& Message 7: Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:52:05 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier ni'o mi penzutse.o'u .i to'ernanda'i fa lemi jubme .i ciska da le jbusfe .ije mi catlu da.a'u .i lerfu la fraktur.ue .i mi morji fi loi lerfu be la fraktur. .i morji .i mi puzuki zvati le ckule gi'e caca'a tcidu .i mi tcidu le cfika be le ze bruna bei la Aleksis.kivis. po'u le natmytercfi .i le poi le drata be mi tcidu fi ke'a ku'o selpapri cu te prina loi lerfu be la antik. .i lemi selpapri goi ko'a te prina loi lerfu be la fraktur. .i lenu tcidu da ta'i la fraktur. kei pu nandu mi gi'e ca frili .i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu pupu prina loi lerfu loi ko'a papri .i lemi patfu ze'u prina .i lenu ri go'i kei nanca vobi .i mi kica'o catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur. .i lerfu .i cusku.ue zo coi .i barjyjatna.a'a .i la nitcion. co'ava se zvaju'o mi .i ra xanse rinsa mi .ije mi spuda rinsa .i la nitcion. caca'a xebni la fraktur. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 34: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:36:51 +1000 Sender: Lojban list From: nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Sep 92 03:52:05 EST." Veijo, Cafe 2. >ni'o mi penzutse.o'u >.i to'ernanda'i fa lemi jubme {nan} seems to be a typo; neither {nanvi} nor {snanu} make sense here. >.i ciska da le jbusfe .ije mi catlu da.a'u >.i lerfu la fraktur.ue >.i mi morji fi loi lerfu be la fraktur. >.i morji Now, there's nothing wrong with repeating {morji}. Believe me. It's just that this repetition reminded me of the "dream sequences" in Wayne's World --- you know, "cast your mind baaack, and let's trip down memory lane..." *shrug* The fact I got distracted is not important, though. >.i mi puzuki zvati le ckule gi'e caca'a tcidu >.i mi tcidu le cfika be le ze bruna bei la Aleksis.kivis. > po'u le natmytercfi HOLY SWEET MOTHER OF ZAMENHOF! I've *got* that book, in Esperanto! Um... not that I've read it yet; rather a long book, and I have quite a few reading priorities (like Canterbury Tales; I thank Lojbab for indirectly alerting me to them; they are tres cool, and I can feel at least a parody of the General Prologue coming up as a cafe story --- I already parodied the Prologue for my birthday invitations, but I wasn't thorough enough; should have said "freendeshipe", and "*Oon* and Twantye*". End digression.) If you want, I could have a look at it one of these days... >.i le poi le drata be mi tcidu fi ke'a ku'o selpapri cu te prina loi > lerfu be la antik. >.i lemi selpapri goi ko'a te prina loi lerfu be la fraktur. We are going to see a *lot* of preposed relatives, I predict, simply because they kill off a lot of the worry about terminating them when postposed. They are not just an affectation. You were the only one with Fraktur, eh? Coincidence? I think NOT! (Or, as some may say, I think... NOT!!! :) >.i lenu tcidu da ta'i la fraktur. kei pu nandu mi gi'e ca frili Would it be preferable to say {da peta'i la fraktur}? I also wonder whether that {ca} refers to story time or to {ki} time. How do you chuck in a {ki} with temporary effect (sort of metalinguistically), only to resume story time? >.i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu pupu prina > loi lerfu loi ko'a papri >.i lemi patfu ze'u prina >.i lenu ri go'i kei nanca vobi {cu nanca li vobi}. {nu ri go'i kei nanca} is a tanru. >.i mi kica'o catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur. >.i lerfu >.i cusku.ue zo coi There's going to be a good tale, I think, in an oldtimer at the cafe explaining how the devil the Fraktur got there in the first place... >.i barjyjatna.a'a >.i la nitcion. co'ava se zvaju'o mi Nice to see one's dikyjvo picked up :) >.i ra xanse rinsa mi .ije mi spuda rinsa >.i la nitcion. caca'a xebni la fraktur. Brilliant ending. I mean... so wonderfully deadpan. You're getting quite good at this :) Before I retaliate :) , I strongly urge at least one of the onlookers here to storm into the cafe and add a third voice. Mark? Colin? Iain? Andrew? David? Sylvia? (damn, there's oodles of us already! :) I feel veeery hesitant in any interaction with the staff with their personas still not settled. If people don't like the Manager (and {jatna} does seem to be the only word we have for "boss" or "manager") being imperious, they'll be *very* unhappy if I portray him like that. So for now, let's not probe into the background characters too deeply. The even greater danger is in sketching interactions with Real Life people. Veijo and I are