ni'o zdani .i ckafyzda .i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai .i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da .i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna .i rancindu jubme .i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a .i ji'ipano zutse remna .i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri .i vrici .i mi visfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme goi ko'a .i mi co'a zutlamji ko'a .i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u .i le jukpa selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i .i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au .i ckafypanci fi mi.ui .i ckafypanci .i .ui.o'u .i zdani ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 2: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:19:19 +1000 Sender: Lojban list From: nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:26:21 EST." Vilva arrives in the ckafyzda. *Finally*! It's such a good navigation too, I feel guilty for proceeding to propose some fleshing out of the scenery in English. And of course, the Lojbanisations of our English specs should not be translations, but transformations, as Veijo has rightly pointed out. Here goes: > As I walked under the crossed climbing axes, and into the coffeehouse, >I felt I was in a place designed to give one the feeling of putting on an >old comfortable pair of shoes. Veijo speaks of {.ui.o'u}; that's the feeling I want in the cafe too. A boisterous place, sure, with lots of emphasis on the {ka vrici}, but also a very {mela'ezo.i'u} place. The door is nothing too fancy; plain, wooden, touch heavy, not pretentious. The climbing axes certainly have been positioned informally (maybe even not perfectly symmetrically?) >The benches were made of old soft >oak, in which many tales and symbols had been carved. On the bench I was >seated was the inscription: "Members of the first sandpit expedition to >find the first digger, or traces thereof- 198?" The table also bore other >marks of former patrons who had drank their selections and transcribed >their feelings with pitons. What with the suggested rural setting and the benches, I'm put in mind of soft *damp* oak, and murky late afternoon light. I don't think the place need be spotlighted, in any case; the can't-look-outside windows will do. There's not just tales and symbols, of course; there's a lot of good old fashioned graffiti (no need to be too solemn about it.) The place is, I suggest, small and intimate, with the {vrici} paraphenalia on the walls haphazard and competing for space, rather than formally set out, museum style. No more than ten benches (reasonably sized, though). >The walls were littered with climbing apparel >and debris in what might charitably have been termed a collage. See? I visualised correctly :) And some of the parts of the collage are downright incongruous. I would not be surprised, for example, if a certain pea on a cushion lies in a corner, with some inscription to do with a Kunstkammer. Several postcards, too (I don't think this is being too explicitly outside-world-bound), from Cafe Cairo, The Loglan Sogrun, Burnley F.A... >There were the rusting remains of pitons and hooks abutting practically >new lengths of the latest high test rope. Opposite the door from which >I had entered was a ladder - a climbing ladder, of course. The ladder >reached to the ceiling, and a solid-looking trap door that made me >wonder of the unknown relics that lay beyond, and the stories they might >hold. The ladder stays, but it has nothing to do with {le lisri be le serti}; an imposing marble staircase would be a touch *too* imposing. >Underneath these >visible artifacts were the dour reminders of the primary business of this >establishment-coffee. There were full wooden bins of coffee from just >about every place in the world, with or without caffeine. The cook was >visible to all and in the process of developing the latest creation on the >current menu, and not without some debate about the amount of spice the >particular dish required. The menu is on display just to the right of the partition behind which the cook is visible; handwritten, with the le'avla defined at the bottom of the list in the six source languages. The coffee bins are along the walls, I take it? (Beneath the artifacts.) The waiter does some serving, but for the most part sits with the customers and socialises. The cook has most of his/her arguments with the dishwasher, sometimes carrying the arguments outside the kitchen and asking for support in his debates amongst hapless customers, slapstick-style (hm, I'm going against the rotation thing --- others may countersupport it); I don't know what a busboy is either; and the Manager (and the sixth man/woman out for the night) sit together and overlook the scene. I don't know if it's worthwhile giving the Manager his/her own table, and a small table rather than a bench at that; but I would like the Manager to be a bit more formal than the rest, a voice of authority amidst the chaos, and somewhat set apart --- a big gun in a story, held in reserve. This might be a biiiiit silly, but maybe a small bookcase of NL dictionaries and Lojban references on the side? And the cafe, I thiiiiink, should be a bit of a bastion of lojbanism, or at least lojbanism-aware --- which would give us the opportunity of satirising traits of the current or future community in it. The visitors, of course, don't have to particularly like or think about Lojban --- it's by no means an exclusive venue. >This happy riot provided the counterpoint to the >hissing, and boiling of a near endless stream of coffee beans in response >to the always cold, often frustrated, and very determined clientele. . . Damn! I *knew* they were cold and damp! :) OK. If you all don't blow up at this, we can go navigating some more... --- '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 1: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:01:41 BST Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: vilva@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Nice piece, I like the observatives, and the new lujvo. > .i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna "jbustu" - I guess I understand, but I don't find it obvious. xu? zo jbustu cu sinxa le pagbu be le dinju be'o poi stizu lo jubme > .i rancindu jubme loi rancindu ki'a (Don't understand "soft oak") > .i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a .i da slada'i gi'e na te djuno vau ki'a Is this supposed to be "familiar things that I couldn't quite recognise"? > .i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri Why "lei mudri" > .i mi visfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme goi ko'a Preposed relatives! i'ecai Go, Veijo! > .i le jukpa selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i Missing "cu" pe'i Some time I must dig out the speech that a friend of mine delivered at a SF convention a few years back - it was called The Black Wine of Thentis, and it was about the role of coffee in Science Fiction - specifically the way that, presumably because most SF writers mainline on the stuff, they would go to such lengths to provide it for their characters in the most out-of-the-way places, and wrote about it in terms that they clearly expected the reader to go into paroxysms of sensual delight at the mention of ckafypanci. ko xamgu ranji co'omi'e kolin Message 10: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:54:07 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier From: C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk >> .i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna >"jbustu" - I guess I understand, but I don't find it obvious. >xu? zo jbustu cu sinxa le pagbu be le dinju be'o poi stizu lo jubme go'i >> .i rancindu jubme >loi rancindu ki'a (Don't understand "soft oak") The original Description #2 from LogFest/lojbab called for that: >>> every booth had a superb view of the .] The benches were made of >>> old soft oak, ... >> .i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a >.i da slada'i gi'e na te djuno vau ki'a >Is this supposed to be "familiar things that I couldn't quite >recognise"? Just plain old, not elaborating on that. Perhaps ought to? >> .i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri >Why "lei mudri" I'd say they are wooden but can't be sure these days. (The coffee? :) co'omi'e vei,on ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 21: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:27:39 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:26:21 -0500 Way to go on the first crack at the ckafyzda, Veijo! Looking good. Some comments, as I try reading it: From: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >ni'o zdani I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice. {zdani} implies some sort of dwelling-place, and you're leading into this with these observatives as "A house. A coffee-house...", where habitation isn't implied. For that matter, is {ckafyzda} malglico? It expands to {ckafi zdani} == "coffee-ish nest/house/bivouac/dwelling-place". Most coffehouses aren't inhabited by anyone, they're solely places of business. {ckafyzarci} implies a more of a store where you buy coffee beans to me, so that's no better, and {ckafybriju} is right out. Aha! {ckafybarja}! That's really *much* better, I think. {barja} even has a place for what's served, which is filled, in the lujvo/tanru, by {ckafi} (though other things may be served as well). I think this is an important change to make, even if {ckafyzda} has acquired some sacredness. It's only a week or two old, and it's broken. Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}. >.i ckafyzda >.i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai "I am-at the door-place [doorway] and am-a-smell-receptor-of [smell-emitted-by] mass-of coffee [smell being] x1" Whoa! Took me a long while to work out how that works. Sentence seems to be redundant, but somehow manages actually to sensibly bind {da}, making an existential claim at the same time. Confusing, but very clever, and rather uniquely lojbanic. >.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time-interval past)"..? Oh, "it's now a long time that..." Hrrrm. I let John Cowan be the judge of that, if he gets a free moment. I believe, though, that {da} gets unbound between sentences (except at ijeks), so you should either have an {.ije} there or use some other sort of anaphora to get the smell. You could probably just ellipsize it entirely and get the meaning across fine. >.i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna Not sure what {ctacarna} really implies, but I get the gist. >.i rancindu jubme >.i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a *sigh*. This is such a common mistake something should be done. A selbri can't take {noi}. You can't use it this way in an observative. Use {gi'e} or something. >.i ji'ipano zutse remna This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same as the previous observatives. Observatives are sentences with selbri but no sumti (or at least no x1 sumti). The x1 is considered to be ellipsized, so "jubme" is "(something unspecified) is a table". This is a sumti with no selbri, since it's quantified, and would likely be interpreted as "about 10 sitting people (do/are something unspecified)", which to me has a slightly different meaning. >.i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri >.i vrici >.i mi visfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme > goi ko'a Zow! That's good. >.i mi co'a zutlamji ko'a >.i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u "event-of-cooking volume"? Maybe {jupkumfa}? It *is* a room, after all, isn't it? Not sure the {nun-} is necessary, but it's not badly placed. >.i le jukpa selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i This isn't quite grammatical. {le jukpa selviska} is a sumti, and you can't have a {gi'e} inside or after only sumti with no selbri. I take it you wanted {le jukpa cu selviska}? >.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. >.i ckafypanci fi mi.ui >.i ckafypanci >.i .ui.o'u >.i zdani Neat ending. ~mark & Message 2: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:36:53 BST Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: vilva@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI X-Cc: Lojban list To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: "VILVA@FI.HELSINKI.VIIKKI21" at Aug 28, 92 7:54 am Responding to Veijo responding to me responding to Veijo > >> .i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a > >.i da slada'i gi'e na te djuno vau ki'a > >Is this supposed to be "familiar things that I couldn't quite > >recognise"? > > Just plain old, not elaborating on that. Perhaps ought to? "slabu" = "old to somebody" i.e. "familiar". You perhaps meant "to'erni'oda'i". & Message 3: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU X-Cc: Lojban list To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" at Aug 28, 92 10:27 am Mark to Veijo: > I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice. {zdani} implies > some sort of dwelling-place, and you're leading into this with these > observatives as "A house. A coffee-house...", where habitation isn't > implied. For that matter, is {ckafyzda} malglico? It expands to {ckafi > zdani} == "coffee-ish nest/house/bivouac/dwelling-place". Most coffehouses > aren't inhabited by anyone, they're solely places of business. > {ckafyzarci} implies a more of a store where you buy coffee beans to me, so > that's no better, and {ckafybriju} is right out. Aha! {ckafybarja}! > That's really *much* better, I think. {barja} even has a place for what's > served, which is filled, in the lujvo/tanru, by {ckafi} (though other > things may be served as well). I think this is an important change to > make, even if {ckafyzda} has acquired some sacredness. It's only a week or > two old, and it's broken. Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}. .ieje'u > >.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da > > I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time-interval > past)"..? Oh, "it's now a long time that..." Hrrrm. I let John Cowan be > the judge of that, if he gets a free moment. I believe, though, that {da} > gets unbound between sentences (except at ijeks), so you should either have > an {.ije} there or use some other sort of anaphora to get the smell. You > could probably just ellipsize it entirely and get the meaning across fine. I think you're right. I think the tense is OK. > >.i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a > > *sigh*. This is such a common mistake something should be done. A selbri > can't take {noi}. You can't use it this way in an observative. Use {gi'e} > or something. Yes, it is common, isn't it? When I was playing about with the proposals which eventually engendered Change 20, I was exploring an argument which said that relatives should be able to be incorporated into a selbri, along with an idea for preposing both relatives and linkargs there .... (I didn't mention it because 1) I wasn't sure I could make it work, 2) I didn't know what to do about "pe/ne" used crucially to attach to a sumti, 3) I didn't want to give Bob apoplexy.) > >.i ji'ipano zutse remna > > This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same as the > previous observatives. Observatives are sentences with selbri but no sumti > (or at least no x1 sumti). The x1 is considered to be ellipsized, so > "jubme" is "(something unspecified) is a table". This is a sumti with no > selbri, since it's quantified, and would likely be interpreted as "about 10 > sitting people (do/are something unspecified)", which to me has a slightly > different meaning. Nice point. For consistency, ".i zutse remna ji'ipanomei" or ".i zutse remna selkancu fili ji'ipano", or else ".i kancu le zutse remna li ji'ipano" (I rather like this one) > >.i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri I don't get Veijo's answer to my question here, so probably he didn't understand my question. I was querying "lei" as opposed to "loi". Colin Message 7: Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:34:44 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >>ni'o zdani >I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice. {zdani} >implies some sort of dwelling-place, and you're leading into this >with these observatives as "A house. A coffee-house...", where >habitation isn't implied. For that matter, is {ckafyzda} malglico? >It expands to {ckafi zdani} == "coffee-ish nest/house/bivouac/ >dwelling-place". Most coffehouses aren't inhabited by anyone, >they're solely places of business. {ckafyzarci} implies a more of a >store where you buy coffee beans to me, so that's no better, and >{ckafybriju} is right out. Aha! {ckafybarja}! That's really *much* >better, I think. {barja} even has a place for what's served, which >is filled, in the lujvo/tanru, by {ckafi} (though other things may be >served as well). I think this is an important change to make, even >if {ckafyzda} has acquired some sacredness. It's only a week or >two old, and it's broken. Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}. In this case I definitely wanted the connotation of dwelling or even home-coming. I was thinking along the lines of a cafe where people are not perhaps quite dwelling but spending a lot of time telling stories and having conversations. At least in some parts of Europe cafes (especially student cafes) and like are almost a second home to some people. Also implied was a cultural dwelling place. {ckafybarja} is better as a general lujvo (and corresponds to usage in some languages, e.g. Finnish before AmerEng domination) but... There is nothing sacred about {ckafyzda} but it may match the underlying ideas much better. If we are stacking the place with connotative paraphernalia we may as well tack on a few more connotations. >>.i ckafyzda >>.i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai >"I am-at the door-place [doorway] and am-a-smell-receptor-of >[smell-emitted-by] mass-of coffee [smell being] x1" + just the desired sumti to hang the attitudinal on I really wanted to have both the emitter and the odor. >.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da >I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time-interval >past)"..? Oh, "it's now a long time that..." Hrrrm. I let John >Cowan be the judge of that, if he gets a free moment. Was built along the lines indicated in 'Imaginary journeys' >I believe, though, that {da} >gets unbound between sentences (except at ijeks), so you should >either have an {.ije} there or use some other sort of anaphora to get >the smell. Didn't think of that (being too smug having put together the previous bridi). {.ije} is actually quite good here. >You could probably just ellipsize it entirely and get the meaning >across fine. Didn't want to ellipsize. Definitely not. The smell was the thing. >>.i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna >Not sure what {ctacarna} really implies, but I get the gist. Did a lot of word jungling to arrive at {ctacarna}. Not much physical turning, except perhaps the head, a quick wandering look takes in the scene (or an almost stationary stare, the scanning being done mainly mentally) >>.i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a >*sigh*. This is such a common mistake something should be done. A >selbri can't take {noi}. You can't use it this way in an >observative. Use {gi'e} or something. Yeah. Have to think about that. I did remember this grammatical point when I started but got carried away. I definitely remember thinking that that's the error I'm NOT going to make. How about {.i seldandu lo vrici ...} to retain the structure and include a little bit more of the spec at the same time? Have to think about le vs lo. >>.i ji'ipano zutse remna >This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same as >the previous observatives. Observatives are sentences with selbri >but no sumti (or at least no x1 sumti). The x1 is considered to be >ellipsized, so "jubme" is "(something unspecified) is a table". This >is a sumti with no selbri, since it's quantified, and would likely be >interpreted as "about 10 sitting people (do/are something >unspecified)", which to me has a slightly different meaning. Hmm. Let's leave it for now, they are doing something. >>.i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u >"event-of-cooking volume"? Maybe {jupkumfa}? It *is* a room, after >all, isn't it? Not sure the {nun-} is necessary, but it's not badly >placed. First I had {(nun)jupkumfa} but then wanted to have just the space, not to imply separation at this stage. More lojbo :) >>.i le jukpa selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i >This isn't quite grammatical. {le jukpa selviska} is a sumti, and >you can't have a {gi'e} inside or after only sumti with no selbri. I >take it you wanted {le jukpa cu selviska}? Yep. Colin already pointed that out. >>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au >Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le >nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not >likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the stuff. >>.i ckafypanci fi mi.ui >>.i ckafypanci >>.i .ui.o'u >>.i zdani >Neat ending. Here comes the {zdani} again. I even considered {pezyzdani} to make things more explicit but the lone {zdani} balanced nicely with the beginning, like a closing quote. Besides, I didn't want to be too obvious. ---------- To Colin about the coffee: I'm not too keen a coffee drinker. The smell came in kind of naturally with the coffee bins and all, perhaps childhood memories of freshly ground coffee at my aunt's shop where I used to hang a lot. If the specs had called for a taverna I'd have thought of something else to fill the first 10 seconds. The sense of smell carries a lot of connotations and brings fore memories... The smell of pezyckafi is the first reminder telling you you have come (back) to where you belong. You can't put your finger on it during the first few moments but it hits you, sometimes like a sledgehammer. The visual recognition comes later and the images of times long past. >Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST >From: CJ FINE >Mark to Veijo: >> I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice. {zdani} [...] >> two old, and it's broken. Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}. >.ieje'u I'll go along if you want the change. Consider, however, first the aspects I presented above. >> >.i ji'ipano zutse remna >> >> This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same >>as the previous observatives. Observatives are sentences with >>selbri but no sumti (or at least no x1 sumti). The x1 is >>considered to be ellipsized, so "jubme" is "(something unspecified) >>is a table". This is a sumti with no selbri, since it's >>quantified, and would likely be interpreted as "about 10 sitting >>people (do/are something unspecified)", which to me has a slightly >>different meaning. >Nice point. For consistency, ".i zutse remna ji'ipanomei" or I'd prefer this as the following alternatives get quite complicated to express essentially the same thing. But cf. above. >".i zutse remna selkancu fili ji'ipano", or else >".i kancu le zutse remna li ji'ipano" (I rather like this one) > >.i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri >I don't get Veijo's answer to my question here, so probably he didn't >understand my question. I was querying "lei" as opposed to "loi". I tried to use 'the mass described ...' instead 'the mass really is ...' to express concisely the idea that the bins looked like wood but might be something else on closer inspection. Veijo ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 2: Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:25:18 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: CJ FINE's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST Colin (>) on me (>>) on Veijo >> *sigh*. This is such a common mistake something should be done. A selbri >> can't take {noi}. You can't use it this way in an observative. Use {gi'e} >> or something. >Yes, it is common, isn't it? When I was playing about with the proposals >which eventually engendered Change 20, I was exploring an argument which >said that relatives should be able to be incorporated into a selbri, >along with an idea for preposing both relatives and linkargs there .... >(I didn't mention it because 1) I wasn't sure I could make it work, 2) I >didn't know what to do about "pe/ne" used crucially to attach to a >sumti, 3) I didn't want to give Bob apoplexy.) Yah, it would be nice if we could do something like that, but I don't think there's a way to define it such that it makes sense in general. The problem stems from viewing some brivla as "nouns", so {cukta} is "book" or even "is a book" rather than some sort of verbal (predicative) concept. Think of verbing the noun, and you'll find that a relative clause makes sense pe'iru'e. >> >.i ji'ipano zutse remna >> >> This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same as the >> previous observatives. Observatives are sentences with selbri but no sumti >> (or at least no x1 sumti). The x1 is considered to be ellipsized, so >> "jubme" is "(something unspecified) is a table". This is a sumti with no >> selbri, since it's quantified, and would likely be interpreted as "about 10 >> sitting people (do/are something unspecified)", which to me has a slightly >> different meaning. >Nice point. For consistency, ".i zutse remna ji'ipanomei" or >".i zutse remna selkancu fili ji'ipano", or else >".i kancu le zutse remna li ji'ipano" (I rather like this one) Those work. I'm not dead-set on changing what's there, since that works well for me also, but if we really wanted to avoid selbri-less jufra (which I think are to be avoided in general, though not necessarily to the point of fanaticism), I'd probably rather expand the tanru in the simpler way: .i ji'ipano remna cu zutse Or, keep the tanru and do something like .i zvati fa ji'ipano zutse remna Whatever. ~mark Message 1: Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:57:32 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:34:44 -0500 From: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >>>ni'o zdani >>I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice. {zdani} >> [ ....... ] >>two old, and it's broken. Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}. > In this case I definitely wanted the connotation of dwelling or > even home-coming. I was thinking along the lines of a cafe where > people are not perhaps quite dwelling but spending a lot of time > telling stories and having conversations. At least in some parts > of Europe cafes (especially student cafes) and like are almost > a second home to some people. > Also implied was a cultural dwelling place. Sorry, I'm unconvinced. You say you're trying to get warm fuzzy feelings of homecoming by using {zdani}, but {zdani} doesn't have that meaning either. The lair of a dragon is a {zdani}. A beehive is a {zdani}. {zdani} means "place of residence/habitation of....", not implying any hominess nor lack thereof. Even if the manager chances to live in the place, (and thus it may be proper to describe it as a {zdani} >incidentally<), what we are describing the place as is a tavern or bar or other sort of informal restaurant wherein coffee is served. That is, {le barja zo'e loi ckafi} --> {le ckafi barja} --> {le ckafybarji}. Now, the proprietor(s) of the place, perhaps, might try naming it {la ckafyzda} (note the article), as that would be a tolerable name for such a place, but as a description, it doesn't wash. I don't care how much time people spend there: call it what it is---{lo barja}. > {ckafybarja} is better as a general lujvo (and corresponds to > usage in some languages, e.g. Finnish before AmerEng domination) > but... > There is nothing sacred about {ckafyzda} but it may match the > underlying ideas much better. If we are stacking the place > with connotative paraphernalia we may as well tack on a few > more connotations. Connotations are fine in describing the place, in the objects you put in there, etc., but if you call something by what it isn't, people won't know what you're talking about. {ckafyzda} would imply maybe the home of a coffee grower (rotten lujvo for it, though), or a coffee-colored house (also not so great), or a place where coffee lives (decent lujvo)---yes, that's probably the most likely interpretation. Just as {remzda} is used to mean "house" (i.e. typical habitation of human beings---some cultural bias there, no?), {ckafyzda} seems to conjure up some kind of habitation for coffee (as if it were a living being). Maybe those big burlap sacks that coffee beans are kept in, or a cannister on your shelf. In either case, the word would be very poetic, but more for its implication that coffee "lives" anywhere than for connotations of hominess on {zdani}. >>>.i ckafyzda >>>.i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai >>"I am-at the door-place [doorway] and am-a-smell-receptor-of >>[smell-emitted-by] mass-of coffee [smell being] x1" > + just the desired sumti to hang the attitudinal on > I really wanted to have both the emitter and the odor. Yeah, it seems to be a very good usage of the existential {da}. >>.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da >>I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time-interval >>past)"..? Oh, "it's now a long time that..." Hrrrm. I let John >>Cowan be the judge of that, if he gets a free moment. > Was built along the lines indicated in 'Imaginary journeys' Yes, tense probably works. Though I've been thinking that {na'e} might not be the right negator. "I was other-than-a-smeller-of it1 (the smell of coffee)" --- well what were you of it, then? Maybe an emitter? {na'e} usually implies negation to somewhere else on the scale, but there's not much of a scale in {sumne}. Really what you're saying is that the relationship of {sumne} didn't hold for you and {da} (in whatever tense). You smelled other things, and {da} was smelled by others, and you had other relations with {da} (you thought about {da} perhaps), but that particular relationship didn't hold. That's precisely the sort of negation provided by {na}, if I remember the negation paper properly. I think {na} might be a better negator here. Any other notions? Is {na'e} really better? >>>.i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a >>*sigh*. This is such a common mistake something should be done. A >>selbri can't take {noi}. You can't use it this way in an >>observative. Use {gi'e} or something. > Yeah. Have to think about that. I did remember this grammatical > point when I started but got carried away. I definitely remember > thinking that that's the error I'm NOT going to make. > How about {.i seldandu lo vrici ...} to retain the structure > and include a little bit more of the spec at the same time? > Have to think about le vs lo. I've never heard anyone, myself included, do satisfactory things with le/lo, or maybe I have no clue of what satisfactory is for that. Likely both. >>>.i ji'ipano zutse remna >>This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same as >>the previous observatives. Observatives are sentences with selbri >>but no sumti (or at least no x1 sumti). The x1 is considered to be >>ellipsized, so "jubme" is "(something unspecified) is a table". This >>is a sumti with no selbri, since it's quantified, and would likely be >>interpreted as "about 10 sitting people (do/are something >>unspecified)", which to me has a slightly different meaning. > Hmm. Let's leave it for now, they are doing something. FIne with me, but see previous messages for other thoughts. >>>.i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u >>"event-of-cooking volume"? Maybe {jupkumfa}? It *is* a room, after >>all, isn't it? Not sure the {nun-} is necessary, but it's not badly >>placed. > First I had {(nun)jupkumfa} but then wanted to have just the space, > not to imply separation at this stage. More lojbo :) Hrrm. Still seems a little weird to me, but you're probably absolutely right here. >>>.i le jukpa selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i >>This isn't quite grammatical. {le jukpa selviska} is a sumti, and >>you can't have a {gi'e} inside or after only sumti with no selbri. I >>take it you wanted {le jukpa cu selviska}? > Yep. Colin already pointed that out. Didn't see Colin's post when I wrote mine. >>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au >>Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le >>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not >>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. > Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of > drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the > stuff. I dunno. I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}. ~mark, tea-drinker. Message 17: Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:34:45 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >In-reply-to: CJ FINE's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST >Colin (>) on me (>>) on Veijo >>>>.i ji'ipano zutse remna >>> >>> This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same [] >>Nice point. For consistency, ".i zutse remna ji'ipanomei" or >>".i zutse remna selkancu fili ji'ipano", or else >>".i kancu le zutse remna li ji'ipano" (I rather like this one) >Those work. I'm not dead-set on changing what's there, since that >works well for me also, but if we really wanted to avoid selbri-less >jufra (which I think are to be avoided in general, though not >necessarily to the point of fanaticism), I agree. I think in belles-lettres we'll have to flex a little bit. >I'd probably rather expand the tanru in the simpler way: > >.i ji'ipano remna cu zutse > >Or, keep the tanru and do something like > >.i zvati fa ji'ipano zutse remna > >Whatever. or .i selzvati ji'ipano zutse remna From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >Connotations are fine in describing the place, in the objects you >put in there, etc., but if you call something by what it isn't, >people won't know what you're talking about. {ckafyzda} would imply >maybe the home of a coffee grower (rotten lujvo for it, though), or a >coffee-colored house (also not so great), or a place where coffee >lives (decent lujvo)--- yes, that's probably the most likely >interpretation. Just as {remzda} is used to mean "house" (i.e. >typical habitation of human beings---some cultural bias there, no?), >{ckafyzda} seems to conjure up some kind of habitation for coffee (as >if it were a living being). Maybe those big burlap sacks that coffee >beans are kept in, or a cannister on your shelf. In either case, the >word would be very poetic, but more for its implication that coffee >"lives" anywhere than for connotations of hominess on {zdani}. I get the point. I'll switch to using {ckafybarja}. This takes care of one half of the problem. The lone {zdani} still remains to be replaced. I'll give up the connotations and bring things closer to focus with {sriku'a}. OK? >>>>.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da >>>I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time- >>>interval past)"..? Oh, "it's now a long time that..." Hrrrm. I >>>let John >>>Cowan be the judge of that, if he gets a free moment. >> Was built along the lines indicated in 'Imaginary journeys' >Yes, tense probably works. Though I've been thinking that {na'e} >might not be the right negator. "I was other-than-a-smeller-of it1 >(the smell of coffee)" --- well what were you of it, then? Maybe an >emitter? {na'e} usually implies negation to somewhere else on the >scale, but there's not much of a scale in {sumne}. Really what >you're saying is that the relationship of {sumne} didn't hold for you >and {da} (in whatever tense). You smelled other things, and {da} was >smelled by others, and you had other relations with {da} (you thought >about {da} perhaps), but that particular relationship didn't hold. >That's precisely the sort of negation provided by {na}, if I remember >the negation paper properly. I think {na} might be a better negator >here. Any other notions? Is {na'e} really better? The tense was the reason I used {na'e}. If you put in {na} and export it to the prenex you get: naku zo'u mi ca ze'upu sumne da which isn't the meaning I want (?). Now afterwards reading the negation paper, I think I ought to have had {nai} instead of {na'e}: mi ca ze'upunai sumne da and including the attitudinal: mi ca ze'upunai.oi sumne da Satisfied? >>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au >>>Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le >>>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not >>>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. >> >> Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of >> drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the >> stuff. > >I dunno. I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}. > >~mark, tea-drinker. Used to be a tea-drinker myself but Finland is one of heaviest coffee drinking countries in the world and getting a decent brew of tea turned out to be too much of an effort in the long run so I gave up around the age of 25 and started drinking coffee. I still enjoy properly brewed decent teas, though. Now about {loi selpinxe ckafi}. Does it bring to mind the beverage or the coffee beans/powder the beverage is made of? I had the beverage in mind and I want to have the gismu {ckafi} in a position where I can tack the attitudinal on it. Well, now I have it : {loi selpinxe co ckafi.au}. What do you think? Better? Or was it you just couldn't imagine someone thinking more the beverage than the actual act of drinking? Many a time have I been sitting and enjoying the fragrant smell of tea, this being an essential part of the total enjoyment when the tea isn't just something nondescript. Same goes for coffee. There are brews and BREWS. And think of the Japanese tea seremony, to take an extreme example. In the seremony the act of drinking is really almost superfluous. ------------------------------------------------ Unless someone finds something really wrong with the following, it will be the final version of this first trial fragment. le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xipa xire ni'o sriku'a .i ckafybarja .i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai .i mi ca ze'upunai.oi sumne da .i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna .i rancindu jubme .i seldandu lo vrici to'erninda'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a .i selzvati ji'ipano zutse remna .i ckafypatxu fi lei mudri .i vrici .i mi visfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme goi ko'a .i mi co'a zutlamji ko'a .i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u .i le jukpa cu selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i .i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe co ckafi.au .i ckafypanci fi mi.ui .i ckafypanci .i .ui.o'u .i sriku'a ni'o la mark. .e la kolin. .e la nitcion. selckire mi loi pinka .e loi nunsidju co'omi'e vei,on ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 26: Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:19:16 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:34:45 -0500 From: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >In-reply-to: CJ FINE's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST >>Those work. I'm not dead-set on changing what's there, since that >>works well for me also, but if we really wanted to avoid selbri-less >>jufra (which I think are to be avoided in general, though not >>necessarily to the point of fanaticism), > I agree. I think in belles-lettres we'll have to flex a little bit. Yes. [ ... ] >>>>>.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da >>>>I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time- >>>>interval past)"..? Oh, "it's now a long time that..." Hrrrm. I >>>>let John >>>Cowan be the judge of that, if he gets a free moment. >>> Was built along the lines indicated in 'Imaginary journeys' >>Yes, tense probably works. Though I've been thinking that {na'e} >>might not be the right negator. "I was other-than-a-smeller-of it1 >>(the smell of coffee)" --- well what were you of it, then? Maybe an >>emitter? {na'e} usually implies negation to somewhere else on the >>scale, but there's not much of a scale in {sumne}. Really what >>you're saying is that the relationship of {sumne} didn't hold for you >>and {da} (in whatever tense). You smelled other things, and {da} was >>smelled by others, and you had other relations with {da} (you thought >>about {da} perhaps), but that particular relationship didn't hold. >>That's precisely the sort of negation provided by {na}, if I remember >>the negation paper properly. I think {na} might be a better negator >>here. Any other notions? Is {na'e} really better? > The tense was the reason I used {na'e}. If you put in {na} and > export it to the prenex you get: >naku zo'u mi ca ze'upu sumne da > which isn't the meaning I want (?). Now afterwards reading the > negation paper, I think I ought to have had {nai} instead of > {na'e}: I dunno. It looks to me like that *is* the sense you're trying to get across. But you're right, though: the {nai} is definitely better. >>>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au >>>>Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le >>>>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not >>>>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. >>> >>> Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of >>> drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the >>> stuff. >> >>I dunno. I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}. >> >>~mark, tea-drinker. >Now about {loi selpinxe ckafi}. Does it bring to mind the beverage or >the coffee beans/powder the beverage is made of? I had the beverage >in mind and I want to have the gismu {ckafi} in a position where I >can tack the attitudinal on it. Well, now I have it : {loi selpinxe >co ckafi.au}. What do you think? Better? Or was it you just couldn't >imagine someone thinking more the beverage than the actual act of >drinking? Many a time have I been sitting and enjoying the fragrant >smell of tea, this being an essential part of the total enjoyment >when the tea isn't just something nondescript. Same goes for coffee. >There are brews and BREWS. And think of the Japanese tea seremony, >to take an extreme example. In the seremony the act of drinking is >really almost superfluous. I think the problem is that I was interpreting {pinxe} wrongly, or at least too narrowly. I didn't take {se pinxe} as "beverage", but rather as "thing drunk", if you see the distinction. Hmm. You may not. That is, I was considering {loi selpinxe ckafi} as (probably) expanding to {loi ckafi poi selpinxe} --> {loi ckafi poi zo'e pinxe ke'a}: coffee which is drunk. This isn't quite the same as "beverage coffee", and I couldn't figure out why you were thinking about drunk coffee, sliding down someone's throat. Your interpretation is likely more correct than mine. ~mark & R To: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: la nitcion. klama le kafybarja I'll take advantage of your address being there to respond to. We looked at your text tonight in Tuesday night Lojban (which was informal, given Nora's recovery from surgery). People found 2 problems (this with your 'final' version) 1) patxu is misleading and vague, especially for English speakers who of course were trying to figure out why tyou were talking about wooden coffeepots. Did you consider tanxe? I would in any case come up with some kind of tanru/lujvo to suggest that this is a storage container rather than a cooking container (hmm sorcu patxu/ sorcu tanxe???) 2) You have one bad lujvo - the one starting with "vi..." (text not in front of me), the CV will fall off in this CVCCVCCV since the first consonant cluster is a permissible initial, leaving CV CCVCCV. This is what is called "Tosmabru" failure in the lujvo-making algorithm, and it is a mistake everyone including me makes some of the time. You need a 'y' hyphen between the two rafsi to prevent the falling apart. lojbab Message 14: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 07:36:53 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Still a slightly moidified version of the first etyde. 1) corrected one lujvo which failed the tosmabru test {visyfacki} 2) changed {patxu} to {srotanxe} These modifications are based on comments received from the Tuesday night group. Thanks. Veijo -------------------------- le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xipa xici ni'o sriku'a .i ckafybarja .i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai .i mi ca ze'upunai.oi sumne da .i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna .i rancindu jubme .i seldandu lo vrici to'erninda'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a .i selzvati ji'ipano zutse remna .i srotanxe loi ckafi lei mudri .i vrici .i mi visyfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme goi ko'a .i mi co'a zutlamji ko'a .i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u .i le jukpa cu selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i .i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe co ckafi.au .i ckafypanci fi mi.ui .i ckafypanci .i .ui.o'u .i sriku'a ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 31: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:25:10 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier > >>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au > >>Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le > >>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not > >>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. > > Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of > > drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the > > stuff. > I dunno. I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}. > ~mark, tea-drinker. This is a bit like Dave Young's {selbevri bloti}. I guess that at some point in the future we may have _definitions_ of lujvo like selbevri and selpinxe, but in the meantime we're always likely to have ambiguities using the place structures of gismu. Iain. & Message 32: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:05:11 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier mark>>I believe, though, that {da} mark>>gets unbound between sentences (except at ijeks), so you should mark>>either have an {.ije} there or use some other sort of anaphora to get mark>>the smell. veijo> Didn't think of that (being too smug having put together the previous veijo> bridi). {.ije} is actually quite good here. I checked the negation paper, and in section 4: > By the rules of predicate logic, the "ro" quantifier on "da" has > 'scope' over both sentences. That is,once you've > picked a value for "da" for the first sentence, it stays the same > for both sentences. (The "da" continues withthe same > fixed value until a new paragraph or a new prenex resets the > meaning.) Iain. & Message 2: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:49:57 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK > > >>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au > > > >>Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le > > >>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not > > >>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. > > > > Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of > > > drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the > > > stuff. > > > I dunno. I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}. > > > ~mark, tea-drinker. > > This is a bit like Dave Young's {selbevri bloti}. I guess that > at some point in the future we may have _definitions_ of lujvo > like selbevri and selpinxe, but in the meantime we're > always likely to have ambiguities using the place structures > of gismu. Note that there is no difference between {le pinxe} and {le selpinxe} in (non)ambiguity. The x1 place is just another place among the others. co'omi'e vei,on ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 20: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:55:51 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:49:57 -0500 From: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK >> > >>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au >> >> > >>Thinking about drunk coffee? Maybe. I might be thinking about {le >> > >>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not >> > >>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee. >> >> > > Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of >> > > drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the >> > > stuff. >> >> > I dunno. I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}. >> >> > ~mark, tea-drinker. >> >> This is a bit like Dave Young's {selbevri bloti}. I guess that >> at some point in the future we may have _definitions_ of lujvo >> like selbevri and selpinxe, but in the meantime we're >> always likely to have ambiguities using the place structures >> of gismu. >Note that there is no difference between {le pinxe} and >{le selpinxe} in (non)ambiguity. The x1 place is just >another place among the others. I believe the difficulty I had was the distinction between {le na'o se pinxe ckafi} and {le ca'a se pinxe ckafi}, i.e. coffee which is regularly drunk--beverage of type coffe, what Veijo wanted, and coffee which is/was actually drunk--what I heard, coffee sliding down somebody's gullet. So it's really a problem of tanruic ambiguity. Aside: In writing the above paragraph, I was troubled by the fact that {le na'o se pinxe ckafi} seems to mean "thing-described-as-being: typically: drunk-thing type-of coffee", i.e. something that is typically drunken coffee, with the {na'o} applying to the whole of the following tanru. To my horror, I found that I couldn't restrict the {na'o} to the {se pinxe}. I thought of putting ke/ke'e around {na'o se pinxe}, but that's not grammatical, and putting it around just {se pinxe} didn't accomplish anything. I suppose I could have done it with {co}, but that doesn't seem like a very general answer, and it would change its place-structure. Does one of the tech fixes in the newest grammar address this? There were some very nitpicky ones I don't remember fully. ~mark Message 22: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:17:04 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Colin: > "slabu" = "old to somebody" i.e. "familiar". You perhaps meant > "to'erni'oda'i". Words like "old" and "new" have lots of connotations, which we're going to have fun keeping straight. What are we going to do for the distinction between "new" and "used" / "second hand"? {se pilno} on