easy text revisions

[fschulz@PYRAMID.COM]

        mlatu salta tanxe

In my local grocery store in the pet food section, I find
a small plastic box with removable cover. The box is labeled
"Kitty Salad". The box has a picture of a cat chewing
on vegetation growing out of a box.

la kolin cusku di'e
>  '.i mi jmina lo djacu lo dertu le nu lo srasu tsiju cu banro'
>       - I would use 'farvi' rather than 'banro'
>       - to me, what happens to a seed
>       is different from what happens to a seedling, and I would only use
>       'banro' for the latter. Your meaning's clear though.
>       I'm also not 100% happy about 'jmina':
>       I would use 'setca' This does not have a 'result' place,
>       but I don't believe that the x4 of 'jmina' actually
>       means a result in that sense (a 'nu') I think a ve jmina is what you
>       get from doing the adding, not something that then happens. I would say
>  .i mi setca lo djacu le dertu mu'ilenu lo srasu tsiju cu farvi

I looked up "add" in a dictionary and am convinced I have the wrong
ve jmina place. I prefer "add/combine water to soil" to
"insert water into soil" for translating "pour water on soil".
I looked up "grow" and "develop". I was surprised how similar the
definitions are. A seed losing the outer covering is not growing
I suppose. Here is my revision:

.i le nu lo srasu tsiju cu farvi le tarbi be le spati kei
        cu jalge le nu mi jmina lo djacu lo dertu
.i le tarbi be le spati cu banro lo srasu

>  .i le mlatu cu canko [pagre] zgana
>        the 'pagre' is optional - I would probably leave it out.

Due to the evil influence of jimc, I reject the tanru and expand using fi'o.

la jimc cusku di'e
> > .i le nu le mlatu cu cliva le mi zdani cu se fanta
>
> Stylistically, it's better to put the main predicate early in the
> sentence, e.g. "fanta fe le nu ... cliva ..."  I believe that as
> written this is an observative, but I can't remember what wriggling is
> needed to de-observatize it.

I thought this sentence was clear, but since it confused jimc,
here is the revision:

.i le mlatu roroi stali le nenri be le mi zdani
.i le nu le mlatu cu cliva le mi zdani kei cu se fanta

la jimc cusku di'e
> > .i mi to'e djica le nu lo civla cu klama le mi zdani fu le mlatu
>
> Suggestion: nenri-klama = come into.

I want the place structure to be clear, since the fu place is
important for the meaning. Tanru obscure the place structure.
My revision:

.i mi to'e djica le nu lo civla cu klama le nenri be le mi zdani fu le mlatu

la jimc cusku di'e
> > .i mi bevri le mlatu poi nenri le mlatu bevri tanxe ku'o le danlu mikce
>
> Probably you want "noi" (supplementary subordinate clause) rather than
> "poi" (restrictive clause).  What you actually said was "among the cats,
> pick the one in the box; that's the one I carry."
>
> Also, this section I think needs a long scope "habitual" tense, but I've
> lost track of how to say that.  Without it, you focus on one or a few
> specific instances.

Being inside the box identifies which cat. Perhaps this revision is clearer:

.i mi bevri le pa mlatu poi nenri le mlatu bevri tanxe ku'o le danlu mikce

I am sure I have lots of tense problems. If I tried to do this correctly
I would never have written anything. I think you are overestimating
my lojban ability here. This story already stretches my lojban ability.

la jimc cusku di'e
> > .i mi na djica le nu le mlatu cu krici le nu
> >     le nu nenri le karce cu nibli le nu vitke le danlu mikce
>
> This sentence is complicated, but is well constructed, and all parts
> are needed.  I think "nibli" is not quite right, being (I think) for
> things like theorems and logic.  I would use "zi se balvi" (future) or
> "zi purci" (past), waffling on the causal connection, which cats can't
> comprehend.  You can use "zi" (short interval) alone like this, can't
> you?

I was just reading "Children's Minds" by Margaret Donaldson. The book
questions the results of Piaget who says that children are unable
to perform certain logical operations. The book says that the reason
the children failed on the problems given was due to language
difficulty and bad problem formulation. A spatial conservation
test involving views of a mountain was given an equivilent formulation
in terms of hiding from a policeman. The children did much better
on the equivilent test. I would like a description of the research
methodology that shows cats can't comprehend causual connection.
One of my cats ran down a hall and smashed his head against a
mirror several times. This may have seriously impaired his ability
to do predicate calculus operations. Actually, he was not very
bright to begin with. In any case, nibli stays.
--
        Frank Schulz ( fschulz@pyramid.com )