally cobbled together a story of sorts. I'm less than enthused by some of my use of lojban, and the only defense I can offer is that I was concentrating on the plot, which actually exists. Then again, the plot and story and moral could use a little better cohesion, but that's life. Maybe if I'm feeling nice I'll post a translation... ni'oni'o vanci .icabo nalcladu ne'i le ckafybarja .i lebi'u remna cu klama mo'ine'i ra .i ko'a goi ra zutse ne'a lo jubme .i ko'a cpedu loi tcati le kafybarja se jibri .i ba so'o mentu ko'a se dunda loi tcati gi'e co'a pinxe ri ru'inai ni'o ca lenu ko'a pinxe loi tcati po ko'a kei ko'a zgana lenu lebi'u nanmu cu se dunda lei ckafi poi ra pu cpedu ke'a .ije le nanmu goi ko'e cu pencu le kabri poi se nenri lei ckafi ku'o le degji gi'enai pinxe lei ckafi .ije mu'i zo'epela'edi'u ko'e cusku <> le bevri be lei ckafi be'o goi ko'i .i ko'i cusku <> gi'ebabo lebna le kabri .i ko'i krefu klama gi'e bevri lei ckafi ba so'o mentu .i ko'e krefu pencu le kabri .i ko'e cusku <> .i ko'e gleki pinxe lei ckafi po ko'e no'i ko'a zgana la'ejoigi di'ugide'u .i ba so'o mentu ko'a tavla le bi'unai selpinxe bevri goi ko'i .i ko'a cusku <> .i ko'i cusku <> .i ko'a cusku <> .i ko'i cusku <> .i ko'a cusku <> .i <> .i <> .isemu'ibo fo'a pleji fo'i lo gusminra sicni poi se vamji mu fepni .iseki'ubo fo'i gleki klama lefo'i zdani tu'u .i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u do cu .ei zgana pu lenu do jdice .i .ua ri'a je'unai ka'u le sego'i zo "za'a" noi cmavo fi lesi'o zgana ku'o cu rafsi zo zabna li'u>> Some comments: I don't like the way {di'u} only means "the last utterance". It's bringing number considerations into lojban where it never had them before. I'd have expected it to mean "the last utterance(s)", with optional number, like everything else. You can't always use tu'e/tu'u, sometimes it's used in afterthought. I had to use that hideous {la'e joigi di'ugide'u}, counting on {de'u} to be non-number-specific. Had to use forethought because otherwise {la'e} would stick only to {di'u} and not the whole thing. I could use some better use of UIs, I think. My grammar gets very complex sometimes. I had trouble getting across the meanings of "this is illustrated by the old story" and "the moral of this is..." Places of {ctuca} have done the job, and reasonably well, but maybe not very well. Hope this is a decent start.... ~mark le cavi se lifri be mi'o cu li'i to'e snada lenu jmive je cusku simxu Message 7: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:57:09 +1000 Sender: Lojban list From: nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU Subject: Re: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:57:13 -0400." Mark's tale. Hm, this one is... sober. That's ok, though. We were about due for sober :) The grammatical complexity (and I presume the same is the case for my work) means that you have to read the piece slowly, but that's not impossible. >vanci >.icabo nalcladu ne'i le ckafybarja In the jungle, the quiet jungle, the lion... oops :) >.i ba so'o mentu ko'a se dunda loi tcati gi'e co'a pinxe ri ru'inai I see no good reason not to say just {co'aru'inai pinxe}; ru'inai where you have it implies {ru'inai zo'e}, which is distracting. >ca lenu ko'a pinxe loi tcati po ko'a kei ko'a zgana lenu lebi'u nanmu >cu se dunda lei ckafi poi ra pu cpedu ke'a To unclog the sentence, I'd say {ko'a ca lenu ... po ko'a cu zgana}. >.ije le nanmu goi ko'e cu pencu le kabri poi se nenri lei ckafi ku'o >le degji gi'enai pinxe lei ckafi And to unclog *this*, Veijo would say {le poi se nenri lei ckafi ku'o kabri} >.ije mu'i zo'epela'edi'u ko'e cusku <ko lebna lei vi ckafi gi'ebabo bevri fi mi fe lei ba'e je'a glare >ku'i ckafi li'u>> le bevri be lei ckafi be'o goi ko'i zo'epela'edi'u is more accurate here than {.isemu'ibo}, but it's still a mouthful. I'm not confident about the usage of {ku'i}. >.i ko'i cusku <> gi'ebabo lebna le kabri There's one attitudinal in there too many, and I think it's {.uu} >.i ko'i krefu klama gi'e bevri lei ckafi ba so'o mentu Possibly {vauba so'o mentu}, to indicate that this is an argument of both clauses? >ko'a zgana la'ejoigi di'ugide'u ... You're right, that *is* hideous. >.i ko'a cusku <.iki'ubo mi djuno le do se zukte {.iseki'ubo}, and {djuno fi le do se zukte}, or {jimpe ledo se zukte}. Hm, actually, no, {djuno tu'a ledo se zukte} will do. >.i mu'i lenu mi bevri loi glare ckafi lo prenu ku poi genai pinxe ri gi >pencu le kabri gi'e na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai >glare kei kei mi denpa fu'i so'e mentu tezu'e lenu lei ckafi cu glaryri'a >le kabri kei fo lenu krefu dunda lei ckafi {mi na'o denpa}, to be safe. If you can simplify the sentence at all... >.i ko'i cusku <> >.i ko'a cusku <> >.i <> >.i <.i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u do cu .ei zgana pu lenu do jdice >.i .ua ri'a je'unai ka'u le sego'i zo "za'a" noi cmavo >fi lesi'o zgana ku'o cu rafsi zo zabna li'u>> Nice twist on the end. I like it. --- 'Dera me xhama t"e larm"e, T Nick Nicholas, EE & CS, Melbourne Uni Dera mbas blerimit | nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo) Me xhama t"e larm"e! | Milaw ki ellhnika/Esperanto parolata/ Lumtunia nuk ka ngjyra tjera.' | mi ka'e tavla bau la lojban. je'uru'e - Martin Camaj, _Nj"e Shp'i e Vetme_ | *d'oh!