Re: TEXT: Imagist

[Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>]

And asks:
++++++++++>
if you are willing to send me a properly terminated version
I'd be grateful.
>+++++++++

I thought I had (but have since deleted my mail).
Here it is, anyway.

Tu'i [le tcana po'e la metro ku]
   Te zgana [le'i flira di'o le preso'i] .i
   Rulpezli [di'o le sefta [le jimca poi xekri gi'e ba'o se carvi]
i se zbasu mi .e la'o poit. Ezra Pound poit.

As I surmised, and you confirmed, it should be 've zgana'

And further asks:
+++++>
I had misunderstood the rules for la cmene: I thought a la cmene could
have the morphological form of a gismu without there being any such
gismu. But this apparently is not so.
Incidentally, can anyone suggest a lujvo for "la cmene" (as opposed
to "cmene" and to "cmene zei valsi")?
>+++++++++

See my explanation in my comments on Rob's roller skate. There
is confusion between a name word (cmevla) and a naming structure
(za'e cmeterge'a).

In another posting And moans:
++++++++>
If there were a SOhV for "plurality" it would indeed be appropriate.
>++++++++

All the SOhV are 'plurality'  (with the possible exception of
so'a, which is a bit different). You seem to be complaining
that lojban forces you to be either too vague (no number) or
too precise (choose a SOhA).
But that is a choice which is often forced on you when translating
to another language, and particularly often in Lojban.


co'omi'e kolin