Matt Arnold

From Lojban
Revision as of 17:00, 4 November 2013 by Gleki (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Section 3.1

> > >le jmive noi cpana le stizu cu traji lo ka barda vau

> > > fo ro jmive poi sy pu viska

> >

> > s/ro/lo ro


> They mean the same thing: being bigger than each thing when compared

> seperately is exactly the same as being bigger than all of them.

But x4 of traji is not a thing to compare with x1, it is the lot

among which x1 is the most. If x1 is not among x4, traji makes no

sense. Something cannot be biggest among something else that does

not include it.

> > > .i ze'u ca ro djedi lo ni remna cu banro .i se ni'i bo lo ni

> > > blupinxe cu ji'a banro li se ni'i bo ro lo pu blupinxe zbasu cu

> > > ca vitke pa remna

> >

> > s/li/.i

> >

> > (I don't get the logic of the entailment though.)


> "All those who, in the past, possessed vampires are also currently

> doing so."

I read:

During all days, the amount of humans grew.

Therefore, the amount of vampires grew also. (ji'a is misplaced BTW, it

says that the amount of vampires grew in addition to doing something else.)

Therefore, every past vampire maker visits exactly one human.

I don't get either of the entailments. Why does more humans necessarily

entail more vampires? Why does that entail that each vampire maker

visits exactly one human?

> > > .i sy ba zi lo nu sanli ne'i le djine cu ganse lo barda neji poi

> > > le vitke cu pilno ke'a lo nu xruti le munje be sy

> >

> > s/neji/nerji

> >

> > I'd say {zi ba lo nu sanli}, or {ba lo nu sanli ... cu zi ganse}.

> > You used displacement magnitude specification after {zi}.


> Huh?

You are using {zi} here to tag a reference point instead of a

displacement magnitude. In other parts you have used ZI to tag

magnitudes. I prefer the latter, but in any case you should

stick to one convention, I think.

Section 3.3

> > > ni'o lo te nuzba cu ba ze'a se preti lo se du'u ta'i ma

> >

> > s/se preti/te preti fi

> > s/ma/ma kau


> I disagree with that last one.  The reporter was asking a question.

{ma} is the author asking a question.

{ma kau} is the author saying that the reporter asks a question

(i.e. it's an indirect question.)

> You seem to have not gotten that that was what I meant by {lo jitro}

> throughout this chapter; is there something I could have done

> better?

I'll read that part again tomorrow.

> > > .i ji'a la'a ta snuti jarco lo diklo be lo jitro

> >

> > {lo diklo be lo jitro}?


> The location of the controller.  Of the spider-demons.  AKA the

> master of puppets.

I think I took that to mean "a locus on the controller". I would

have used {lo se zvati be lo jitro} to refer to its location.

The comment on {diklo}: "[jbocre: indicates a specific location/value within

a range; e.g. a hits b. What is the locality on b that a hits?]"

suggests that {diklo} means "x1 is a locus on x2" but then I don't

know what to do with x3. If {diklo} means "x1 is at or near the

vicinity of x2, within range x3", then you would need

{lo se diklo be lo jitro}, no?

> You seem to have not gotten that that was what I meant by {lo jitro}

> throughout this chapter; is there something I could have done

> better?

I think I thought at one point that the spider creature was lo jitro,

but eventually it became clear.

I found a few more things to comment on:

> .i ko spogau ta

{ko spogau fi ta}, or {gau ko daspo ta} or {ko jai gau daspo ta}.

(I'd probably just use {ko daspo ta}, since I don't see much point

in the separation of events from other space-time objects.)

> .i le nanmu cu simlu lo ka badri gi'e xanka vau sy

s/vau/kei or vau vau

> la'a le nanmu cu fenki gansu


> da'i la'a mi stidi lo nu ko ko kurji .i ku'i mi na gasnu


> .i le nanmu cu cizra je to'e certu gasnu lo nu punji

> lo jdini lo jubme


I suppose {gasnu} is not wrong, but it's odd. "He made

(someone) put the money on the table."

You could also just say {cizra je to'e certu punji}.

Section 3.4

> > > .i ji'a le xance be le ninmu cu mutce ve xrani

> >

> > s/ve/se


> No.

The hand is very much an injury, rather than being much injured?

> > > .i mi na jarco lo drata bangu noi cmima la .gliban. jo'u la .sanban?.

> >

> > s/cmima/mixre ?


> No; each of them speaks one language, but in some cases (read: the

> house cleaner) it's Spanish.

Then I'd say {lo drata bangu no'u la gliban jo'u la sanban}.

If you insist with {cmima}, then you need someting with members

in x2, so probably {ce} instead of {jo'u}.

> > > .i ga'a sy lo nu le jitro cu gasnu lo makfa cu nitcu lo nu da'i ra

> >

> > s/nitcu/se sarcu


> Both are correct; I don't see the difference.

Events don't have needs, that's all.

> > > lu ju'o le fekcrida cu menli vitke lo blupinxe .i se ni'i bo

> > > sipna .i ku'i kakne lo nu za'i cikna binxo ca lo nu menli vitke

> > > lo blupinxe .i la'a la .stefen. gasnu lo nu cikna binxo li'u

> >

> > I don't understand. Who did la stefen wake up?


> The demon that the spiders were stolen from, who is probably a

> possessor of a vampire.

"Certainly the demon possessed a vampire. Therefore (someone) sleeps.

But they can awaken when possessing a vampire. Probably Stephen woke

them up."

Not terribly clear what's going on.

> > > .i cy dunda lo darno po le skori .a bu poi ca'o smaji cisma

> >

> > s/lo darno po/lo fanmo be ?


> The difference being?

Some distant thing pertaining specifically to the rope? If he handed

her an end of the rope, it probably wasn't very far, or did he throw

it to her from a long distance away? And far from whom?

Section 3.5

> > > .i sy cusku lu .y. xu da panzi pa blupinxe joi pa remna li'u

> >

> > Maybe she should ask {xu lo blupinxe cu rorci da lo remna}


> No; panzi is biological specifically, which is what I wanted.

So is {rorci}. I just thought {rorci} seemed more to the point.

> > > .i ku'i lo blupinxe cu ka'e jimve ze'u lo cacra be li so'o no no

> >

> > s/jimve/jmive

> >

> > (I interpret {so'o no no} as something like "several or 00",


> *NO*.  so'o is a digit, IMO, unless used by itself.

Not like {ro ci} for "all three" then?