* Message 13: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:15:49 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:57:09 +1000 From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Mark's tale. >Hm, this one is... sober. That's ok, though. We were about due for sober :) >The grammatical complexity (and I presume the same is the case for my work) >means that you have to read the piece slowly, but that's not impossible. Heh. After yours and Iain's, I thought mine was annoying simple grammatically, except for a few hideous sentences. >>vanci >>.icabo nalcladu ne'i le ckafybarja >In the jungle, the quiet jungle, the lion... It was a dark and stormy night... >>.i ba so'o mentu ko'a se dunda loi tcati gi'e co'a pinxe ri ru'inai >I see no good reason not to say just {co'aru'inai pinxe}; ru'inai where >you have it implies {ru'inai zo'e}, which is distracting. I don't know why I didn't do that. Maybe I thought it wasn't grammatical, or perhaps I feared it would give a different meaning. I don't think you necessarily get {ru'inai zo'e}. It's really just {ru'inaiku}. Isn't that like {puku}, which is the same as putting a {pu} on the selbri? >>ca lenu ko'a pinxe loi tcati po ko'a kei ko'a zgana lenu lebi'u nanmu >>cu se dunda lei ckafi poi ra pu cpedu ke'a >To unclog the sentence, I'd say {ko'a ca lenu ... po ko'a cu zgana}. Ah, much better. Thanks. >>.ije le nanmu goi ko'e cu pencu le kabri poi se nenri lei ckafi ku'o >>le degji gi'enai pinxe lei ckafi >And to unclog *this*, Veijo would say {le poi se nenri lei ckafi ku'o >kabri} Yeah, but I like postposed relatives. The preposed ones are good, now that we have them, and they do help unclog, but I personally find postposed ones more natural most of the time, at least when I'm the one doing the writing. Maybe I'll change it anyway. >>.ije mu'i zo'epela'edi'u ko'e cusku <>ko lebna lei vi ckafi gi'ebabo bevri fi mi fe lei ba'e je'a glare >>ku'i ckafi li'u>> le bevri be lei ckafi be'o goi ko'i >zo'epela'edi'u is more accurate here than {.isemu'ibo}, but it's still a >mouthful. I'm not confident about the usage of {ku'i}. I thought {.isemu'ibo} wasn't quite right, since after all, it wasn't his touching the cup, but rather what he *felt* that made him refuse. I'm glad you saw that too. {zo'epela'edi'u} is a bit much to say, but not impossible. Note my {zo'epe} metonymizer. I was actually proud of the {ku'i} there. "Bring me some *hot* coffee (as opposed to this tepid stuff)." >>.i ko'i cusku <> gi'ebabo lebna le kabri >There's one attitudinal in there too many, and I think it's {.uu} Probably. >>.i ko'i krefu klama gi'e bevri lei ckafi ba so'o mentu >Possibly {vauba so'o mentu}, to indicate that this is an argument of both >clauses? Definitely. Thanks. >>ko'a zgana la'ejoigi di'ugide'u >... You're right, that *is* hideous. I feels more lojbanic to say simply {la'edi'u}, but usage has {di'u} as *one* jufra. Bleah. >>.i ko'a cusku <Congrats on using {.i'i} A last-minute addition that felt right. I wanted to get a certain friendliness across that the sentence didn't have without the attitudinal. >>.iki'ubo mi djuno le do se zukte >{.iseki'ubo}, and {djuno fi le do se zukte}, or {jimpe ledo se zukte}. Hm, >actually, no, {djuno tu'a ledo se zukte} will do. Yeah, those corrections make sense. >>.i mu'i lenu mi bevri loi glare ckafi lo prenu ku poi genai pinxe ri gi >>pencu le kabri gi'e na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai >>glare kei kei mi denpa fu'i so'e mentu tezu'e lenu lei ckafi cu glaryri'a >>le kabri kei fo lenu krefu dunda lei ckafi >{mi na'o denpa}, to be safe. If you can simplify the sentence at all... {na'o}, sure. I'll have to think of a way to split that baby up... >>.i ko'i cusku <> >>.i ko'a cusku <> >>.i <> >>.i <Ah, smooth transition :) I thought it more or less worked, if a little stilted. My dialogue isn't as nice as I'd wanted it to be. >>.i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u do cu .ei zgana pu lenu do jdice >>.i .ua ri'a je'unai ka'u le sego'i zo "za'a" noi cmavo >>fi lesi'o zgana ku'o cu rafsi zo zabna li'u>> >Nice twist on the end. I like it. There's a story told about the man who always had a parable for every situation. No matter the topic of conversation, he could always come up with a parable. Someone once asked him, "How is it you always have a parable on hand?" He said, "There's a parable about that. Once, someone was approaching a town, and saw that on every tree there was a target painted and an arrow stuck in a perfect bull's-eye. Dozens of perfectly-shot arrows. He was amazed at the skill of the archer. On his way to town he met a man with a bow, clearly the archer responsible for the arrows. He asked "How did you get so good at archery?" The man replied, "Watch." He took aim at a tree, and shot an arrow straight into the trunk. Then he went and painted a target around it. The twist was where I started.... :-) ~mark & Message 2: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:18:38 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: TECH RE: CAFE: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122%OASIS.ICL.