Re: Questions

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

> 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,

I'm sure And will agree with you.

> though doubtless that would cause to many problems now.

Actually, it is very convenient to have the freedom of using different
word orders.

> 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.

Yes, and so do du'u, jei, si'o, mu'e, pu'u, za'i and zu'u.
The only ones that require a "lambda variable" are {ka} and {li'i}.
(I'm not very sure about {ni}.)


> transient: zasni
> freedom: zifre

That's "free", {ka zifre} would be freedom.

> struggle: damba (fight) {le damba be fa le zifre}

{le damba be fi le ka zifre}

> {le zifre damba} {le zifda'a}

Yes, but {fd} is not an allowed cluster. It would be {zifyda'a}.


> .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

{de'u} is a recent utterance. You probably want {di'e}.
{selkup} is not a valid lujvo, it has to end in a vowel: {selku'e}.

>.i ky basna lenu le damba befi le
> zifre cu na bazi zasni kei .ije le krefu cu vajni

The {kei} is not needed there. I guess you meant the second sentence
to be inside the {le nu}, but it isn't, it's a new sentence.
You could say {.i ky basna lenu le damba befi le ka zifre cu na bazi
zasni .e le nu 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

{ti} should be {to}. {temtor} should be {temto'u}.

Instead of {lu zi li'u} you could say {zo zi}, but that's just a
convenience.

Also, the {seja'e} construction is not grammatical. You need a sumti
after it, so: {seja'e le nu ti'i zo zi le damba cu temto'u}.


>.i lu ze'eba li'u go'i seja'e ky nupre lenu le
> nuprytutra be'a klama

{seja'e le nu...}

{be'a} should be {ba'e}.

(The metaphorical use of {klama} may be confusing.)

> .ije le ky se senva cu be'a jetbinxo

{be'a} --> {ba'e}
{jetbinxo} --> {jetybinxo}  (I would prefer {facybinxo})

> .ije le
> nandu be'a selsisti kei

{be'a} --> {ba'e}
And you need a {cu} to mark the selbri.

The {kei} is wrong. I suppose you want these last two sentences inside
the {le nu}, but it doesn't work. You can only have one bridi inside
a {le nu}.

> .izu'unai pe'i lu caze'aba li'u te snada le
> cmasmuni be zoi gy. today and tomorrow .gy

I don't know about {cmasmuni}. I think {cmalu} only refers to physical
size. Perhaps {tilsmuni}.


> {.uo.o'u}

Great effort!

> 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 think you don't really need to have all of them inside one {le nu}.
Simply removing the {kei}s leaves the meaning understandable, in my
opinion.

> 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}.

I think that it was Chris who said that, but "Cojban" seems like an
appropriate name for John, more lojbanic than "Cowan"  :)


> > > 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.

By saying it you are doing it. It's called a "performative sentence"
or something.

> Could I say
>
>         mi ckire sei rapli
>

I don't really feel comfortable with {sei}. I don't fully understand it.

> and if so, how would I quote it?  Perhaps
>
>         mi ckire to rapli toi
>
> would be better.

There is a proposed new member of ROI, {re'u}, for this purpose:

        mi rere'u ckire
        I thank for the second time.

or:
        mi su'orere'u ckire
        I thank again.


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

{ku'u} --> {ke'u}


co'o mi'e xorxes