Genesis

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

>Date:         Sun, 26 Jan 1992 21:12:54 +1100
>From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu

>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:

Thanks a lot, Nick.  Compliments always go far with me.  I also found I
could proofread it directly, and I sorta like VSO (tho I used it 'cause the
original is [I know that's bad translating style]).

>>.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 assume you mean {seci'o}.  I'm not sure like it.  It's certainly Zipfier,
but the meaning is wrong.  "seci'o loza'i xamgu" feels more like God feels
good about himself or something.  I think "fi'o se jinvi" has just the
right meaning, it's just unfortunate I had to use "fi'o".  I'm not closed
about this, though...

>>.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.

Urk.  Yeah, there oughta be a "tu'a" or "gau".  I think I had one before
and lost it when I flipped to VSO.

>>.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.
>crunoi?

Hmmm.  zanru.  That has promise.  Funny, I was rather pleased with the
"secu'u", it seemed to be just what BAI words are for: sticking in a
"thing-said" place in a predicate that wouldn't otherwise have one.

>>ni'o
>>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 dunno if I'd want to put it in explicitly, and I also can't think of a
great tanru/lujvo for it.  Maybe something with "cange"?

>>.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.

Is this good or bad?  It *has* to be future, since "loi remna" hasn't been
created yet.  I figured with the "ba'a" I wouldn't need to touch the tenses
or anything, and still get a feeling of future.

>>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 :)

Yeah, it's kinda messy.  This way isn't *so* horrid, but I have my doubts.

>>.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'm also halting between "seri'a" as above and "tezu'e" for the sumti
tcita.  I thought "ce" was just about right, but maybe "jo'u".  Those
non-logicals are so tricky.  "fa'u" is legit, but if you want to go that
route there's also "ce'o".

>>.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.

Thanks.  I felt a little guilty about scrambling the places so cavalierly,
but we mustn't be too afraid to use FA.

Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP 
	id AA10988; Mon, 27 Jan 92 17:21:10 EST
Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91)
	id AA06927; Mon, 27 Jan 92 17:00:30 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (via uunet.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA13132; Mon, 27 Jan 92 16:50:03 -0500
Message-Id: <9201272150.AA13132@relay2.UU.NET>
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 5289; Mon, 27 Jan 92 16:48:28 EST
Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 1359; Mon, 27 Jan 92 16:47:41 EST
Date:         Mon, 27 Jan 1992 16:46:19 TZONE
Reply-To: David Cortesi <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!cortesi>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was
              cortesi@CRICKHOLLOW.INFORMIX.COM
From: David Cortesi <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!cortesi>
Subject:      numeral strings
X-To:         lojban mailing list <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
Status: RO

I cast a vote opposing implicit multiplication in numeral
strings.  I go for repai = 2*10 + 3.14159...

The interpretation should be same as reso'i which I assume
means 2*10 + many, that is, something between 25 and 29.

(There is a way to switch radix, yes? so that with the
appropriate previx (bi ju'u?), repai would mean 2*8 + pi, etc)

On the side issue of notation for complex numbers, I dislike
the idea of implicit multiplication by ka'o just as much as
the implicit multiplication by pai.

Ivan suggests writing ka'o as a prefix, but unless its meaning
also changes, that only introduces confusion as to what
it is multiplied against.  What is needed is a cmavo that delimits
the "real" from the "imaginary" part of a two-dimensional number,
the role of the comma in (3,4) as a point in the plane.  Is it
not correct that this interpretation of a complex number is more
general than the interpretation of 3+4i?  If it was convenient to
speak two-dimensioned numbers as syntactic tuples, there would
not be any desire to make a special case of ka'o.

Such a "comma" word should bind tightly (be a short-scope grouper
like bo) so that parentheses would not be needed to speak a
complex literal as a sumti.  Perhaps this mechanism already
exists...?