Very delayed and not that useful response to Colin

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

Asked Colin on Wed, 18 Mar 1992 19:28:53 GMT
Subject:      Some how-d'ya-say-its of mine

>1.  According to the grammar I have got, it appears that the following
>are grammatical:
>        mi klama bagi la bradfrd. gi la lidz.
>        .i sepi'ogi mi lafti gi ko'a snada lenu cikre
>Do these mean:
>        I went to Bradford after Leeds
>and
>        By me lifting it, he managed to repair it?

I can't think of anything else: it seems these things are analogous to
{co'e la bradfrd. ebabo la lidz.} = {co'e la bradfrd. ijebabo co'e la lidz.}
(good)
{co'e la bradfrd. neba la lidz.} (less good, but there's nothing in {bagi}
that implies {.e} In what sence, though, is one town "after" another, if not
in the explicit context of the previous sentence? What I mean is, there is
little need for {neba} to be grammatical when it's confusingly contextless;
{.ebabo} allows for such a context better.)
{ko'a snada lenu cikre .isepi'obo mi lafti} = {ko'a snada lenu cikre sepi'o
lenu mi cikre} (acceptablish).

>2. Am I  allowed to use "ko'a" etc without explicitly assigning them?
>Am I allowed to assume an assignment from context?

Judging from what Lojbab let John get away with in JL11, yes, if the context
is obvious. In fact, it's been done more than once...

>3. Suggestion, please for "sensor" or "sensory channel"? I think it
>should be a place of "ganse".

I can't think of anything intelligent. {ganse xe benji} misses the point.
{jaixebe'i ganse} misses the same point.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
_______________________________________________________________________________