repai

[cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn]

Damned if we haven't seen the first occurence of the whole net overturning
one not-unweighty (ti'ezo'o) Lojbab.

I'm damned anyway, of course.

earth. "ce" or "a".

> mulno fa le tsani .ebo le terdi .e piro loi jenmi girzu pe ri

I wondered about "ebo" - it looked as if you were trying to group, which
is significant syntactically but not, I think, semantically, since "e"
is associative. Having read your note about "ri" I see what you were
trying to do, but I'm dubious whether it works.

I'm very dubious about "jenmi girzu" - I only know the word "tz'va'ot"
in this context, so it could be that your translation is accurate, but I
would much prefer to translate it as "so'irmei" or "(so'ir)xabju".

> . . .  I am fond of using afterthought
> possessives (as oppoed to"le vo'a tarmi"), especially here where it's
> actually a place, and because in Hebrew the possessive is a declension
> affecting chiefly the end of the word also, or else another word
> afterwards.  Besides, you can be so much more specific with "po/po'e/pe" if
> you use afterthought.  Note also that I had to attach the "ta'i" to "loi
> remna" otherwise you get "'god' is-a-creator...with-form...", which again
> isn't what we want.  Is there a better way to do this?

I agree about the afterthought possessive, particularly here.
Another way to do the "ta'i" is
        .i tarmi be vo'a finti fa la cevni loi remna

I can't see a way to get the word order as the original though - "co"
won't do, because he is a "finti" not a "tarmi".

> .i seri'a loza'i se tarmi le tarmi be la cevni cu finti fo'a (???)

I would definitely prefer a "kei" before (or instead of) "cu" - this
was about the hardest line in the whole passage to make sense of - in
fact, first I thought the whole sentence was a tagged sumti, then I missed
the fact that everything up to the "cu" was governed by the tag, and
thought "le tarmi" was the x1. What you've written is grammatical, but
it confused me.

> Again remembered "vo'a".  Is it okay to use it inside a "noi" clause to
> refer to the x1 outside, or does that have to be flagged?

Seems right to me.

>
> .i cesto'edapma (/?!/) fa la cevni le zemoi djedi gi'e cesri'a ri ki'u lenu
> ca ri cadysti piro lei se gunka poi la cevni cu finti je zbasu
> Holy-opposite-of-curses "god" the seventh day and holy-makes the-last
> justified-by the-event: during the-last idly-ceases all-of the-mass-of
> that-worked-on which-rest. "god" invents-and-makes.
> Again that "blesses" lujvo.  Should that be "poi" or "noi"?  Is it okay to
> use "ri'a" in "cesria", or do I need a different causative?

How about "cesygalfi" (don't know the rafsi offhand)?

                Kolin
                        c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk