lojbab comments

["F. Schulz" <cbmvax!uunet!PYRPS5.ENG.PYRAMID.COM!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!fschulz>]

lojbab sends comment on my writing in lojban. I find the comment
somewhat challenging, so comment + my translation follows:
<<
mi na  cmila le  nu    da      troci le  nu    cusku   bau         la lojban.
I  not laugh the event someone try   the event express in-language lojban

.i le  temci cu na'e dukse  ma'i               lo nuntroci  pamoi
   the time     not  excess in-reference-frame    event-try first

.i mi ba   tcidu le  do  mulno    ke lojbo  se cusku .o'acai
   I  will read  the you complete    lojban is-expressed
>>

In sentence (1) , at first I think "da" is a typo for "do" , then
I realize existential variable means someone. Clear.

In sentence (2) I wonder why scalar negation na'e is used instead
of "na". I look at my scalar negation document, and find it is
unformatted. I go into an edit frenzy and format the document.
Exhausted by the edit, I skip "na'e" for later analysis.
I examine "lo nuntroci pamoi". I guess the most important bridi
is the second, which also controls the place structure. 'first'
must refer back to "ma'i" and fills in the "ma'i" better than
"attempt". So the main semantics is "first" but a certain kind of
first. So "nuntroci pamoi" fits better than "pamoi nuntroci".
Why "lo" rather than "le"? "lo" means we check the truth
of the tanru, which seems not necessary. Rereading the lojbab
reply to Colin, I see "lo" means "at least one of those satisfying the bridi"
which means indefinite "a". I will ponder "lo" some more.
"lo" must mean that a general statement about first attempts is being
made, not about a specific first attempt which "le" would mean.

Sentence (3) is tough. Why is "do" after the "le"? I expect
a bridi here. Woops, "do" must attach to the whole "le" construct,
ok. A complex 3 term tanru at the end. The last two terms group.
The thing which is expressed, lojbanically expressed. What does
"complete" mean here?

        Frank Schulz ( fschulz@pyramid.com )