Re: Questions

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

{ba'e ki'e.} I see I'll need to work on my spelling (really vowel
memory), among other things.

Incorporating the changes and a few more corrections, my little
paragraph would be

.ni'o pi'e ta'o le se pinka be de'u cu cmalu le selkuspe gi'eku'i vajni
le selsku be la martn. lutr. king .i ky basna lenu le se zifre cu baco'a
te damba .ije le krefu be le te basna cu vajni .i pe'i lu cazi li'u poi
me la nik. to xe'u. nik. toi cu fliba le krefu seja'e lenu le damba cu
na temto'u .i lu ze'eba li'u go'i seja'e lenu ky nupre la'e lu le
nuprytutra cu ba'e pu'o zasti .ije le ky se pacna cu ba'e facybinxo .ije
le nandu cu ba'e se sisti li'u .izu'unai pe'i lu caze'aba li'u te snada
le tilsmuni be zoi gy. today and tomorrow .gy

Questions & more notes...

On Fri, 12 May 1995 jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU wrote:
> 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}.

No; I meant "the point above".  Can I use {de'u} to refer to a
non-Lojbanic statement?

> >.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 just meant it as it reads (with the {kei} elided).  I suspect the
referent of {le krefu} wasn't clear--see above.

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

Also, {senva} should be {pacna}, of course.

> > .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}.

I'm not sure; does {cmalu leka smuni} make sense?  {tilsmuni} is better
anyway; thanks.  (You didn't object to {cmalu le selkuspe} earlier, but
I suppose that's more physical.)

> > {.uo.o'u}
>
> Great effort!

Thank you.

> > 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.

Umm.  But then it looks like I'm asserting all those things, which I
don't necessarily want to do.  Does the way I did it (with quotations)
work?

> > 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"  :)

{.o'anairo'a .i xe'u. kris. .i xe'u. djan.}

co'o mi'e. dilyn.