la nitcion. klama le kafybarja

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

Nick, my lad, what can I say?  That's one hell of a good start.  It was
stylistically interesting, and understandable.  I particularly liked your
use of UIs and COIs, as made clearer by the translation (yes, I read it in
parallel with the translation.  Sue me).  Some typos, and I haven't
fine-tooth-combed the grammar, etc. of the whole thing yet, but on the
whole, wonderful.

I note you've taken to bracketing nu/kei and poi/ku'o clauses.  Threw me
for a second, but who's to gainsay you?  Those symbols mean nothing wrt the
lojban, and it's probably very helpful; terminators on those are often
missed.

You seem to be using {cabdei} in tanru as sort of a pseudo-tense, as a
contraction for {ca le cabdei}.  Well, tanru can be considered, among
other things, to be filling places in, even places not normally present
(like {ca...}), so that works fine.  Not sure it'd be my preference were I
writing it (too natlang-sounding or something), but I understood it fine,
it's certainly sensible, and I wasn't writing it.

I like {mi cabdei melu.i'inai li'u vau.u'uru'e}.  Very good use of {me}.
Not sure what you're repenting of, but you don't have to say.  Maybe
{mela'elu .i'inai li'u}, but that's nitpicking.  In situations like that,
I'd be likely to use {la'e} or {lu'e}, but not neither (e.g. Colin once
referred to {zi'e}-less linked relative clauses as being {zi'e zei cau},
where I'd have said {melu'ezo zi'e claxu}).  Personal opinion, nothing
more.

What's the {mit-} in {mitsarxe} and {mitkruce} doing?  I *think* in the
{mitkruce} you mean that they cross each other, i.e. are mutual crossers.
Wouldn't {simxu} be better (yes, lojbab, *that's* why I wanted a better
hyphenator for {simxu}: it'll need it).

>.i lei bitmu cu se jadni loi carmi bo vrici joi na'e mitsarxe beja'i le tcaci
>.i le re cpare ka'amru poi mitkruca se punji fi le cravro gapru na minrysarxe
>.u'iru'e
>.i na go'i fa loi drata ke bitmu se punji nemu'u lo dembi poi vreta lo kicne
>ku'o jo'u lo slabu tcityta'o nesecu'u lu vi xagrai loi tauzba pe levi
>tcadu li'u

Doesn't the {na go'i} *negate* the previous sentence, so that you're saying
"The climbing axes ... weren't symmetrical.  Which is not the case for the
objects hanging on the other walls..." --- i.e. they *were* symmetrical!

More later, if/when I think of it.

~mark