Correction of correction, to be corrected

[cbmvax!uunet!ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn]

This is likely to set up an interesting pattern: Shoulson corrects Twery,
then is corrected by Nicholas, who gets corrected by Cowan, who gets
corrected by Tansky-LeChevalier, who gets edited by LeChevalier, and I'm
sure Parks-Clifford fits in somewhere along the line. But here goes, and
may I parenthetically congratulate the good Markezio on his hot line fodder
(man, do YOU have a social life %^)

>>pasosopanac zemast renoded
>>1991year    7month 20 day

>But bear in mind that you've got three cmene there in a row,
>without so much as a "la" anyplace.  I'm not sure if that's grammatical.

Funnily enough, it is. A cmene wihout an article can be put at the head of
any text, as a title.

>>la xanict zvati le ckafyzda me'e "kairos"
>>The Sixday at the coffeenest named "Kairos"
>>Saturday at Cafe' Kairos

>Since you're just trying to set your action, maybe a better sentence would
>be "ca la xanict. vi le ckafyzda beme'e zo kairos."  I'm not sure that's
>grammatical, though ("during the 'sixnight,' at the coffeenest named
>'kairos.'")

Mark is correct in the alternative he has provided. There is still no selbri
in sight, but I'd take that as a venial sin. Still, in analogous cases,
JL texts have either prefixed the title with a {sera'a} (about), or made the
whole thing a selbri with a {me}.

>>mi na ca lifri le zabna ri .e mi .a'ije.ai na [cru]dunku vo'e 
>>I don't now experience that which is favorable to me and I (effort,intention) 
>>won't (speak-)anguish about it
>>I don't feel good tonight but I'm not going to bitch about it.

Mark is again correct, {.e}, {gi'e}, {je} and
{.ije} are different animals (hey, *you* wanted an unambiguous language),
not to be mixed up. No "je" between UI, as UI have no grammar. My version
of the above is:
mi ca na xamgu lifri .ijenaiku'i dunkycru mu'i la'edi'u

The negation is a bit loose (this is where John comes in %^). The "it" is
"what I've just said" (that I don't feel good tonight).

>Still doesn't capture the English sense of "feeling good."

Does the Esperanto "mi min sentas bone"?
 
>>.i glare je jaurvacri 
>>(observed) hot and water-air
>>It's hot and humid (weather). (author's note: 97f/39c)
>Note, though, that this is not equivalent to "it's
>hot and it's humid."  That would require "gi'e."  This is more like
>"(something is) hot-and-(water-air)."  Not bad.

I think the latter is to be intended.

>>.i su'e pare remna cu ca zvati ti 
>>at most twelve persons are now at here
>>There are a dozen people here tonight, at most.

vi, not ti. Ti is only used for pointing. If you want to be a smartass, you
could say, as did Mark
.i su'epare remna cavi zvati
(well, not so much smartass as idiomatic.)
(A tense and a KOhA render the cu elided, btw. So if the lojbani MOTAS you
are trying to pick up hears you say "mi djica leni mi CU gleti do", s/he
will probably have to give you some private tuition (Remember, terminators
are an abomination from hell; cu is not quite a terminator, but to be elided
as often as you can get used to. I'll do an essay on the state of the language
some other time). The {lo} is omissible between numbers and bridi: you
can't count selbri, so there's no misunderstanding (I two-go?!))

>>.i mi caca'a kakne le nu cusku lojbo

Agree with Mark
 
>>ni'o la lusis je la marias cu tavla vo'a
>>(new) Lucy and Maria talk to each other (x1)
>>Lucy and Maria are talking to each other.
>Again, you're using "je" funny.  I think you mean "la lusis. .e la marias."
>You could probably use "ri" instead of "vo'a."  Which brings up a question
>which has long bothered me.  How would I distinguish in a sentence like
>"ko'a tavla ko'a" between "it1/they1 talk(s) to itself/themselves" and
>"they1 talk to one another"?  And does "ri" work okay in a sentence like
>this, with a compound sumti?

