Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa

[cbmvax!uunet!viikki21.helsinki.fi!VILVA]

>Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:27:39 -0400
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>>ni'o zdani

>I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice.  {zdani}
>implies some sort of dwelling-place, and you're leading into this
>with these observatives as "A house.  A coffee-house...", where
>habitation isn't implied.  For that matter, is {ckafyzda} malglico?
>It expands to {ckafi zdani} == "coffee-ish nest/house/bivouac/
>dwelling-place".  Most coffehouses aren't inhabited by anyone,
>they're solely places of business. {ckafyzarci} implies a more of a
>store where you buy coffee beans to me, so that's no better, and
>{ckafybriju} is right out.  Aha!  {ckafybarja}! That's really *much*
>better, I think.  {barja} even has a place for what's served, which
>is filled, in the lujvo/tanru, by {ckafi} (though other things may be
>served as well).  I think this is an important change to make, even
>if {ckafyzda} has acquired some sacredness.  It's only a week or
>two old, and it's broken.  Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}.

  In this case I definitely wanted the connotation of dwelling or
  even home-coming. I was thinking along the lines of a cafe where
  people are not perhaps quite dwelling but spending a lot of time
  telling stories and having conversations. At least in some parts
  of Europe cafes (especially student cafes) and like are almost
  a second home to some people.

  Also implied was a cultural dwelling place.

  {ckafybarja} is better as a general lujvo (and corresponds to
  usage in some languages, e.g. Finnish before AmerEng domination)
  but...

  There is nothing sacred about {ckafyzda} but it may match the
  underlying ideas much better. If we are stacking the place
  with connotative paraphernalia we may as well tack on a few
  more connotations.

>>.i ckafyzda
>>.i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai

>"I am-at the door-place [doorway] and am-a-smell-receptor-of
>[smell-emitted-by] mass-of coffee [smell being] x1"

 + just the desired sumti to hang the attitudinal on

  I really wanted to have both the emitter and the odor.

>.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da

>I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time-interval
>past)"..?  Oh, "it's now a long time that..."  Hrrrm.  I let John
>Cowan be the judge of that, if he gets a free moment.

  Was built along the lines indicated in 'Imaginary journeys'

>I believe, though, that {da}
>gets unbound between sentences (except at ijeks), so you should
>either have an {.ije} there or use some other sort of anaphora to get
>the smell.

 Didn't think of that (being too smug having put together the previous
 bridi). {.ije} is actually quite good here.

>You could probably just ellipsize it entirely and get the meaning
>across fine.

 Didn't want to ellipsize. Definitely not. The smell was the thing.

>>.i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna

>Not sure what {ctacarna} really implies, but I get the gist.

 Did a lot of word jungling to arrive at {ctacarna}. Not much
 physical turning, except perhaps the head, a quick wandering
 look takes in the scene (or an almost stationary stare, the
 scanning being done mainly mentally)

>>.i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a

>*sigh*.  This is such a common mistake something should be done.  A
>selbri can't take {noi}.  You can't use it this way in an
>observative.  Use {gi'e} or something.

  Yeah. Have to think about that. I did remember this grammatical
  point when I started but got carried away. I definitely remember
  thinking that that's the error I'm NOT going to make.

  How about {.i seldandu lo vrici ...} to retain the structure
  and include a little bit more of the spec at the same time?
  Have to think about le vs lo.

>>.i ji'ipano zutse remna

>This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same as
>the previous observatives.  Observatives are sentences with selbri
>but no sumti (or at least no x1 sumti).  The x1 is considered to be
>ellipsized, so "jubme" is "(something unspecified) is a table".  This
>is a sumti with no selbri, since it's quantified, and would likely be
>interpreted as "about 10 sitting people (do/are something
>unspecified)", which to me has a slightly different meaning.

  Hmm. Let's leave it for now, they are doing something.

>>.i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u

>"event-of-cooking volume"?  Maybe {jupkumfa}?  It *is* a room, after
>all, isn't it?  Not sure the {nun-} is necessary, but it's not badly
>placed.

  First I had {(nun)jupkumfa} but then wanted to have just the space,
  not to imply separation at this stage. More lojbo :)

>>.i le jukpa selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i

>This isn't quite grammatical.  {le jukpa selviska} is a sumti, and
>you can't have a {gi'e} inside or after only sumti with no selbri.  I
>take it you wanted {le jukpa cu selviska}?

  Yep. Colin already pointed that out.

>>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au

>Thinking about drunk coffee?  Maybe.  I might be thinking about {le
>nu pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not
>likely about a mass of drunk-type coffee.

  Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of
  drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the
  stuff.

>>.i ckafypanci fi mi.ui
>>.i ckafypanci
>>.i .ui.o'u
>>.i zdani

>Neat ending.

  Here comes the {zdani} again. I even considered {pezyzdani} to
  make things more explicit but the lone {zdani} balanced nicely
  with the beginning, like a closing quote. Besides, I didn't
  want to be too obvious.

----------

To Colin about the coffee:

  I'm not too keen a coffee drinker. The smell came in kind of
  naturally with the coffee bins and all, perhaps childhood
  memories of freshly ground coffee at my aunt's shop where
  I used to hang a lot. If the specs had called for a taverna
  I'd have thought of something else to fill the first 10
  seconds. The sense of smell carries a lot of connotations
  and brings fore memories... The smell of pezyckafi is the first
  reminder telling you you have come (back) to where you belong.
  You can't put your finger on it during the first few moments
  but it hits you, sometimes like a sledgehammer. The visual
  recognition comes later and the images of times long past.

>Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST
>From:         CJ FINE <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>

>Mark to Veijo:

>> I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice.  {zdani}
[...]
>> two old, and it's broken.  Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}.

>.ieje'u

  I'll go along if you want the change. Consider, however, first the
  aspects I presented above.

>> >.i ji'ipano zutse remna
>>
>> This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same
>>as the previous observatives.  Observatives are sentences with
>>selbri but no sumti (or at least no x1 sumti).  The x1 is
>>considered to be ellipsized, so "jubme" is "(something unspecified)
>>is a table".  This is a sumti with no selbri, since it's
>>quantified, and would likely be interpreted as "about 10 sitting
>>people (do/are something unspecified)", which to me has a slightly
>>different meaning.

>Nice point. For consistency, ".i zutse remna ji'ipanomei" or

  I'd prefer this as the following alternatives get quite complicated
  to express essentially the same thing. But cf. above.

>".i zutse remna selkancu fili ji'ipano", or else
>".i kancu le zutse remna li ji'ipano" (I rather like this one)

> >.i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri
>I don't get Veijo's answer to my question here, so probably he didn't
>understand my question. I was querying "lei" as opposed to "loi".

   I tried to use 'the mass described ...' instead 'the mass really
   is ...' to express concisely the idea that the bins looked like
   wood but might be something else on closer inspection.

      Veijo
------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi