History: LNC Errata Chapter 2

Source of version: 4 (current)

! Section 2.1 * lu .ue sai y xu sfasa su'o da lo nu punji ra ti li'u ju'e ** Should be "nu sfasa", I think. * {ni'o py nergau lo tolcitno je mudri vorme .i sy viska lo jinme nerklaji poi li'a citno} ** jinme nerklaji? klaji laj street 'avenue' x1 is a street/avenue/lane/drive/cul-de-sac/way/alley/[road] at x2 accessing x3 * {.i lo nenri vorme cu jinme gi'e za'a tsali} ** Maybe, {vrogai} or {vrobi'u}? * {.i .u'u mi lo ka xanka cu dukse lo nu citka djica} ** If this means "Sorry, but my nervousness is more than my hunger", {dukse} doesn't work here. Don't know what does. * {gi'e kajde lo nu catra da poi na jundi ri} ** fi lo nu * {.e'u ma'a xruti le sanmi kumfa} ** fi le * {gi'e kajde lo nu catra da poi na jundi ri} ** fi lo nu * {.e'u ma'a xruti le sanmi kumfa} ** fi le * {.i ji'a ry sanli gi'e skaci ke midju polgau se pi'o lo xanri skaci gi'e ckire cuksu fi dy} ** s/cuksu/cusku/ What does the first part mean, anyway? ry imitates a Middle Polynesian using an imaginary skirt? * {.i ku'i mi kanpe lo nu do na se spaji} ** kanpe ki'a ! Section 2.2 * ni'o loi ci prenu cu casnu lo na vajni ca'o lo nu xruti le sanmi kumfa ** {xruti fi le sanmi kumfa} * {.i sy zgana lo nu le flira be py cu na'e gleki binxo gi'e rivbi dy} "rivbi riv avoid 'evade' x1 avoids/evades/shuns/escapes/skirts [fate] x2 (event)" ** So {tu'a dy}? * s/sabju/sabji/ * {.i sy cuksu lu mi ka'e} ** s/cuksu/cusku/ * {.i ji'a ry sanli gi'e skaci ke midju polgau se pi'o lo xanri skaci gi'e ckire cuslu fi dy} ** s/cuslu/cusku/ ? ~pre~ > > {ei} shows how the speaker feels things ought to be, not an > > oblgation by the speaker. > > Erm, how do you figure that? Usage, usefulness, consistency, and even CLL supports that interpretation. Usage: that's how I've always used it and that's how I've seen it used too: <Taliesin> do .ei ciska bau la lojban <xod> .ei su'odo rivbi le nu penmi .oi <xod> .ei la tsali cu fanva <zef> ei zo te basti zo to di'u Usefulness: The feeling of obligation on the part of the speaker corresponds to the feeling of how things ought to be when the speaker is the agent, so it is a more restricted sense. There is not much point in restricting {ei} to sentences where {mi} is the agent. Consistency: the whole e-series of attitudinals is used for attitudes of the speaker towards a hypothetical situation. CLL has two examples with {.ei}. The first one is funny: 3.10) .ei mi tisna le karce ctilyvau [obligation] I fill the car-type-of petroleum-container. I should fill the car's gas tank. It is not decisive because {mi} is the agent, although the English translation is wrong. It really should be "I should become stuffed with the car's gas tank". (To be fair, I think the place structure of {tisna} was changed at some point.) But the other example: 11.5) pe'i la kartagos. .ei se daspo [I opine!] Carthage [obligation] is-destroyed. In my opinion, Carthage should be destroyed. clearly shows that {.ei} is about how the speaker feels things ought to be. mu'o mi'e xorxes ~/pre~ ! Section 2.3 * to'u nai jai se srera fai pa valsi po lo ro moi jufra po lo pa moi jufmei po lo 2 pi 3 pi'e 2 moi se fendi i mi stidi lo nu zo marxa cu basti zo maxra * {pa cnebo jinsi jadni sy .i le jinsi} ** jinsi ki'a * s/cuksu/cusku/ * s/maxra/marxa/ ~pre~ > > > fe lu .oi do pu kakne lo nu jdegau mi tu'a le janco > > > > s/jdegau/kajde > > Nope. kajde is non-agentive. {jdegau fi mi fo tu'a le janco} then? > > > .i zo'o nai mi ca ponse pa barda ke skapi ciblu > > > > I think this is pilka more than skapi. > > skapi is the material, it is the pilka once > > it has been removed from the animal. > > I disagree. skapi need not have been removed, and pilka includes > fruit rinds and so on. I'm going to ask the archivists about this. I certainly don't dispute {pilka} includes fruit rinds and tree bark. There are many body-parts that work both for animals and plants. {pilka} is clearly a part-whole relationship. {skapi}, on the other hand, is a product-source relationship, like {silka} and {sunla}. I think gismu place structures should be much more regular than what they are, but in some cases there are very clear classes of place structures, like specimen-species, part-whole, substance-composition, substance-source. {pilka} is clearly part-whole and {skapi} is clearly substance-source. (I'm not exactly sure what to make of Lojbab's response on this.) ~/pre~ Section 2.4 ~pre~ > > > .i ji'a xy rinka so'u da poi xlali > > > > I read this as "also, it causes a few bad things", and was > > expecting to be told what they were. I think what D might > > have meant is that it doesn't cause any important bad thing? > > s/so'u/pi so'u roi/ A fraction of an occasion? > > > lo ni sy certu cu banzu lo nu na birti fa lo nu lo kalte cu > > > mrobi'i > > > > s/mrobi'i/mrobi'o > > > > I don't understand the sentence though. Susan's skill was > > enough to not be certain of a hunter's death? > > Yes. "She's good enough that it's not a certainly that she'll get > one of us killed". > > s/birti/ju'o gasnu/; see if that helps. Hmm, ok. The {fa} is wrong though. > > > .i ku'i ca zi bo ky nergau le citka kumfa to ri vasru vy jo'u sy > > > toi > > > > I think we already knew that V and S were in the room. > > No, we had no idea what room they were in. ... > The goal was: "K entered the dining room, where d & s were". I see. I would have said {noi vy jo'u sy zvati ke'a}, but I guess your phrase is not wrong. > > You seem to use {diklo} a lot, I don't really know what it means. > > x1 is near to x2 within possible range x3 Similar to {jibni} then? But the gi'uste uses "locus". If you look at all the definitions that use that word you get a different idea. > > > .i re makcu remna cu tcetce terpa lo nu lo fagri [...] cu jibni > > > vo'a? gi'e jbini le makcu bi'i le verba > > What does vo'a bind to there? Do we even know? {re makcu prena} supposedly. > > Otherwise we get the fire between between the adults and the > > child. > > Erm, *yes*. That's the point. The child is causing fire to project > from emself towards the parents. "between between"? My point is that {jbini ko'a bi'i ko'e}, with the duplicated "between", is strange. It's {jbini ko'a jo'u ko'e} or {zvati ko'a bi'i ko'e}. > > > ni'o .a'o cai sy ca'o na bajra gi'e ku'i jgari pa makcu gi'e > > > lacpu ri fa'a lo vomre > > > > s/vomre/vorme > > > > "Hopefully, S is not running but grabbing one adult and pulling > > them towards the door"?? > > "with great hope" was the goal. i.e. she's scared out of her mind > but trying anyways. That's not my understanding of how {a'o} works. > > > ni'o sy za'u re'u zgana lo nu lo blupinxe cu ka'e sezymuvgau? se > > > kai lo mutce mutce sutra > > > > s/sezymuvgau/muvdu > > Erm, no. muvdu is not agentive. It's not non-agentive either. It's neutral in that respect. I can understand using {sezmuvgau} when it is for some reason important to emphasize the agentiveness, but not every time. Why don't you say {sezklagau} for explicitly agentive {klama}, or {sezvi'egau} for explicitly agentive {vitke}, or {sezypipygau} for explicitly agentive {plipe}, etc. Anyway, that's just a minor point of style. (You don't need the y-hyphen BTW.) On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 07:32:46AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > .i se ki'u bo ko fargau? le cribe gi'e klama le rirni gi'e > > > > xenru cusku > > > > > > s/fargau/cliva ? > > > > I just didn't know if I needed a y in fargau. > > Oh, you probably meant {dargau} then. {fargau} is from {farna > gasnu}. Oh, no, I meant *bargau*. > You only need a y-hyphen after {r} in {ryr}, every other consonant > is ok after {r}. Cool. > > I want him to be chanting truth tables; suggestions *very* > > welcome. > > You mean you want to express logical notation in plain language? More or less, yes. > The problem is that in Lojban plain language and logical notation > are one and the same (or very close). True, but you still need to be able to say "the cmava .e behaves in [this] fashion" in Lojban, or we have an incomplete language. > {bu'a i ja bu'e} entails, well, {ga bu'a gi bu'e}. You could say > {lo du'u ga bu'a gi bu'e cu nibli lo du'u ga lo du'u bu'a cu jetnu > gi lo du'u bu'e cu jetnu}, but that's like saying {lo du'u bu'a cu > nibli lo du'u lo du'u bu'a cu jetnu}, it's not really related to > truth tables. As long as it's hyper-logical, it fits the story, but that's not really what I was looking for, no. I suppose a Lojban definition of .a that never uses a logical connective would be about right. > > > > .i ji'a le barda ke vlagi ctebi cu tunlo gi'e xunre > > > ... > > > > .i le pinji cu pu tunlo je ke mutce jdari ke'e binxo > > > > > > tunlo ma? > > > > punli again. "swollen" > > I think you forgot to change one of them. But {punli} sounds too > permanent for this. Maybe {se preja}? Good idea. -Robin > > > > > .i se ki'u bo ko fargau? le cribe gi'e klama le rirni gi'e > > > > > xenru cusku > > > > > > > > s/fargau/cliva ? > > > > > > I just didn't know if I needed a y in fargau. > > > > Oh, you probably meant {dargau} then. {fargau} is from {farna > > gasnu}. > > Oh, no, I meant *bargau*. Make the bear be on the outside of what? > > The problem is that in Lojban plain language and logical notation > > are one and the same (or very close). > > True, but you still need to be able to say "the cmava .e behaves in > [this] fashion" in Lojban, or we have an incomplete language. I wrote a definition for {.e} in jbovlaste using {kanxe}. All logical connectives are in a logical sense bridi connectives. The sumti connectives are just an abbreviated form {ko'a V ko'e broda} = {gV ko'a broda gi ko'e broda}, but that is independent of the truth tables. > I suppose a Lojban definition of > .a that never uses a logical connective would be about right. It would have to be in terms of {vlina}. I wrote one in jbovlaste, which can probably be improved. mu'o mi'e xorxes ~/pre~ ! Section 2.5 ~pre~ > Yes, but *normally* things consist of more than their minds; this > one does not. > > How about: > > .i lo nu lo menli be la ctino po'u la ctino cu se daspo cu mintu > lonu ri se daspo s/po'u/no'u and I'll buy it. mu'o mi'e xorxes ~/pre~ * .i se ki'u bo sy pilno lo ckana poi vy facki va'u sy gi'e ba zi sipna ** s/va'u/se va'u/