Wallops #8

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

>Date:         Wed, 1 Jul 1992 12:11:54 +1000
>From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Some comments, mostly on the grammar and stuff, not vocab.

>melu la xrist. na.enai la pacrux. seljdadji da li'u

>.ika'u la pacrux. klama la xrist. gi'e bacru lu pe'ipei xu do jinvi ledu'u
>leti cange bakykakpa goi ko'a xriso li'u .i lu pe'i go'i li'u selcru la
>xrist. i lu do srera to'i la pacrux. spuda toi .i le kakpa cu me cai ba'e
>mi sa'e

I don't like your usage of {ko'a me mi} for "he's mine".  {me} is one of
lojban's ambiguity-flags; the converted sumti could mean just about
anything.  In general, I'd be *far* more likely to figure that {me mi}
meant "is me" (similar to {du mi} or {mi'e}) than "is mine".  That
interpretation is consistent with ways I've seen {me} used quite a bit
(even by you, Nick.)  I'd go for {ko'a srana mi} or {ko'a se ponse mi}
(maybe), or some such.  Stylistically, I'm not sure I like the {selcru}.
In this case, you really mean a plain {bacru}, just with inverted places.
I'd prefer to see {se bacru} than {selcru}, even though both mean
"is-a-thing-uttered[-by...]."  A minor nitpick.  Maybe {cusku}'s better
than {bacru}, too.

>ni'o ca le bavlamdei ke clira clira la xrist. joi la pacrux. klama le cange
>po ko'a gi'e se mipstu loi stani

You seem fond of doubling brivla in tanru for emphasis, I'm not sure it's a
good idea.  I think Ivan has picked up on you for that once or twice.  The
tanru as a whole looks a little awkward, and I suspect that {je'a clira} is
better than {clira clira}.

>                          .i le kakpa cu sutra sutra klama gi'enai
>kruce jdaxanmu'u gi'e lasna le bakni le kakpybra gi'e co'a renro lei tsiju

Ditto here.  {sutra sutra} is even more confusing than {clira clira}.  I
think you can get into real trouble with this in cases like {kandi kandi},
or other "negative" words.  Does the first {kandi} augment or diminish the
second?  Is something that's "dimly dim" *very* dim, or "dim at being dim"
in the sense of just barely dim?  (Bad example, I know).

Just some thoughts, I liked the story!

~mark