about to start talking, and I'd like neither of us to make potentially annoying presumptions about the other's persona. So one should be wary in this kind of thing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia. nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au "Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this nation's number one killer" --- Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie. ______________________________________________________________________________ & Message 1: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:45:43 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier From: nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU > Veijo, Cafe 2. > > >ni'o mi penzutse.o'u > >.i to'ernanda'i fa lemi jubme > > {nan} seems to be a typo; neither {nanvi} nor {snanu} make sense here. Ought to be {nin} > > >.i lenu tcidu da ta'i la fraktur. kei pu nandu mi gi'e ca frili > > Would it be preferable to say {da peta'i la fraktur}? Probably. Also I think the {da} ought to be replaced with {de} as {da} was assigned in the beginning to refer to the lerfu and there is no intervening {ni'o} or prenex. (c.f. the negation paper; I remembered having seen a comment about the scope of {da} but couldnt locate it until Iain posted his remark) >I also wonder whether > that {ca} refers to story time or to {ki} time. How do you chuck in a {ki} > with temporary effect (sort of metalinguistically), only to resume story > time? {ca} refers to story time and that's the way I wanted it in this case. It is the time of the reading. One way to resume story time after {ki} time would be to use {kixire} to refer to the story time (c.f. Imaginary Journeys). Seems a little bit clumsy for stories but this may be a NatLang prejudice. > > >.i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu pupu prina > > loi lerfu loi ko'a papri > >.i lemi patfu ze'u prina > >.i lenu ri go'i kei nanca vobi > > {cu nanca li vobi}. {nu ri go'i kei nanca} is a tanru. Remembered the {li} after writing the story but forgot to add it before posting. co'omi'e vei,on ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 6: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:50:09 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Nick> {jatna} does seem to be the only word we have for "boss" or "manager" I used {jitro} to translate "editor" in my {prukelci} snippet (that did get through, didn't it? - I didn't get any response from it), conscious of the fact that it might be interpreted as "manager", but the distinction wasn't important in the context. Iain. Message 9: Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:09:43 BST Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK To: Bob LeChevalier > Nick> {jatna} does seem to be the only word we have for "boss" or "manager" Also "te bende", "minde", "ralju" Message 10: Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:08:52 BST Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: vilva@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI X-Cc: Lojban list To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: "VILVA@FI.HELSINKI.VIIKKI21" at Sep 2, 92 3:52 am Veijo's latest: > .i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu pupu prina Why "pupu"? I would have expected "pu". > loi lerfu loi ko'a papri > .i lemi patfu ze'u prina > .i lenu ri go'i kei nanca vobi > .i mi kica'o catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur. I don't think this works - "ki" comes on the end of the tag. You either mean .i mi kiku ca'o catlu or .i mi ca'oki catlu I don't know which. > .i lerfu > .i cusku.ue zo coi I took that as "le lerfu cu cusku" which is perfectly possible. I suggest ".i bacru.ue zo coi" kolin Message 11: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:37:26 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier From: CJ FINE > > .i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu pupu prina > > Why "pupu"? I would have expected "pu". The printing of the said book was done some 25 years before the reading took place. {pu} implies nothing about the ending of a process (c.f. Imaginary Journeys, section 6) and I felt using {ba'o} or {mo'u} wasn't quite appropriate due to the nature of the printing process. At the printing stage you can't talk about completing the printing of a singular book. And besides, from my standpoint, the fact that my father had been participating in the process was what counted, not the completion. The second {pu} moves the printing safely to the past (c.f. ibid. ex. 4.3). Or? > > .i mi kica'o catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur. > > I don't think this works - "ki" comes on the end of the tag. You either > mean > .i mi kiku ca'o catlu > or .i mi ca'oki catlu > I don't know which. You are right. I wanted the first alternative but now I'd leave the {ca'o} out and rearrange: .i kiku mi catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur > > > .i lerfu > > .i cusku.ue zo coi > I took that as "le lerfu cu cusku" which is perfectly possible. I > suggest > ".i bacru.ue zo coi" OK Veijo PS. nobody has caught the error on the mail subject header: all the time the period after {la vei,on.} has been missing! ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Message 6: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:06:58 BST Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: vilva@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI To: Bob LeChevalier > > > .i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu pupu prina > > > > Why "pupu"? I would have expected "pu". > > The printing of the said book was done some 25 years before the > reading took place. {pu} implies nothing about the ending of a > process (c.f. Imaginary Journeys, section 6) and I felt using > {ba'o} or {mo'u} wasn't quite appropriate due to the nature of > the printing process. At the printing stage you can't talk about > completing the printing of a singular book. And besides, from my > standpoint, the fact that my father had been participating in the > process was what counted, not the completion. The second {pu} > moves the printing safely to the past (c.f. ibid. ex. 4.3). > Or? This is an area where the pragmatics still have to be worked out. To me, "pupu" means something like "pu le pu se tcika", with the expectation that the hearer will know what was the relevant intermediate time reference. What I suspected was going on was that this was a translation of the English "book which my father had printed". (I don't remember how the tenses work in Finnish). If the reading were now, would you still mean "pupu"? I suspect that "puzu" gives your intent better. kolin Message 11: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:25:25 BST Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Veijo/Colin: > > > .i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu pupu prina > > > > Why "pupu"? I would have expected "pu". > > The printing of the said book was done some 25 years before the > reading took place. {pu} implies nothing about the ending of a > process (c.f. Imaginary Journeys, section 6) and I felt using > {ba'o} or {mo'u} wasn't quite appropriate due to the nature of > the printing process. At the printing stage you can't talk about > completing the printing of a singular book. And besides, from my > standpoint, the fact that my father had been participating in the > process was what counted, not the completion. The second {pu} > moves the printing safely to the past (c.f. ibid. ex. 4.3). > Or? I would suggest {puzu} if you want to emphasise how long ago the printing took place. > > > .i mi kica'o catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur. > > > > I don't think this works - "ki" comes on the end of the tag. You either > > mean > > .i mi kiku ca'o catlu > > or .i mi ca'oki catlu > > I don't know which. > > You are right. I wanted the first alternative but now I'd > leave the {ca'o} out and rearrange: > > .i kiku mi catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur I think this is one of those places where the {ku} is elidable, but helpful to human interpreters. Iain. & Message 12: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:39:20 -0500 Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier From: C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk > > > > .i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu pupu prina > > > > > > Why "pupu"? I would have expected "pu". > > > > The printing of the said book was done some 25 years before the > > reading took place. {pu} implies nothing about the ending of a > > process (c.f. Imaginary Journeys, section 6) and I felt using > > {ba'o} or {mo'u} wasn't quite appropriate due to the nature of > > the printing process. At the printing stage you can't talk about > > completing the printing of a singular book. And besides, from my > > standpoint, the fact that my father had been participating in the > > process was what counted, not the completion. The second {pu} > > moves the printing safely to the past (c.f. ibid. ex. 4.3). > > Or? > > This is an area where the pragmatics still