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:25:10 BST Iain writes, in reference to my problem with {di'u} being too small: >In the latest version of the grammar, LAhE apply to a whole sumti, >with an explicit optional LUhU terminator, so you _could_ use >afterthought. Oh yeah. I didn't think of that. Good point. ~mark & Message 6: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:25:10 BST Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: TECH RE: CAFE: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Mark: > I don't like the way {di'u} only means "the last utterance". It's bringing > number considerations into lojban where it never had them before. I'd have > expected it to mean "the last utterance(s)", with optional number, like > everything else. You can't always use tu'e/tu'u, sometimes it's used in > afterthought. I had to use that hideous {la'e joigi di'ugide'u}, counting > on {de'u} to be non-number-specific. Had to use forethought because > otherwise {la'e} would stick only to {di'u} and not the whole thing. I don't see why you shouldn't use {di'uxire} to mean the last-but-one, or whatever. That of course doesn't help with widening the scope to multiple utterances. I'm not sure how using a logical or non-logical connective in a subscript ({di'uxivei re joi ci ve'o}) would work, but it would probably be too specific, not to mention ugly. In the latest version of the grammar, LAhE apply to a whole sumti, with an explicit optional LUhU terminator, so you _could_ use afterthought. More later, I expect. Iain. & mail lojban Subject: misc comments 2) The definition of 'utterance' to which "di'u" refers is not that well d defined, and may indeed refer to multiple sentences. Grammatically, the construct 'utterance' is a single sentence or partial sentence as I recall, but it has generally been agreed, for example, that .ije joining, or .ibo joining gives some kind of logical unit (as does .itu'e ...tu'u). Message 9: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:50:09 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: TECH (di'u) (was: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier .ua.ui Why not {[le] re di'u} - the previous two utterances, {so'o de'u} - several recent utterances, etc. Iain. Message 17: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:15:16 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: TECH (di'u) (was: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122%OASIS.ICL.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:50:09 BST From: I.Alexander.bra0122%OASIS.ICL.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Why not {[le] re di'u} - the previous two utterances, >{so'o de'u} - several recent utterances, >etc. Oh, I like that.... ~~mark Message 20: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:39:04 BST Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: Re: TEST: CAFE: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja X-To: shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU To: Bob LeChevalier > .i lebi'u remna cu klama mo'ine'i ra lu mo'ine'i li'u .i'e .i zo bi'u .i'ecu'i I 've got a feeling somewhere that "bi'u" doesn't belong in the language, that it's looking for a glibau prop and is really unlojbanic. It's perfectly understandable, though. I need to think about this further. > ko lebna lei vi ckafi gi'ebabo bevri fi mi fe lei ba'e je'a glare > ku'i ckafi li'u>> le bevri be lei ckafi be'o goi ko'i For my taste, "ba'eje'a" is over the top: "je'a" is marked as it is. .i zo ku'i .i'e > no'i Can anybody explain "no'i" to me, please? > .iki'ubo mi djuno le do se zukte seki'ubo (maybe somebody has already pointed that out .iacu'i) > .i mu'i lenu mi bevri loi glare ckafi lo prenu ku poi genai pinxe ri gi > pencu le kabri gi'e na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai > glare kei kei mi denpa fu'i so'e mentu tezu'e lenu lei ckafi cu glaryri'a > le kabri kei fo lenu krefu dunda lei ckafi I'm not sure about "mu'i"- the lenu surely isn't the motive for waiting: it's wanting to (make them think I will) give them some hot coffee. I don't think you can use "pe'ise'inai" in the way that I think you are trying to. It reads "didn't want to drink the coffee because it was not (I think but it's not my issue) hot." It seemed to me that you were trying to make it "... it was not (in their opinion) hot", which you CANNOT do with attitudinals. ni'o zo fu'i .i'e > .i la'ede'u ve ctuca fu tu'a le slabu lisri be It took hard work to get this one, but it's worth it! "slabu"s good too. > .i tu'e ka'u je'unai da'i I would not put in the "je'unai" > .i le'o ko pleji fi mi fe le je'u je'a jdini no'u lo sicni li'u>> I don't think "je'u" works at all: "Pay me with (what I say is true) actual money, some coins" > .isemu'ibo fo'a pleji fo'i lo gusminra sicni poi se vamji > mu fepni Strictly, "Which is worth five things-measured-as pennies" It's OK, but "poi fepni limu" would be as good, I think. "vamji" is much more general than monetary value, so it doesn't really add anything here. > .i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u do cu .ei zgana pu lenu do jdice I think "do" is out of place here. ".ei zgana pu lenu [vo'a] jdice" or "da zgana .ei pu lenu da jdice", or more lojbanically pe'i "jdice nagi'apubo .e'ucai zgana" > .i .ua ri'a je'unai ka'u le sego'i zo "za'a" noi cmavo > fi lesi'o zgana ku'o cu rafsi zo zabna li'u>> This is lovely, but I think the explicit "je'unai" torpedoes it. > I could use some better use of UIs, I think. My grammar gets very complex > sometimes. > > I had trouble getting across the meanings of "this is illustrated by the > old story" and "the moral of this is..." Places of {ctuca} have done the > job, and reasonably well, but maybe not very well. > > Hope this is a decent start.... Your grammar is not complex compared to some of us .... - but you let it get quite embedded, which is a little hard to read; but it's good that we are seeing a variety of different styles. Keep it up. As indicated, some of your UI's are very good, and others I disagree with. > le cavi se lifri be mi'o cu li'i to'e snada lenu jmive je cusku simxu > Nice one Colin Message 7: Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:33:39 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: TEST: CAFE: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: C.J.Fine%BRADFORD.AC.