No, and here is one of the unexplained tricks of Lojban. tavla does not mean
"talk", but "talk to". The Marquis has said "Lucy and Maria are talking to
Lucy and Maria". Not bad, but also not really "eachother". Lojban says this
by (wait for it) la lusis. tavla la marias. soivo'avo'e, meaning:
L talks to M, and you can swap the first argument (L) and the second (M)
around." By where we've put the {soi}, we can omit the {vo'e}. A bit pedantic,
though, for our "each other" (or, for that matter, the Esperanto "inter si").
When you say "L and M talk", just as you say "H and S get married", you want
what are the x1 and x2 of a mutual relationship to go to the same side of
the selbri. I am, I think, the first to propose
la lusis. ce la marias. tavla simxu
L and M are mutual talkers (as in "to each other); which can be expanded as
la lusis. ce la marias. simxu lenu tavla

Similarly, for
la xaris. co'a speni la salis. soivo'a
Harry gets married to Sally and vice versa

you can say

la xaris. ce la salis. spesimxu
Harry and Sally got married.

>>.i la lusis pa'a ca citka xiltitna'a [glibau "doughnut"] 
>>Lucy also now eats a wheel-sweet-bread [English, "doughnut"]
>>Lucy is also eating a doughnut now.
>I don't
>know that "pa'a" is really helpful in this sentence, except that it sounds
>like the English structure.  Actually, I doubt it's right.  Remember, it's
>a modal, a BAI word.  It's not an discursive, which is how you're using it.

Remember in turn, Mark, that BAI can be used as tenses. Think of pa'aku
(as well as [blank]). I wouldn't say Twery is wrong. The le should be there.
Nothing necessarily wrong with the lujvo, though the {ke} does have to be
elided ({xislu ke titla nanba}). That's pragmatics.

>>.i piro mi'a cu zukte zo'o ka masno
>>all-of us-not-you act (activate humor spin) the quality of slow
>>We are all moving kind o' slow.

Mark right again. if you don't mean "slow" by "slow", stick a {.ianai}
next to the {zo'o} ("I'm not serious"). {tai loka masno} or {tai lo masno}
will do.
 
>>ni'o lo nanmu pu cusku le si'o zoi "mocha" 
>>(new) a man expressed the idea that "mocha"
>>se krasi be la banxauaii 
>>originated from the Hawaiian language
>>A man said that the word "mocha" is from the Hawaiian.
>You can't use "le si'o" to mean "the idea that...." in the sense that you
>are.  Remember, "si'o" has the same grammar as "nu."  Also, to quote one
>word, use "zo" not "zoi".  "zoi" takes paired delimiters and all that.  I'm
>not positive you need "be" there.  And "le" probably works better than "la"
>here, since you're making a le'avla, not a cmene.  Perhaps "ni'o lo nanmu
>pu cusku lu zo moka. se krasi le banxauaii. li'u"  (A man expressed
>"'mocha' has-source the hawaiian-language").  Bleah.  I don't like the
>required use of direct quote.  I tried using "jei," but didn't come up with
>anything grammatical.  Anything better out there?

Lojbab should advertise the langauge features better. I use {du'u} (the
sentence) in the manner that David used {si'o}, and see little wrong with it.

>>.i mi pu na djuno la'edi'u
>>I did not know (previous reference)
>>I didn't know that.
>This looks good.  Maybe, maybe, you might want to use "pupu" instead  of
>"pu" to indicate the pluperfect past, because the man told you also in the
>past. 

To the Espists: note that Lojban is atist in its tenses, not itist.
la'edi'u covers everything in the last utterance, including the fact that
the guy said this. What you want is la'elesego'i or something (what was
referred to by the 2nd argument of the previous selbri). But is the previous
selbri the on inside the ledu'u? In that case, la'eledu'ugo'i. Or just
lenu go'i.

>>.i mi pu pensi poi ke'o se krasi be la banritalian
>>I thought such-that that originated from the Italian language
>>I thought it was from Italian.
Mark right again, though
>pupu krici le jei le banritali. krasi ra" (I had believed the-truth-value
>the-italian-language is-the-source-of something-mentioned-before).  I have
>my doubts as to this use of "jei," though.

