Re: Translation

[cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!nsn]

I see no problems with Mark's latest but the ones I am about to point out
(hint: this means it's Lojbab's and John's turn to nitpick.) Mark: I'd take
my hat off if I wore one.

>.i le cevni cu selfendri'a fi le (ka?) gusni ce le (ka?) manku
>The god be-divide-cause [(something)] into the [quality-of:] illumination
>unordered-set-with the [quality-of:] darkness

No, the place structure you have is wrong. The 1990 place structure (don't
have the '89 list handy) is:
x1 (instrument) divides x2 into x3, with x4 and x5 static noise.
So {se fendi} has
x2 is divided with x1 (instrument) into x3, with x4 and x5 as above.
Thus: (the space-time continuum) is divided up with (the Maxwell equations %^)
into (dark and light).
To introduce {rinka} (and that's {selfedri'a}), you say
action (or, elliptically, actor) r1 causes that x2 is divided with x1 into x3.

The above should have {fo}. However, since in both cases there is a place in
the lujvo for the instrument of division, the distinction between {fedri'a
fo le gusni ce lo manku} and {selfedri'a fo li'o} is stylistic.

Thus we have
{fedri'a}: The god made (something) split up (something) into day & night
{selfedri'a}: The god made (something) be split up by (something) into day
& night.

Hope this pleases you, because I advocate such dikyjvo analysis for all
{rinka} compounds; save a hell of a lot of time. Before jimc starts huzzahing,
though, I reiterate what I, John Cowan, and, when he understands what Jim is
talking about, Lojbab, have been saying: an analysis of all possible lujvo
by an unambiguous dikyjvo test is not possible in Lojban. For starters, there
is rarely a way of telling between the two major categories of lujvo, the
broda be brode type ("transitive", of which the above analysis, "event ab-
straction", is a special case) and broda je/joi/poi brode ("parellel"). For
seconds, these two types easily proliferate into about a dozen on closer
examination: I've posted examples of this earlier, but will repeat that, if
you want to say {posydji} (want as in want to own something), you won't
say (I) want that (I) should own (this), but (I) wanna-own (this) - so you've
elided out the x1 of {ponse} by assuming it equivalent to the x1 of {djica}.

Jimc points out that, in official Lojban, the x1 of rinka is an event, so
the above "should" have been {tu'a le cevni} ,"the action of the god made...".
Though Lojbab says the situation is different in Washington, here in Melbourne
I can't see this {tu'a} catching on: context and firmish place structures will
elide it out.

Mark doubts if {.i pa djedi vau} is grammatical. It is, but it corresponds to
{pa lo djedi vau}, which in Lojban *should* have you asking "one day was what?"
{pa djedi cu mo}. I would have prefered {djedi pamei}.

The only term I can think of for swarm is the rather dry {so'emei} - manysome.

Nick.