Re: Questions

[Dylan Thurston <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

coi. xorxes.

On Wed, 10 May 1995 jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU wrote:
> > coi xorxes .i ki'e danfu
>
> {ki'e danfu} means "thank you Answer", i.e. you are using {danfu} as
> a name. Probably you meant {i ckire fi tu'a le danfu}

Actually, I meant to use the observative for variety, which would have to
be

        ki'e do'u danfu

or

        i'o danfu


> > > I think it would be mopre clear to say: {li'i se nandu joi steba}.
> >
> > But both would be correct, right?  None of the sumti places of {nandu
> > joi se steba} are filled anyway.
>
> That's part of the discussion with pc. There isn't yet any official way
> of indicating which is the place that corresponds to the experiencer.
> The way I suggest is to use {ke'a} for this, because the function is
> very similar to the function {ke'a} has in relative clauses.
> So {le li'i ke'a se nandu joi steba} would be the experience of
> having difficulties/frustrations, while {le li'i se nandu joi steba ke'a}
> would be the experience of being difficult/frustrating.
>
> In general, we have assumed that when it is not indicated the place in
> question is the first free one, but this is not certain yet (at least
> not to me).

Oh!  That's what you've been talking about!

It seems like it would have been most natural to have {li'i} act like
{le}:  the first place of the bridi is essentially removed and shifted
up, though doubtless that would cause to many problems now.  I'll have
to ponder this.  It seems like different words of selma'o NU function
differently; {nu} itself really does take a complete bridi, for
instance.

> > Could you also say something like {lei caba nandu}?
>
> {caba} is practically the same as {ba} alone, because the tenses are
> accumulative, so both only say "at some time in the future".
>
> > What's the proper
> > tense indicator for "present, and continuing", without implying any
> > termination?
>
> I would say {caca'o}, to me {ca'o} doesn't imply termination, but others
> will disagree (my views on ZAhOs are a bit unorthodox).

> You can also connect tenses logically {ca je ba} now and in the future,
> but I don't think this works very well, it would mean "a difficulty
> that happens now and that will happen in the future".

{caca'o} to me implies continuing both forward and backwards, though
that's not too bad for the present text.  (It seems to correspond well
to English "current".)  Choosing a length of time, one could say {ca
ze'aba}; now and for a medium time in the future.

transient: zasni
freedom: zifre
struggle: damba (fight) {le damba be fa le zifre} {le zifre damba} {le
zifda'a}

Let me be bold and attempt a mini-essay in Lojban.  Corrections &
suggestions welcomed.  The intended translation follows the Lojban.

I use {xe'u} as a vocative for {xenru} ("Sorry, Nick"; "With apologies
to Nick".  This would also be appropriate when informing Nick of his
father's death.).  This seems so obvious I wonder whether it was omitted
for a reason.  Alternatively, I could say {xenru doi nik.}.

.ni'o ta'o le se pinka be de'u cu cmalu le selkup gi'eku'i vajni le
selsku be la martin. lutr. king .i ky basna lenu le damba befi le zifre
cu na bazi zasni kei .ije le krefu cu vajni .i pe'i lu cazi li'u poi me
la nik. ti xe'u. nik. toi cu fliba le krefu seja'e ti'i lu zi li'u le
damba cu temtor .i lu ze'eba li'u go'i seja'e ky nupre lenu le
nuprytutra be'a klama .ije le ky se senva cu be'a jetbinxo .ije le nandu
be'a selsisti kei .izu'unai pe'i lu caze'aba li'u te snada le cmasmuni
be zoi gy. today and tomorrow .gy

This point, though small, is important to Martin Luther King's text.
King emphasizes the non-transient nature of the struggle for freedom,
and it's important to replicate that.  In my opinion, Nick's {cazi}
(Sorry, Nick) misses the mark, as {zi} implies a short struggle.
Something like {ze'eba} also fails, since King assures us that the
Promised Land _is_ coming, his dream _will_ come to pass, and the
difficulties _will_ end.  {caze'aba}, on the other hand, seems to
capture the nuances of "today and tomorrow".

{.uo.o'u}
Question: is the {kei} in the third line necessary?  Any
terminators/parentheses I'm missing?
Did I refer to multiple assurances correctly?  It seems odd.

I wish I knew how to vary my Lojban diction a little more, but I
suppose that will come.

> > But I would appreciate some grading of the texts, for ease of reading,
> > etc.  (Or at least a date, to get an idea of the development of style.)
>
> I might try to do some classification of the texts that have appeared
> on the list, but it will take a while. In any case, practically none
> of them are error-free.

If you could do that, it would be very helpful.  I understand about the
errors; unavoidable in a young language.  Just a list of good texts for
beginners would be excellent.

Your {le gunse ku joi le lorxu} was nice; the grammar was relatively
straightforward.  I'll agree with John Cojban and call it a {jimpi frili
lisri}.

> > mi rapygau lenu mi ckire

This bothered me after I wrote it; I'm referring to the repetition of
thanks, but not actually doing it.  Could I say

        mi ckire sei rapli

and if so, how would I quote it?  Perhaps

        mi ckire to rapli toi

would be better.
[Update:
        ku'u mi ckire
is exactly what I want.  {krefu} is probably better than {rapli} above.]

> mi gleki le nu sidju

.i le nu sidju cu tcexamgu

> > fe'omi'e. dilyn. TRS,ton.
> > (Doubtless I could omit the capitalization with the revised stress.)
>
> Without capitalization, the stress falls on the "o", I think.

OK, if you say so.

> co'o mi'e xorxes
>

co'o. xorxes mi'e. dilyn. TRSton.