Re: For And's pleasure

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab (translating from a Loglanist):
>"And worst of all it was impossible to say what you meant.
>
>. i da poi xlalymau ro de du lenu ro nu daxivo cusku daximu poi sinxa
daxixa
>poi termukti daxivo [kei] pu nalcumki

I would rather do "and worst of all" with an attitudinal, perhaps {ji'a oi}
or something like that. Eliminating the suffixes, we're then left with
something simpler to look at:

            ro nu da cusku de poi sinxa di poi termukti da pu nalcumki

The only weird part is {di poi termukti}. I don't see how the meaning
can be any of a motivating event, a motivated event, or a motivated
person, so none of the places of mukti seem reasonable there.

Perhaps introducing a {kei} and changing the order of the mukti places:

            ro nu da cusku de poi sinxa di kei poi da termukti ke'a pu
nalcumki
            "Every event of x saying y meaning z, such that x was motivated
to do it
             was impossible."

With those adjustments I think it makes some sense, although I don't
really think {mukti} is the word to use for "intent".  Perhaps {troci}, or
{zukte}.

> The semantics
>of Xlang were as slippery as a greased eel."
>
>.i le selsinxyciste be xy pu se sakli du'i loi sligygrasygacri finpranguili

Here we could argue whether {selsinxyciste} is a good lujvo for
"x1 is the semantics of language x2", but I find {ciste} to be one of those
slippery-as-a-greased-eel kind of gismu, so I pass.

But I will argue that the use of {du'i} is wrong. BAIs modify the whole
bridi,
they do not attach to any one of the arguments. The sentence as it stands
says something like: {le nu le ciste cu se sakli cu dunli lo finpe} =
"the event of the semantics being slippery is equal to an eel".

Obviously, we want to contrast the eel with the semantics, not with the
event of it being slippery. Or, if you prefer, the event of the semantics
being slippery with the event of the eel being slippery.

So, the sentence should read either:

        le selsinxyciste be xy pu se sakli
        du'i le nu loi sligygrasygacri finpranguili cu na'o
        "The semantics of X were slippery
        like greased eels are slippery."

or:

        le selsinxyciste be xy be'o ne du'i loi sligygrasygacri finpranguili
        pu se sakli
        "The semantics of X, like greased eels, were slippery."

>Do they handle indirect questions in any interesting or useful way?

This was not really an indirect question.

"Say what you mean" can be understood as having either an indirect
question or a relative clause. If you take it as an indirect question, then
your answer should be "I mean that John goes to the market". If you
take it as a relative clause, the answer should be "John goes to the
market". The diference in this case is very subtle, since saying
"I mean that X" is not that different from just saying "X". Indeed,
people usually think they're saying what they mean.

co'o mi'e xorxes