have to be worked out. To me, > "pupu" means something like "pu le pu se tcika", with the expectation that > the hearer will know what was the relevant intermediate time reference. > > What I suspected was going on was that this was a translation of the English > "book which my father had printed". You are right. >(I don't remember how the tenses work in Finnish). In this case the tense structure is identical: book which my father had printed kirja, jonka isani oli painanut There is also a possibility to use a so-called pro-sentence which is almost like a preposed relative: isani painama kirja le poi lemi patfu cu prina fi ke'a ku'o cukta In this case, however, the tense isn't quite unambiguously defined though usually completion is implied. > If the reading were now, would you still mean "pupu"? I suspect that > "puzu" gives your intent better. I guess so. The time distance is irrelevant. Veijo ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi & Message 27: Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:30:22 BST Reply-To: A.D.M.Smith@BRADFORD.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: A.D.M.Smith@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: la vei,on. ckafybarja srinuntroci xire To: Bob LeChevalier > . le jukpa selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i I don't know whether it was changed in the rafsi re-organisation, but <> in my gi'uste comes from jukni finti and so suggests to me some kind of 'spider-inventing!!' Shouldn't it be <>, as used in << le nunjupca'u >> in the previous sentence andruc. le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire xire ni'o mi penzutse.o'u .i to'erninda'i fa lemi jubme .i ciska da le jbusfe .ije mi catlu da.a'u .i lerfu la fraktur.ue .i mi morji fi loi lerfu be la fraktur. .i morji .i mi puzuki zvati le ckule gi'e caca'a tcidu .i mi tcidu le cfika be le ze bruna bei la Aleksis.kivis. po'u le natmytercfi .i le poi le drata be mi tcidu fi ke'a ku'o selpapri cu te prina loi lerfu be la antik. .i lemi selpapri goi ko'a te prina loi lerfu be la fraktur. .i lenu tcidu de peta'i la fraktur. kei pu nandu mi gi'e ca frili .i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu puzu prina loi lerfu loi ko'a papri .i lemi patfu ze'u prina .i lenu ri go'i kei nanca li vobi .i kiku mi catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur. .i lerfu .i bacru.ue zo coi .i barjyjatna.a'a .i la nitcion. co'ava se zvaju'o mi .i ra xanse rinsa mi .ije mi spuda rinsa .i la nitcion. caca'a xebni la fraktur. > Veijo has been many times nominated > for a stylistics role - are you wiliing??? OK. co'omi'e vei,on ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi JL17: le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xire xire ni'o mi penzutse.o'u .i to'erninda'i fa lemi jubme .i ciska da le jbusfe .ije mi catlu da.a'u .i lerfu la fraktur.ue .i mi morji fi loi lerfu be la fraktur. .i morji .i mi puzuki zvati le ckule gi'e caca'a tcidu .i mi tcidu le cfika be le ze bruna bei la Aleksis.kivis. po'u le natmytercfi .i le poi le drata be mi tcidu fi ke'a ku'o selpapri cu te prina loi lerfu be la antik. .i lemi selpapri goi ko'a te prina loi lerfu be la fraktur. .i lenu tcidu de peta'i la fraktur. kei pu nandu mi gi'e ca frili .i mi djica lenu tcidu fi ko'a kei mu'i lenu lemi patfu puzu prina loi lerfu loi ko'a papri .i lemi patfu ze'u prina .i lenu ri go'i kei nanca li vobi .i kiku mi catlu le vi lerfu be la fraktur. .i lerfu .i bacru.ue zo coi .i barjyjatna.a'a .i la nitcion. co'ava se zvaju'o mi .i ra xance rinsa mi .ije mi spuda rinsa .i la nitcion. caca'a xebni la fraktur. Nick: >.i mi morji fi loi lerfu be la fraktur. >.i morji Now, there's nothing wrong with repeating {morji}. Believe me. It's just that this repetition reminded me of the "dream sequences" in Wayne's World --- you know, "cast your mind baaack, and let's trip down memory lane..." *shrug* The fact I got distracted is not important, though. >.i le poi le drata be mi tcidu fi ke'a ku'o selpapri cu te prina loi > lerfu be la antik. We are going to see a *lot* of preposed relatives, I predict, simply because they kill off a lot of the worry about terminating them when postposed. They are not just an affectation. There's going to be a good tale, I think, in an oldtimer at the cafe explaining how the devil the Fraktur got there in the first place... Nice to see one's dikyjvo picked up :) >.i ra xanse rinsa mi .ije mi spuda rinsa >.i la nitcion. caca'a xebni la fraktur. Brilliant ending. I mean... so wonderfully deadpan. You're getting quite good at this :)