Hans Christian Andersen: countercomments

[cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn]

In-Reply-To: Your [Colin Fine's] message of "Fri, 06 Mar 92 19:10:07 GMT."
             <13762.9203061910@mail.bradford.ac.uk>

>             I suppose "maptypai" (fit judge)
>             might do in this context, and "xaurpai" in some, but I'm
>             not happy with them. I certainly don't want any speni-ing
>             in the translation at this point.

I thing {maptypai} is quite a good substitute for this usage of {zanru}
(he approves her).

>             Please explain "xe'e" - I can't get it from the example.

It's tied to the unclefting dispute of JL15. eg. the 1990 structure for {galfi}
has x1 modifies x2 into x3 by doing x4. This has been collapsed by unclefting
into action x1 modifying x2 into x3. But we still want to use the old type
of structure often. For example, to talk about a changer, a modifying agent.
My experimental cmavo, given
lenu xy. cu broda cu galfi y'y. zy.
produces
xy. xe'e galfi y'y zy lenu xy. broda
which once more matches the 1990 structure. The more places get unclefted
(and a lot will be in the 1992 list), the more we need some manner of
referring back to the NL-ish place structure. JL15 suggests using {jaigau}
for that purpose, but this is not a general solution; for example, x2s can
be clefted too, not just x1s.

>             I haven't seen any discussion on this (was it in JL15,
>             that I've still not got hold of?), but I get very
>             irritated at all these more-or-less meaningless tu'a's
>             everywhere.

In fact, I have never quite *liked* {tu'a}, and believe that it can often
be omitted with no ambiguity. I don't have the horror of overloading Lojbab
has. That having been said: in LLG sanctioned lojban, such overloading is
going to be discouraged, though not necessarily proscribed. Fluent usage will
be, of course, another matter.

That having been said, I already find a phrase of the type {mi troci le vorme}
instead of {mi troci tu'a le vorme}=={mi troci lenu karyri'a le vorme} to be
irritating. Mark has taken to {tu'a} even more than I. And the distinction is
not always illdefined nor pointless. It's a matter of extent. And I welcome
this as one further opportunity for stylistic divergence. (I suspect Ivan will
be on your side).

>             > {ni'a} is "below"; {mo'ini'a} is "downwards".
>             Thanks. I've never seen a discussion of <tense>, so I'm
>             learning it by induction.

In fact, I found out about {mo'i} from Lojbab when I translated the adventure
game Colossal Cave in October. It's irritating to have to tease bits of the
language design out. JL16 is supposed to contain a tense paper.

>             > I feel like {ge'ekau} is a son I sired and no longer
>             recognise.
>             I really must get hold of JL15 and read the discussion on
>             this. It's another one I've picked up by induction.

This use of {kau} is not covered in JL15 (or rather, it is as an afterthought,
contributed by Nora; the remainder seems to me to be barking up the wrong
tree). It rather reminds me of *my* interpretation of {kau}, as I formulated
it last June; but I never pictured it used with {ge'e}.

I remember your phrase "UI depend on the deontology of the speaker". Well, I
went for "kau refers to the knower of the sentence it is in". Thus
la djan. djuno ledu'u ri klama zo'ekau
means John knows where he's going, not that John's going somewhere, and I
know where. Right? If that's right for kau, why is it wrong for za'a -  or ei?

These are the essential issues. At the moment, I think Lojban Central favours
that "I know where", which to me seems silly.

>> >.i lo ckaji loka ganse du'ila'edi'u cu nolraixli mulno ju'o
>> I think you mean {lo ckaji be loka ganse pedu'i la'edi'u}
>You're right about the "be". I'm not convinced about the "pe"
>             It could be "characterised that much by sensitivity" as
>             easily as "characerised by that much sensitivity".

But {du'i} does not tie in with {ckaji}, but {nolraixli mulno}. You are saying
"One characterised by sensitivity is a complete queen that much." The
alternative you seem to be thinking of is {lo ckaji beloka ganse zi'epe
la'edi'u}

>             > >ni'o le nolrainanla goi ko'a galfi fo'a le speni

Actually, you don't absolutely *have* to change that {galfi}.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia.  nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.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
_______________________________________________________________________________