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:39:04 BST From: C.J.Fine%BRADFORD.AC.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >> no'i >Can anybody explain "no'i" to me, please? Not me. I don't know what it is either. I threw it in because I've pretty much never seen it before and figured it deserved some exposure, and this seemed like a possible usage. I'm going back to {ko'a}, so it's sort of an old topic... isn't it? >> .i mu'i lenu mi bevri loi glare ckafi lo prenu ku poi genai pinxe ri gi >> pencu le kabri gi'e na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai >> glare kei kei mi denpa fu'i so'e mentu tezu'e lenu lei ckafi cu glaryri'a >> le kabri kei fo lenu krefu dunda lei ckafi >I'm not sure about "mu'i"- the lenu surely isn't the motive for waiting: it's >wanting to (make them think I will) give them some hot coffee. Hmmm. Good point. You're right. >I don't think you can use "pe'ise'inai" in the way that I think you are trying >to. It reads "didn't want to drink the coffee because it was not (I think but >it's not my issue) hot." It seemed to me that you were trying to make it >"... it was not (in their opinion) hot", which you CANNOT do with >attitudinals. I'm not so sure about this. I'm not 100% positive about what {se'i}/{se'inai} do. Somewhere in the past someone said they could be used in this way, to tag attitudinals explicitly as belonging to the speaker or not. Oh, I remember. It was when Nick and I were discussing whether attitudinals a {du'u} in the x2 of {djuno} applied to the speaker or to the x1. Actually, we were discussing it with reference to {kau} then, but this was when {kau} was still evolving. Lojbab said you could use {kause'i} and {kause'inai} to distinguish who was "knowing" (remember, at the time we were considering {kau} as mostly just "known!"), since {se'i} always made things apply to the speaker. I fear you're probably right anyway, but I hope you're wrong, since your second reading, the one I intended, is *such* an elegant way to say it.... >> .i la'ede'u ve ctuca fu tu'a le slabu lisri be >It took hard work to get this one, but it's worth it! "slabu"s good too. I finally found *something* we could use {slabu} for, and I wasn't going to miss the opportunity. >> .i tu'e ka'u je'unai da'i >I would not put in the "je'unai" I'm sort of trying to flag that this didn't *really* happen. I guess the {da'i} suffices. >> .i le'o ko pleji fi mi fe le je'u je'a jdini no'u lo sicni li'u>> >I don't think "je'u" works at all: "Pay me with (what I say is true) actual >money, some coins" Hrrrmmmm. I think the {je'u} may be okay here, but I'm not positive. >> .isemu'ibo fo'a pleji fo'i lo gusminra sicni poi se vamji >> mu fepni >Strictly, "Which is worth five things-measured-as pennies" It's OK, but >"poi fepni limu" would be as good, I think. "vamji" is much more general >than monetary value, so it doesn't really add anything here. True. I thought of other phrasings (like {lo fepni be li mu}) and decided on the more English-sounding of them. Yours is better. >> .i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u do cu .ei zgana pu lenu do jdice >I think "do" is out of place here. ".ei zgana pu lenu [vo'a] jdice" or >"da zgana .ei pu lenu da jdice", or more lojbanically pe'i >"jdice nagi'apubo .e'ucai zgana" Definitely. {do} here is malglico. It should be a general injunction, and use {zo'e} (possibly elided) or maybe {le'e prenu} or something. {da} is not quantified right, it'd mean "There's something that should...." >> .i .ua ri'a je'unai ka'u le sego'i zo "za'a" noi cmavo >> fi lesi'o zgana ku'o cu rafsi zo zabna li'u>> >This is lovely, but I think the explicit "je'unai" torpedoes it. I used the {je'unai} to attach to the {ri'a} to say that that's not *really* the reason. Without it, someone with no imagination (or from a different culture) would look at me puzzled, or maybe with a little touch of fire in his eye, and say {.uasai lo'e na go'i .i naku zo'u le rafsi srana le cmavo .iasai}. >> le cavi se lifri be mi'o cu li'i to'e snada lenu jmive je cusku simxu jimpe >> >Nice one Thanks, I was hoping someone would notice. Anyone have anything on my {bancu}/{zmadu} problem? ~mark & mail lojban Subject: TECH: what is no'i for? Saw this question flow by a minute ago. The purpose is to allow you to change topics (ni'o), and possibly even contexts, but then to resume the old context at will (ni'o and no'i can be subscripted, I believe if you are dealing with many contexts). Major uses are story-within-a-story, comparison between two situations, and a whole bunch of oddball things that happen in stylistics of longer narratives. Don;t know if the