its own isn't much use. {pruselpli} doesn't look too bad for "previously used", and {nalpruselpli} must be "not previously used", i.e. "new". Iain. Message 25: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:25:53 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Veijo: >> > >>> ... > > ... :) ... > > >> This is a bit like Dave Young's {selbevri bloti}. I guess that >> at some point in the future we may have _definitions_ of lujvo >> like selbevri and selpinxe, but in the meantime we're >> always likely to have ambiguities using the place structures >> of gismu. > Note that there is no difference between {le pinxe} and > {le selpinxe} in (non)ambiguity. The x1 place is just > another place among the others. .aicu'i .iecu'i Obviously I didn't explain my point very well. Whether you use {le pinxe} or {le se pinxe}, you are still using {pinxe}, with all its connotations. _{selpinxe}_ zu'unai is a lujvo, obviously derived from {pinxe}, and with a closely associated meaning, but with potentially a definition of its own, which may have a completely different emphasis. So {lo se pinxe} is "something which is drunk", but {lo selpinxe} could well be "a beverage". dikyjvo considerations would give {selpinxe} the same place structure as {se pinxe}, no doubt, but the connotations need not be the same. There is still scope for ambiguity, but within a somewhat different range of meanings. But at the moment, we don't have a full, or even a partial, dictionary. We don't have any lujvo definitions. So while we may guess that someone means something slightly different by {selpinxe} as distinct from {se pinxe}, we can't be sure exactly which facet of the meaning of {pinxe} is intended to be emphasised. These are details which will have to be worked out gradually over a period of time. Iain. & Message 27: From: C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 16:47:28 BST To: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu From: I.Alexander.bra0122@UK.CO.ICL.OASIS > Colin: > > "slabu" = "old to somebody" i.e. "familiar". You perhaps meant > > "to'erni'oda'i". > > Words like "old" and "new" have lots of connotations, > which we're going to have fun keeping straight. > What are we going to do for the distinction between > "new" and "used" / "second hand"? {se pilno} on its > own isn't much use. {pruselpli} doesn't look too bad > for "previously used", and {nalpruselpli} must be > "not previously used", i.e. "new". > > Iain. How about "pruselpo'e" (pre-owned!) Message 2: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:25:52 +1000 Sender: Lojban list From: nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Sep 92 15:25:53 BST." Quoth Iain: >Obviously I didn't explain my point very well. >Whether you use {le pinxe} or {le se pinxe}, you are still using >{pinxe}, with all its connotations. _{selpinxe}_ zu'unai is a >lujvo, obviously derived from {pinxe}, and with a closely associated >meaning, but with potentially a definition of its own, which may >have a completely different emphasis. So {lo se pinxe} is "something >which is drunk", but {lo selpinxe} could well be "a beverage". >dikyjvo considerations would give {selpinxe} the same place >structure as {se pinxe}, no doubt, but the connotations need not >be the same. There is still scope for ambiguity, but within >a somewhat different range of meanings. Um.. oops I threw out all lujvo of the type {selpinxe} in the lujvo list I'm drafting (and I didn't get any work on it done this week, with cafe business overtaking me, but I hope to have it done by Lojbab's return). Iain is right. In fact, the place structure subtly changes too (too subtly for dikyjvo). There is a second place of {selpinxe}, but it corresponds to the second place of cidja (loi ka'e pinxe), and not of {se pinxe} (lo ca'a pinxe). I think this aspect of lujvo place structures, which we haven't paid attention to in the past, but which is, I feel, coming through in a few of the place structures I'm postulating, in determining which places get turned off (for example, a dinsro (money-store = treasury) has no container important to definition, whereas a dicysro (electricity- store = battery) has no location important to definition, so those respective places are turned off --- remember {xo'o} in last October's discussions?), will come back to haunt us when we try to tackle lujvo properly. I don't think that time is quite yet. But thanks to Iain and Mark for pointing it out; we will be wary. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick S. Nicholas, "Rode like foam on the river of pity Depts. of CompSci & ElecEng, Turned its tide to strength University of Melbourne, Australia. Healed the hole that ripped in living" nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au - Suzanne Vega, Book Of Dreams ______________________________________________________________________________ Message 10: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:05:11 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier > I believe the difficulty I had was the distinction between {le na'o se > pinxe ckafi} and {le ca'a se pinxe ckafi}, i.e. coffee which is regularly > drunk--beverage of type coffe, what Veijo wanted, and coffee which is/was > actually drunk--what I heard, coffee sliding down somebody's gullet. So > it's really a problem of tanruic ambiguity. > > Aside: In writing the above paragraph, I was troubled by the fact that {le > na'o se pinxe ckafi} seems to mean "thing-described-as-being: typically: > drunk-thing type-of coffee", i.e. something that is typically drunken > coffee, with the {na'o} applying to the whole of the following tanru. To > my horror, I found that I couldn't restrict the {na'o} to the {se pinxe}. > I thought of putting ke/ke'e around {na'o se pinxe}, but that's not > grammatical, and putting it around just {se pinxe} didn't accomplish > anything. I suppose I could have done it with {co}, but that doesn't seem > like a very general answer, and it would change its place-structure. Does > one of the tech fixes in the newest grammar address this? There were some > very nitpicky ones I don't remember fully. > > ~mark I _was_ going to suggest using a gismu, but I couldn't find one that fitted the bill. But you can bind the tense into the selbri with {be} le se pinxe be na'o ku ckafi When I wrote this, I thought either {ku} or {be'o} was necessary - I'm not sure now - but I suspect it helps human parsers. Iain. Message 14: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:19:51 -0400 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa 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, 4 Sep 1992 14:05:11 BST From: I.Alexander.bra0122%OASIS.ICL.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >> Aside: In writing the above paragraph, I was troubled by the fact that {le >> na'o se pinxe ckafi} seems to mean "thing-described-as-being: typically: >> drunk-thing type-of coffee", i.e. something that is typically drunken >> coffee, with the {na'o} applying to the whole of the following tanru. To >> my horror, I found that I couldn't restrict the {na'o} to the {se pinxe}. >I _was_ going to suggest using a gismu, but I couldn't find one that >fitted the bill. But you can bind the tense into the selbri with {be} > le se pinxe be na'o ku ckafi Yes, that's very good. Thanks, Iain. It's a little clumsy that it has to be preposed tlike that, but not really. That was what I was looking for. >When I wrote this, I thought either {ku} or {be'o} was necessary - I'm >not sure now - but I suspect it helps human parsers. Hmmm. Apparently neither is necessary, though that isn't obvious to the human reader at first glance. Best to keep them in, for a little extra redundancy. ~mark & R To: shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa Not knowing what all this debate is about with se pinxe, since I am not reading the coffee house stuff during this period, I noticed something in your posting about clumsiness of preposing. Not knowing whether it is possible in the given context, can "co" be used constructively as in "le ckafi co se pinxe be na'o" which may be less clumsy in not needing a "ku". If this is useful, please repost it to the discussion lojbab Message 2: From: Mark E. Shoulson Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 14:12:14 -0400 To: lojbab@grebyn.com In-Reply-To: Logical Language Group's message of Fri, 4 Sep 92 13:05:02 -0400 Subject: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa Thanks for your reply. {co} was already considered usage, actually. Basically, the comment I made was that {le na'o se pinxe ckafi} winds up with {na'o} modifying {se pinxe ckafi} and not just {se pinxe}, and there wasn't anything I could do about it. I noted at the beginning that I could probably use {co}, though the usage I had in mind is probably wrong, but that would affect the place structure (not that I cared, but it wasn't sufficiently general). Iain's suggestion of {le se pinxe be na'o ckafi} is very good, and incidentally doesn't need a {ku}, though it looks very confusing without one. It passed the parser with the appropriate terminators added with no problem. ~mark & R To: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa Two possibilities: 1) Is na'o one of those cmavo we gave a rafsi to? I would think not, since 2) the gismu cnano should make a satisfactory tanru, with about as much specificity. lojbab Message 12: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:21:33 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: RE: responses on policy change To: Bob LeChevalier From: Logical Language Group > Iain and Veijo and Mark S. (and anyone else who has posted > coffeeshop text), could I have any revision to your texts based on > commentaries, or if possible indicate that I shouyld go with your > last-posted version. Here are my 'final' versions: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xipa xici ni'o sriku'a .i ckafybarja .i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai .i mi ca ze'upunai.oi sumne da .i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna .i rancindu jubme .i seldandu lo vrici to'erninda'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a .i selzvati ji'ipano zutse remna .i srotanxe loi ckafi lei mudri .i vrici .i mi visyfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme goi ko'a .i mi co'a zutlamji ko'a .i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u .i le jukpa cu selviska gi'e jupfinti de.a'ucu'i .i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe co ckafi.au .i ckafypanci fi mi.ui .i ckafypanci .i .ui.o'u .i sriku'a JL17: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xipa xici ni'o sriku'a .i ckafybarja .i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai .i mi ca ze'upunai.oi sumne da .i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna .i rancindu jubme .i seldandu lo vrici to'erninda'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a .i selzvati ji'ipano zutse remna .i srotanxe loi ckafi lei mudri .i vrici .i mi visyfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme goi ko'a .i mi co'a zutlamji ko'a .i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u .i le jukpa cu selviska gi'e jupfinti de.a'ucu'i .i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe co ckafi.au .i ckafypanci fi mi.ui .i ckafypanci .i .ui.o'u .i sriku'a Colin: > .i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna "jbustu" - I guess I understand, but I don't find it obvious. xu? zo jbustu cu sinxa le pagbu be le dinju be'o poi stizu lo jubme go'i > .i rancindu jubme loi rancindu ki'a (Don't understand "soft oak") The original Description #2 from LogFest/Lojbab called for that: Mark: >.i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai "I am-at the door-place [doorway] and am-a-smell-receptor-of [smell-emitted-by] mass-of coffee [smell being] x1" Whoa! Took me a long while to work out how that works. Sentence seems to be redundant, but somehow manages actually to sensibly bind {da}, making an existential claim at the same time. Confusing, but very clever, and rather uniquely lojbanic. >.i mi ca ze'upunai.oi sumne da I believe that {da} gets unbound between sentences (except at ijeks), so you should either have an {.ije} there or use some other sort of anaphora to get the smell. You could probably just ellipsize it entirely and get the meaning across fine. Didn't think of that (being too smug having put together the previous bridi). {.ije} is actually quite good here. Didn't want to ellipsize. Definitely not. The smell was the thing. Not sure what {ctacarna} really implies, but I get the gist. Did a lot of word jungling to arrive at {ctacarna}. Not much physical turning, except perhaps the head, a quick wandering look takes in the scene (or an almost stationary stare, the scanning being done mainly mentally) >.i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u "event-of-cooking volume"? Maybe {jupkumfa}? It *is* a room, after all, isn't it? Not sure the {nun-} is necessary, but it's not badly placed. First I had {(nun)jupkumfa} but then wanted to have just the space, not to imply separation at this stage. More lojbo :) Hrrm. Still seems a little weird to me, but you're probably absolutely right here. Mark: Aside: I was troubled by the fact that {le na'o se pinxe ckafi} seems to mean "thing-described-as-being: typically: drunk-thing type-of coffee", i.e. something that is typically drunken coffee, with the {na'o} applying to the whole of the following tanru. To my horror, I found that I couldn't restrict the {na'o} to the {se pinxe}. I thought of putting ke/ke'e around {na'o se pinxe}, but that's not grammatical, and putting it around just {se pinxe} didn't accomplish anything. I suppose I could have done it with {co}, but that doesn't seem like a very general answer, and it would change its place-structure. Lojbab: "na'o" and other tense words are intended to apply to a whole bridi and cannot easily be restricted to a part of the selbri. If you want the effect of "na'o" or some other tense/modal on a part of a selbri, you must do it via tanru, using the gismu/selbri equivalent, in this case perhaps "cnano": "cnano se pinxe ckafi". For some of these modals, where there may be some question whether the gismu necessarily captures the same sense as a tense would, we are assigning rafsi to the tense cmavo as part of the rafsi retuning. This would also allow you a smaller referent than the whole selbri. Iain: I _was_ going to suggest using a gismu, but I couldn't find one that fitted the bill. But you can bind the tense into the selbri with {be} le se pinxe be na'o ku ckafi Mark: Yes, that's very good. Thanks, Iain. It's a little clumsy that it has to be preposed tlike that, but not really. That was what I was looking for. Iain: When I wrote this, I thought either {ku} or {be'o} was necessary - I'm not sure now - but I suspect it helps human parsers. Mark: Hmmm. Apparently neither is necessary, though that isn't obvious to the human reader at first glance. Best to keep them in, for a little extra redundancy. Iain: Whether you use {le pinxe} or {le se pinxe}, you are still using {pinxe}, with all its connotations. _{selpinxe}_ zu'unai is a lujvo, obviously derived from {pinxe}, and with a closely associated meaning, but with potentially a definition of its own, which may have a completely different emphasis. So {lo se pinxe} is "something which is drunk", but {lo selpinxe} could well be "a beverage". dikyjvo considerations would give {selpinxe} the same place structure as {se pinxe}, no doubt, but the connotations need not be the same. There is still scope for ambiguity, but within a somewhat different range of meanings. But at the moment, we don't have a full, or even a partial, dictionary. We don't have any lujvo definitions. So while we may guess that someone means something slightly different by {selpinxe} as distinct from {se pinxe}, we can't be sure exactly which facet of the meaning of {pinxe} is intended to be emphasised. These are details which will have to be worked out gradually over a period of time. Nick: Iain is right. In fact, the place structure subtly changes too (too subtly for dikyjvo). There is a second place of {selpinxe}, but it corresponds to the second place of cidja (loi ka'e pinxe), and not of {se pinxe} (lo ca'a pinxe). I think this aspect of lujvo place structures, which we haven't paid attention to in the past, but which is, I feel, coming through in a few of the place structures I'm postulating, in determining which places get turned off (for example, a dinsro (money-store = treasury) has no container important to definition, whereas a dicysro (electricity-store = battery) has no location important to definition, so those respective places are turned off --- remember {xo'o} in last October's discussions?), will come back to haunt us when we try to tackle lujvo properly. I don't think that time is quite yet. But thanks to Iain and Mark for pointing it out; we will be wary.