Re: CONLANG: Introducing _The Babel Text_

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> > > > 5A.  But the Lord camedown to see the city and the tower that the
> > > >      men were building.
> > > i kui lo pa Cevni cu nitkla fau lo mukti be lo dahi nu voa catlu le
> > > tcadu e le galdiu gie cao se zbasu be koa
> > Isn't {mu'i} better than {fau lo mukti}?
> My reason was that {fau lo mukti} explicitly says that it's the
> nitkla event that is the mukti. {mui} is vaguer.

But the coming down is not the motive to see the city! It's the other
way around: seeing the city is what motivates the coming down.

> See above. I suggest {ro remterdi}, where remterdi = x1 is a portion of
> the earth's surface - or something like that.

I can't even guess where that rem comes from. I suppose it is not {remna}.

> Incidentally, I was delighted that you kept writing {zmadu} for {zbasu}.
> Stupid mistakes like that are usually made only by me. Even Jorge
> kae se snuti srera, I thought to myself.

oi! It is not the first time that I do that. I would never use {zbasu}
instead of {zmadu}, but I often do it the other way.

> > > > 9A.  That is why it was called Babel -- because there the Lord
> > > >      confused the language of the whole world.  From there the Lord
> > > >      scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
> > > lae diu krinu le nu se cmene zo babel kei fa lo nu ro da poi munje zou
> > > pa Cevni cfipgau ro bangu be da i fe le stuzi gau lo pa Cevni cu
> > > toljmaji fi ro terdi
> > Same comment about toljmaji: fe <-> fi. Also {ro munje} and {ro terdi}
> > are not really the same as the whole world and the whole earth.
> Okay. {ro munje} -> {ro remmunje}, x1 is a part of the universe.

{ro mujypau} then. But were they really scattered to each part of the
universe? Was each part of the universe such that the Lord scattered
them over there? I don't think so, I think you need a mass in the x2
of toljmaji.

Jorge