usage that prompted the question owas one of these, but if it was even close to this area, it was probably valid. One convention that is not well established (because no'i is not muched used) is that anaphora assignement sets can be switched using these words. lojbab Message 8: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:52:03 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Latest version of my kafybarja story X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier OK, I've tweaked my story in response to some of the comments it elicited. I made several changes as proposed chiefly by Colin and Nick, though I didn't change one or two things particularly opposed, e.g. Colin's objection to {pe'ise'inai} for "in their opinion", since last I heard the jury's still out on what it should mean, and I *like* the way it sounds. I simplified the grammar a little, unraveling one particularly thorny sentence into a few, at the cost of some verbosity, I think. I'll also cobble together a translation at the bottom... maybe Rot13'd... I also replaced a lot of "lenu"'s with "loinu"'s, though this is not common practice. I did this because of the article by JCB that was posted here not long ago, in which he pointed out that a lot of our "lenu"'s are really massified: you're not waiting for a specific even of a cab's arriving, you're waiting for a manifestation of the *mass* of such events. I thought JCB had a very good point there. --------------------------------------- ni'oni'o vanci .icabo nalcladu ne'i le ckafybarja .i lebi'u remna cu klama mo'ine'i ra .i ko'a goi ra zutse ne'a lo jubme .i ko'a cpedu loi tcati le kafybarja se jibri .i ba so'o mentu ko'a se dunda loi tcati gi'e co'aru'inai pinxe ri ni'o ko'a ca lenu ko'a pinxe loi tcati po ko'a cu zgana lenu lebi'u nanmu cu se dunda lei ckafi poi ra pu cpedu ke'a .ije le nanmu goi ko'e cu pencu le kabri poi se nenri lei ckafi ku'o le degji gi'enai pinxe lei ckafi .ije mu'i zo'epela'edi'u ko'e cusku <> le bevri be lei ckafi be'o goi ko'i .i ko'i cusku <> gi'ebabo lebna le kabri .i ko'i krefu klama gi'e bevri lei ckafi vau ba so'o mentu .i ko'e krefu pencu le kabri .i ko'e cusku <> .i ko'e gleki pinxe lei ckafi po ko'e no'i ko'a zgana la'eso'odi'u .i ba so'o mentu ko'a tavla le bi'unai selpinxe bevri goi ko'i .i ko'a cusku <> .i ko'i cusku <> .i ko'a cusku <> .i ko'i cusku <> .i ko'a cusku <> .i <> .i <> .isemu'ibo fo'a pleji fo'i lo gusminra sicni poi se fepni li mu .iseki'ubo fo'i gleki klama lefo'i zdani tu'u .i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u jdice nagi'apubo e'ucai zgana .i .ua ri'a je'unai ka'u le sego'i zo "za'a" noi cmavo fi lesi'o zgana ku'o cu rafsi zo zabna li'u>> -------------------------------- Vg jnf dhvrg va gur pbssrrubhfr ba riravat, naq n crefba (xb'n) pnzr va. Xb'n fng ng n gnoyr naq beqrerq grn sebz gur pnsr rzcyblrr. Nsgre n srj zvahgrf, xb'n jnf tvira fbzr grn naq ortna fvccvat vagrezvggragyl ng vg. Nf xb'n jnf fvggvat qevaxvat xb'n'f grn, xb'n fnj n zna orvat tvira gur pbssrr juvpu ur'q beqrerq. Gur zna gbhpurq gur phc gung pbagnvarq gur pbssrr, ohg qvqa'g qevax gur pbssrr. Fb ur fnvq, "Url! Gnxr guvf pbssrr onpx naq oevat zr fbzr *ubg* pbssrr!" gb gur jnvgre (xb'v). "Lrf fve, fbeel..." Naq xb'v gbbx gur phc njnl. N srj zvahgrf yngre, xb'v erghearq pneelvat gur phc. Ur (gur zna) gbhpurq gur phc ntnva, naq fnvq "Nu! Abj *gung'f* fbzr ubg pbssrr!" naq unccvyl qenax uvf pbssrr. Xb'n unq frra nyy guvf unccra, naq frireny zvahgrf yngre jnf gnyxvat gb gur jnvgre. Xb'n fnvq, "Lbh oebhtug gung thl gur fnzr pbssrr, qvqa'g lbh?" "Hz... lrnu, V qvq..." "Qba'g jbeel. V hfrq gb jbex nf n jnvgre va n erfgnhenag, fb V xabj jung lbh qvq. Gurer ner crbcyr jub qba'g qevax gur pbssrr, gurl whfg gbhpu gur phc naq qba'g jnag gur pbssrr orpnhfr gurl guvax vg'f abg ubg rabhtu. Fb jura gurl gryy zr gb trg gurz fbzr serfu pbssrr, V whfg gnxr gur pbssrr naq jnvg n srj zvahgrf hagvy gur pbssrr jnezf gur phc naq oevat gurz gur fnzr pbssrr onpx ntnva. Naq V frr lbh'ir qbar gur fnzr. Gung'f ernyyl gur zbeny bs gur byq fgbel nobhg gur sbbyvfu ynobere." "Jung fgbel?" "Lbh arire urneq vg?" "Arire." "BX, V'yy gryy vg gura. Bapr hcba n gvzr, gurer jnf n znantre (sb'n) jvgu gjb jbexref. Ng gur raq bs gur jrrx, ur cnvq uvf gjb jbexref: gur jvfr jbexre (sb'r) naq gur sbbyvfu jbexre (sb'v). Gurve fnynel jnf $100, fb ur cnvq gurz jvgu cncre zbarl. Sb'r gunaxrq sb'n naq yrsg, unccl orpnhfr ur jnf cnvq fb jryy. "Sb'v jnfa'g unccl. "Ybbx! V jbexrq uneq sbe lbh nyy jrrx, naq abj lbh'er cnlvat zr jvgu guvf qhzo cvrpr bs cncre!? Lbh orggre cnl zr jvgu fbzr *erny* zbarl, jvgu pbvaf!" Fb sb'n cnvq sb'v jvgu fuval pbvaf, jbegu 5 pragf, naq sb'v jrag unccvyl ubzr. "Guvf nyy grnpurf gung lbh unir gb ybbx pybfryl orsber cnffvat whqtrzrag. Va snpg, gung'f jul "mn'n", juvpu ercerfragf gur vqrn bs bofreingvba, vf nyfb na nssvk sbe "mnoan"/snibhenoyr." -------- ~mark & Message 2: Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 12:53:12 EST Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: Latest version of my kafybarja story X-To: shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU X- Lojban Mailing List To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" at Dec 18, 92 1:52 pm >.i lebi'u remna cu klama mo'ine'i ra >.i ko'a goi ra zutse ne'a lo jubme If the referent of this second {ra} is {lebi'u remna}, then the {ra} should