[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


I was able to read the first few days of the thing without a vocab next to
me, which made me feel great. The VSO is usually not handled clumsily, and
sounds pleasant. Great work, sir. Comments:

>.i zgana fa la cevni le gusni fi'o se jinvi loza'i xamgu

I would go for {ci'o} rather than {fi'o se jinvi}. Well, I would!

>.i fedri'a fa la cevni fo le gusni ku ce le manku (ku)

Well, given that fedri'a should have the x1 of rinka, that x1 should be
uncleft: tu'a la cevni. Do we leave it as is? Actually, I have a nasty
proposal of building a {fai} place into all -ri'a to take care of things
(la cevni cu fedri'a fai tu'a la cevni), but that's just me.

>.i cesto'edapma(?!?) ra fa la cevni secu'u lu ko seljbe je
>so'imei gi'e se culno lei djacu pe ne'i lei xamsi

I'd use something based on {zanru} for "bless". I really don't like {secu'u},
it is so obviously swallowing up another predicate (cusku). What about
approve-tell x2 to x3? Unfortunately there is no "tell" in lojban, just
talk about, discuss, utter, and the closest possible, {notci} - message.

>bacru fa la cevni lu .e'o krasi fa le terdi loi jmive ne ja'i lori
>jutsi zi'e no'u loi danlu ku joi loi befydzu ku joi loi terdi jmive
>ne ja'i lori jutsi li'u

Do you want to put in "domesticated" before "animal"? What would it be?
to'e cilce? remzda?

>.i ra turni ba'a.e'a loi xamsi finpe .e loi tsani cipni .e loi danlu .e
>piro loi terdi .e piro loi befydzu noi befydzu loi terdi li'u

{ba'a} is tense enough. Well, tense-equivalent.

>Note also that I had to attach the "ta'i" to "loi
>remna" otherwise you get "'god' is-a-creator...with-form...", which again
>isn't what we want.  Is there a better way to do this?

I don't know of one, and it's turning out to be uncomfortable (the Esp
accusative is SOOOO much more convenient :)

>.i seri'a loza'i nakni ce fetsi cu finti fo'a (???)

I'd say {jo'u} for {ce}, just to make sure. Or maybe {fa'u}? {ce} is not quite
free of the connotations {joi} would bring - androgyny. Yes, {ce} isn't {joi},
and sets aren't mixed, but just to be sure, make it {fa'u}

>.i cusku fa la cevni lu ju'i do'u mi dunda fi do fe piro loi srasu noi se

As an aside, I'm starting to get used to {fi..fe..} to render our swallowed-up
NL dative.

>mulno fa le tsani .ebo le terdi .e piro loi jenmi girzu pe ri

Oh, say {lei} for jenmi girzu, to avoid literalness. Outstanding question:
in {loi jemni girzu pe ri}, doesn't {ri} anaphorise {loi jemni girzu}? I
fear it doth. I also know we'd rather it didn't. Can we make an exception?

>.i mulri'a fa la cevni ca le zemoi djedi levo'a se gunka (?) noi vo'a zbasu
>Complete-makes "god" during the seventh day x1's("god"'s) thing-worked-on
>which-inc. x1("god") makes
>Again remembered "vo'a".  Is it okay to use it inside a "noi" clause to
>refer to the x1 outside, or does that have to be flagged?

No it's not OK. leno'a, or vo'ape... um, we don't have a sentence equivalent
for no'a (di'e - go'o; di'u - go'i; nei -dei; no'a - ? de'a and di'a look
available. Best have a quick word with Lojban Central)

Excellent work. My felicitations.

Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia.  nsn@{munagin.ee|mullauna.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