I'd take that as meaning "whether Italian was the source or not." I'd go
lenu or ledu'u, myself, favouring the latter (you don't know events, but
sentences, if you're a stupid little prolog compiler which can't fit people
running inside your innards, but can fit clauses to that effect.)

>>.i e. ko'a se tavla lu -- ko sisti -- li'u la .ouyn
>>And he-1 gets told "make-it-true-that-you stop" by Owen
>>Owen tells him "stop".

If tavla had as its x3 "the thing said", la .ou,n and lu ko sisti li'u
should swap places in the above. I don't see why the x3 of tavla can't also
take quotes. Interesting to see how the JL10 piece handled this.
 
>>.i stiv goi ko'a pu djica le nu ko'a tavla la tcip la ko'a
>>zgika sanze'a 
>>Steve who is he-1 wanted the event he-1 talks to Chip about his-1 music 
>>sound-increaser
>>Steve wanted to talk to Chip about his (Steve's) amplifier.
>Well, you're re-assigning "ko'a" which is your prerogative as speaker.
>Since you're not running low on pro-sumti, maybe you should use "ko'e" in
>case someone misses the re-assignment.  

It is polite, yes, but mental stacks can only fit so much. The theory is
that if you've said ni'oni'o, you're launching into a narrative in which
the referents won't change too much, so ko'a stays assigned where it was.
If a ni'oni'o is missing, then your ni'o allows you to wildly change your
topic, and the ko'a would not be assumed to stay constant or be remembered
past a ni'o.

>>ni'o la endis je leko'a xlipe'o poi 
>>(new) Andy and his girlfriend such that:
>>ke'o ponse xunre kerfa cu ca klama
>>she has red hair -- come

Good comments, Mark. the ke'a can usually be omitted, with ke'a being the x1
of the relative phrase.
 
>>ni'o la patsis.klain cu sanga lu lezu'o cadzu ba la midycte li'u
>>(new) Patsy Cline is singing "Walking After Midnight"
>>ra'i le zgidribra 
>>from source the music-ribbon-apparatus
>>Patsy Cline is singing "W.A.M." on the tape player.
>
>You can probably use "ra'i" the way you are, so that's okay.  Note that
>you're implying that Patsi Cline is singing *the words* "walking after
>midnight" (or maybe "lezu'o cadzu ba le midycte"?) from the tape player.
>Maybe using "la" to indicate the name of the song?  And I get the image
>that Patsy's standing inside the apparatus and singing!  But I don't see
>an easy way around it.  I'd probably have come up with a very similar
>sentence.

la'elu, I think. This tagging problem is going to be an arse in Lojban. I'd
have xebe'i or vecu'u (medium of transmission or of expression), rather
than ra'i.

>>.i patsis na'o sanga loi driselsanga poi glibau zoi blues do'u
>>Patsy typically sings those sad-songs which (English) are "blues"
>>Patsy sings sad songs which are called "the blues" in English.
>Your relative clause, however, it a bit weird.  It implies that the songs
>are English-language spoken by "blues" or something.  Better, ".i la patsis
>na'o sanga loi driselsanga poi se cmene zo bluz. bau le glibau"  (Patsy
>typically sings the mass-of sad-things-sung which-restrictively-are
>(something) is-named "blues" in-language English-language.)

I'd go:
pe le'a zoi by. blues by. peku'u lo glico
Songs which are in the category Blues which is in the culture English (bau
can be replaced for ku'u, mutandis mutation).
 
>>ni'o cabna fa .endis je ko'a xlipe'o cu cliva 
>>(new) now Andy and his girlfriend leave
>>Andy and his girlfriend are leaving now.

{ni'o cabna fa lenu la .endis .eleko'a prami cu cliva}, you mean.
 
>Sorry to rip into you so hard, but the others will probably whale on me
>just as much.  

Surpringly %^), you did a good job, Mark. Not so bad going from you either,
Marquis.

I think this list is gonna get flooded with Lojbanistani any minute now,
and that's great.

mi'e la nitcion.