be {ri}, as {rX} anaphora don't refer to other {rX} anaphora. >.i da poi prenu cu genai pinxe lei ckafi gi pencu le kabri gi'e >na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai glare Hm. Doesn't the {na} negate the whole clause? "It is not true that (she wants the coffee because it's not hot enough, quotha)". I'd go either {na'e} or {gi'enai} to clean up this one. (Bandaid solution, I know.) >mi lebna lei ckafi gi'e na'o denpa fu'i so'e mentu tezu'e lenu lei ckafi >cu glaryri'a le kabri kei fo lenu krefu dunda lei naldrata ckafi Strictly speaking, {tu'a le ckafi}, but I still think the omission of {tu'a} here acceptable, as communicative. ******************************************************************************* A freshman once observed to me: Nick Nicholas am I, of Melbourne, Oz. On the edge of the Rubicon, nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo) men don't go fishing. Account expires end of February 1993. - Alice Goodman, _Nixon In China_ Mail me! Mail me! Mail me! Or don't!! Message 7: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:35:46 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Latest version of my kafybarja story X-To: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU X-Cc: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Nick Nicholas's message of Sun, 20 Dec 92 12:53:12 EST From: Nick Nicholas >>.i lebi'u remna cu klama mo'ine'i ra >>.i ko'a goi ra zutse ne'a lo jubme >If the referent of this second {ra} is {lebi'u remna}, then the {ra} >should be {ri}, as {rX} anaphora don't refer to other {rX} anaphora. Er, no. As I recall, ri/ra/ru words *are* anaphorable. Ah.... here. Lesson 6, page 6-10. Hmmm... It *does* say that {ri} is anaphorable (10th line from bottom), but doesn't say anything about the other words. Nonetheless, it seems to me that they should be. If you mean that one {r*} can't refer to another, that also conflicts with usage, since very often I've seen {ra} to point back a sumti or two, then that same {ra} re-referenced with {ri}. >>.i da poi prenu cu genai pinxe lei ckafi gi pencu le kabri gi'e >>na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai glare >Hm. Doesn't the {na} negate the whole clause? "It is not true that (she >wants the coffee because it's not hot enough, quotha)". I'd go either >{na'e} or {gi'enai} to clean up this one. (Bandaid solution, I know.) I thought {na} just negated the bridi-relation for the selbri it was on. >>mi lebna lei ckafi gi'e na'o denpa fu'i so'e mentu tezu'e lenu lei ckafi >>cu glaryri'a le kabri kei fo lenu krefu dunda lei naldrata ckafi >Strictly speaking, {tu'a le ckafi}, but I still think the omission of {tu'a} >here acceptable, as communicative. Oops. ~mark & R To: shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU Subject: Re: Latest version of my kafybarja story yes, "ri" should be usable to refer to "ra" or "ru" in the previous position, because the implicit positional shift of moving along in the sentence makes the counting different. Otherwise it is easy to come up with an example where "ra" means a sumti closer than "ri" (or at least the same sumti). In some ways I would prefer that all sumti be anaphorable to "ri", but actual usage in the Loglan community, long before I got seriously involved, meant that "mi" and "do" tended to get ignored in counting, perhaps because people in English speaking cultures don't take to well to using a third person anaphora for first or second persons. There was a bit of debate on the counting problem, which never got resolved, so I attempted to come up with something pragmatically rationale, which is that you don't count any sumti that is filled by a cmavo that has a fixed assignment. This is based on purely Zipfean principles: you don't get any anaphoric shortening by replacing "mi" with "ri", nor from bothering to assign "ko'a" with a "goi" and then having to tie up "ri"(and "ra", since there are two sides to the "goi") to mean the same thing. "ti","ta", "tu" of course can change value trivially at each location in a sentence, and hence need to be anaphorable or you have no way to know that the later reference is to the same thing as the earlier one. So once you start analyzing the situation, it quickly becomes clear that if the back-counting anaphora are to have any value at all in that role, they must be able to skip some sumti as unimportant. The decision as to which to skip is basically pragmatic; our efforts to come up with rules is a concession to the logical nature of the language. But if you REALLYT want to be unambiguous, you wouldn't use ri/ra/ru, but rather the "ko'a" series or some other anaphoric method in the language. We split off from JCB by providing these other alternatives to the back-counting scheme that even JCB admits doesn't work in traditional Loglan (the TLI people haven't ever decided what to replace it with, so it just remains haphazardly broken, with some people using their back-counting words as each of the "ko'a", "ri" and "vo'a" series that we instituted in Lojban to replace the single series in TLI Loglan.) lojbab jl17: ni'oni'o vanci .icabo nalcladu ne'i le ckafybarja .i lebi'u remna cu klama mo'ine'i ra .i ko'a goi ra zutse ne'a lo jubme .i ko'a cpedu loi tcati le kafybarja se jibri .i ba so'o mentu ko'a se dunda loi tcati gi'e co'aru'inai pinxe ri ni'o ko'a ca lenu ko'a pinxe loi tcati po ko'a cu zgana lenu lebi'u nanmu cu se dunda lei ckafi poi ra pu cpedu ke'a .ije le nanmu goi ko'e cu pencu le kabri poi se nenri lei ckafi ku'o le degji gi'enai pinxe lei ckafi .ije mu'i zo'epela'edi'u ko'e cusku <> le bevri be lei ckafi be'o goi ko'i .i ko'i cusku <> gi'ebabo lebna le kabri .i ko'i krefu klama gi'e bevri lei ckafi vau ba so'o mentu .i ko'e krefu pencu le kabri .i ko'e cusku <> .i ko'e gleki pinxe lei ckafi po ko'e no'i ko'a zgana la'eso'odi'u .i ba so'o mentu ko'a tavla le bi'unai selpinxe bevri goi ko'i .i ko'a cusku <> .i ko'i cusku <> .i ko'a cusku <> .i ko'i cusku <> .i ko'a cusku <> .i <> .i <> .isemu'ibo fo'a pleji fo'i lo gusminra sicni poi se fepni li mu .iseki'ubo fo'i gleki klama lefo'i zdani tu'u .i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u jdice nagi'apubo e'ucai zgana .i .ua ri'a je'unai ka'u le sego'i zo "za'a" noi cmavo fi lesi'o zgana ku'o cu rafsi zo zabna li'u>> It was quiet in the coffeehouse one evening, and a person (ko'a) came in. ko'a sat at a table and ordered tea from the cafe employee. After a few minutes, ko'a was given some tea and began sipping intermittently at it. As ko'a was sitting drinking ko'a's tea, ko'a saw a man being given the coffee which he'd ordered. The man touched the cup that contained the coffee, but didn't drink the coffee. So he said, "Hey! Take this coffee back and bring me some *hot* coffee!" to the waiter (ko'i). "Yes sir, sorry..." And ko'i took the cup away. A few minutes later, ko'i returned carrying the cup. He (the man) touched the cup again, and said "Ah! Now *that's* some hot coffee!" and happily drank his coffee. ko'a had seen all this happen, and several minutes later was talking to the waiter. ko'a said, "You brought that guy the same coffee, didn't you?" "Um... yeah, I did..." "Don't worry. I used to work as a waiter in a restaurant, so I know what you did. There are people who don't drink the coffee, they just touch the cup and don't want the coffee because they think it's not hot enough. So when they tell me to get them some fresh coffee, I just take the coffee and wait a few minutes until the coffee warms the cup and bring them the same coffee back again. And I see you've done the same. That's really the moral of the old story about the foolish laborer." "What story?" "You never heard it?" "Never." "OK, I'll tell it then. Once upon a time, there was a manager (fo'a) with two workers. At the end of the week, he paid his two workers: the wise worker (fo'e) and the foolish worker (fo'i). Their salary was $100, so he paid them with paper money. fo'e thanked fo'a and left, happy because he was paid so well. "fo'i wasn't happy. "Look! I worked hard for you all week, and now you're paying me with this dumb piece of paper!? You better pay me with some *real* money, with coins!" So fo'a paid fo'i with shiny coins, worth 5 cents, and fo'i went happily home. "This all teaches that you have to look closely before passing judgement. In fact, that's why "za'a", which represents the idea of observation, is also an affix for "zabna"/favourable." Some comments: I don't like the way {di'u} only means "the last utterance". It's bringing number considerations into Lojban where it never had them before. I'd have expected it to mean "the last utterance(s)", with optional number, like everything else. You can't always use tu'e/tu'u, sometimes it's used in afterthought. I had to use that hideous {la'e joigi di'ugide'u}, counting on {de'u} to be non-number-specific. Had to use forethought because otherwise {la'e} would stick only to {di'u} and not the whole thing. Iain: In the latest version of the grammar, LAhE apply to a whole sumti, with an explicit optional LUhU terminator, so you _could_ use afterthought. Why not {[le] re di'u} - the previous two utterances, {so'o de'u} - several recent utterances, etc. [Mark liked this approach and incorporated it in the printed version.] Lojbab: I ask you: What is an 'utterance'? In Lojban, an utterance can be more than a single sentence, a paragraph even, or whatever. I would think this would be familiar to net people from Cowan's method of net quotation on Lojban-List: "la lojbab. cusku di'e", where "di'e is the forward counting utterance equivalent of the back-counting "di'u". Thus, the 'utterance' to which "di'u" refers is not that well defined, and may indeed refer to multiple sentences. Grammatically, the construct 'utterance' is a single sentence or partial sentence as I recall, but it has generally been agreed, for example, that .ije joining, or .ibo joining gives some kind of logical unit (as does .itu'e ...tu'u). Now the usage default convention of 'utterance' has tended to be a single sentence, but it need not always be so. If context suggests a longer utterance is intended, fine. A possibility to consider when you are dealing with a range of sentences and don't want to count, would be to use di'upezi/di'upeza/di'upezu to indicate relative length of referenced utterance. I could use some better use of UIs, I think. My grammar gets very complex sometimes. Colin: Your grammar is not complex compared to some of us .... - but you let it get quite embedded, which is a little hard to read; but it's good that we are seeing a variety of different styles. Keep it up. As indicated, some of your UI's are very good, and others I disagree with. I had trouble getting across the meanings of "this is illustrated by the old story" and "the moral of this is..." Places of {ctuca} have done the job, and reasonably well, but maybe not very well. Lojbab: This text uses "bi'u" and "bi'unai" which are not on any published wordlists yet with the current meaning. They are used to discursively to mark pieces of the sentence as 'new information' or 'old information'. New information is that which the speaker is trying to communicate to the listener, while old information is that which the speaker assumes that the listener knows from background or context. Normally this distinction is conveyed in natural languages through word order (putting new information either at the beginning or the end of the sentence, typically, depending on the language and the situation), but people want to have the option in Lojban of using word order for other purposes including simply expressing the place structures in numerical order. Marking a "le" description sumti as new information on its first occurance in text, for example, means that the speaker has a specific and definite someone/something in mind, but that he doesn't expect the listener to know which someone/something is being referred to at that point. Without "bi'u", the listener might wonder why he can't figure out which one the speaker is talking about. Nick: Hm, this one is... sober. That's ok, though. We were about due for sober :) The grammatical complexity (and I presume the same is the case for my work) means that you have to read the piece slowly, but that's not impossible. >.ije mu'i zo'epela'edi'u ko'e cusku <ko lebna lei vi ckafi gi'ebabo bevri fi mi fe lei ba'e je'a glare >ku'i ckafi li'u>> le bevri be lei ckafi be'o goi ko'i zo'epela'edi'u is more accurate here than {.isemu'ibo}, but it's still a mouthful. I'm not confident about the usage of {ku'i}. Mark: I thought {.isemu'ibo} wasn't quite right, since after all, it wasn't his touching the cup, but rather what he *felt* that made him refuse. I'm glad you saw that too. {zo'epela'edi'u} is a bit much to say, but not impossible. Note my {zo'epe} metonymizer. I was actually proud of the {ku'i} there. "Bring me some *hot* coffee (as opposed to this tepid stuff)." Lojbab: How about "tu'ala'edi'u"? Colin: Can anybody explain "no'i" to me, please? Mark: Not me. I don't know what it is either. I threw it in because I've pretty much never seen it before and figured it deserved some exposure, and this seemed like a possible usage. I'm going back to {ko'a}, so it's sort of an old topic... isn't it? Colin: I don't think you can use "pe'ise'inai" in the way that I think you are trying to. It reads "didn't want to drink the coffee because it was not (I think but it's not my issue) hot." It seemed to me that you were trying to make it "... it was not (in their opinion) hot", which you CANNOT do with attitudinals. Mark: I'm not so sure about this. I'm not 100% positive about what {se'i}/{se'inai} do. Somewhere in the past someone said they could be used in this way, to tag attitudinals explicitly as belonging to the speaker or not. Oh, I remember. It was when Nick and I were discussing whether attitudinals on {du'u} in the x2 of {djuno} applied to the speaker or to the x1. Actually, we were discussing it with reference to {kau} then, but this was when {kau} was still evolving. Lojbab said you could use {kause'i} and {kause'inai} to distinguish who was "knowing" (remember, at the time we were considering {kau} as mostly just "known!"), since {se'i} always made things apply to the speaker. I fear you're probably right anyway, but I hope you're wrong, since your second reading, the one I intended, is *such* an elegant way to say it.... [Later ...] I didn't change ..., e.g. Colin's objection to {pe'ise'inai} for "in their opinion", since last I heard the jury's still out on what it should mean, and I *like* the way it sounds. Lojbab: The purpose is to allow you to change topics (ni'o), and possibly even contexts, but then to resume the old context at will (ni'o and no'i can be subscripted, I believe, if you are dealing with many contexts). Major uses are story-within-a-story, comparison between two situations, and a whole bunch of oddball things that happen in stylistics of longer narratives. One convention that is not well established (because no'i is not much used) is that anaphora assignement sets can be switched using these words. Mark: I also replaced a lot of "lenu"'s with "loinu"'s, though this is not common practice. I did this because of the article by JCB that was posted here not long ago, in which he pointed out that a lot of our "lenu"'s are really massified: you're not waiting for a specific even of a cab's arriving, you're waiting for a manifestation of the *mass* of such events. I thought JCB had a very good point there. Mark: >>.i da poi prenu cu genai pinxe lei ckafi gi pencu le kabri gi'e >>na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai glare Nick: >Hm. Doesn't the {na} negate the whole clause? "It is not true that (she >wants the coffee because it's not hot enough, quotha)". I'd go either >{na'e} or {gi'enai} to clean up this one. (Bandaid solution, I know.) Mark: I thought {na} just negated the bridi-relation for the selbri it was on. Lojbab: Right, but all of the text with Nick's parentheses is part of the bridi based on "djica".