CAFE.TECH My (Iain's) two pieces

[I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

doi lojbab:

lo ke'unai lisri pe la jbolanzu kafybarja

(lo/le na'e sirji)
I think some people have used {le ve klama} as if it was an intermediate
point in the journey, rather than a route, which may explain some of
the confusion.  Either that or "you can't please all of the people
all of the time".  I agree,  however, with your point about {lo}
instead of {le}.  I'd be happy with {fo lo na'e sirji}.

(gicabo)
Since forethought appears to be broken, I'd rather use the afterthought
{.ecabo}.  I'm not convinced by your {tu'oroi} versions - none of them
seem to express the concept of "at the same time".

la'o kafybarja. jbolaz .kafybarja zo'u

(jugu'a)
I disagree about the logical connective approach, for two reasons.
First of all, the right-hand operands of the *U connectives are
truth-values, expressing that the left-hand operand is independent
of that truth-value.  Your
{piso'a loi sinxa ciste jugu'a te javni li'o gi mecritli li'o}
construction means "almost all [of the mass of] (symbolic systems
whether-or-not they are {either rule-bound or freer})".  I think
this is a malglico translation of the English "whether"
(or possibly {mabla drata bo bangu}).  We don't want independence
from the truth value of "rule-bound or freer", but from which of
the two possibilities applies.  (In general, we need to be able
to describe [in]dependence from (resp. on) the value of a variable,
or the identity of something described, which may boil down to
the same thing.)
Nick got closer with his {prenu ju nakni ju fetsi} va'icu'i, but I
think that's also wrong for the perhaps subtler _reason two_.
I don't believe that what we are trying to express in these
situations is the independence of the personhood from [fe]maleness,
or the systemhood from regularity - that's again letting ourselves
be mislead by the {mabla ke glico ja drata bo bangu} - what we're
really trying to express is the independence of the feeling (loving,
interest) from those qualities.  So the connection has to be
expressed _outside_ the sumti.  I'd be more sympathetic to
{mi cinri so'a sinxa ciste .iju ri te javni .iju ri mecritli},
but I still prefer my latest posting from this point of view.

(massified categories)
Good point.  This is indeed malglico as it stands, although your
alternative still isn't what I wanted to say.  I'm still working
on this, but it's something like

        so'a cmima be so'a klesi belo'i sinxa ciste li'o

- but I'd really like to abbreviate this a bit.  Perhaps

        so'a klecmi belo'i sinxa ciste li'o

({be} vs. parentheses)
I don't feel too strongly about this, although I didn't think
of the examples as parenthetical.  (Actually, they're not in
{be} clauses in the latest revision, although they may well
have been, of grammatical necessity, in earlier ones.)  And I'm
not quite sure why the parentheses should be more readable than
linked sumti - I can't see any difference in nesting depth,
for instance.

ta'o One of your messages was addressed to
i_alexander_bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk
- the '_'s need to be '.'s, otherwise the gateway to my X.400
network doesn't recognise me, and I've recently moved, so my
new address is
i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk

doi nitcion:

(pezyjicla)
I seem to remember debating with myself whether to stick a
{nu} in there, but I can no longer remember why I decided
to leave it out.  Neither {raktu} nor {cuntu} seem to fit
the bill.  Perhaps {nundicra}.

(le krinu belenu sutrygau)
Likewise I cannot now remember how much thought went into
my choice of {krinu}.  Reading the gloss as "justification/
explanation", I'm inclined to leave it as is.  As for
{sutrybai}, that seems too _inflexible_ somehow.  I mean,
I wasn't actually _forced_ to hurry up, but I _was_ "encouraged",
"persuaded" - I can't find a way of expressing those particular
concepts at the moment, but a simple {gasnu} seems adequate.

co'omi'e .i,n.