Re: JBO: CONLANG: Conlang Travelers's Phrasebook

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>>>>      .i do mo
>>Since this is a stylized greeting question rather than a serious question to
>>determine the listener's health or happiness, the vaguer the better.  Another
>>good question might be "pei", or perhaps since it is a greeting "coipei".
>Would "pei" not question the attitude to being greeted, or as Huckleberry
>Finn would say, "Hello yourself and see how you like it."

Perhaps for coipei.  In which case "coi .ipei" would work.

>> > > 7. Where is...
>> >      .i ... zvati ma
>> For these to work you'll need either "cu" before "zvati" or
>> "ku" after each of the alternatives, otherwise you'll get
>Yuck!  In my defence I will say that the fill-in-the-blank order is to blame.
>This does highlight that "cu" is probably the most difficult particle to use
>in jbobau.


Not really.  If in doubt use it.  The only time it is forbidden is when there is
 NO sumti before the selbri, tagged or otherwise.

Alternatively, in the context of your phrasebook, each "le" description
sumti
could have the "ku" on the end in which case the "cu" is not needed.  But extra
"cu"s are commonplace.

>> >> > 12. I don't speak [language X] very well.
>> >>       .i mi na certu lenu tavla folo jbobau
>> >  "mi na certu se jbobau" or even "mi na certu lojbo".  DOn't forget
>> mi xlajbopli
>> mi xlali lobypli
>You really do love lujvo.  How about:
>
>.i mi se jbobau fi'o na'e certu
>   I am Lojbanic-be-languaged other-than expertly

I DON'T love "fi'o", and being an English speaker, yes I am prone to
brevity and coining new contraction words for frequent concepts.  Anything
in a phrase book is almost by definition a "frequent concept" and hence will
tend over time to be lujvo-ized.  Also, the phrasebook user will prefer
a less intimidating brief sentence to something that is perhaps more
semantically specific at the price of wordiness.

>> I agree with these, though I would say it more aphorismically
>> loi jboklu na'o to'e donklu
>> The Lojban culture is typically opposite your-culture.
>"to'e" is a bit strong.  "na'e" would be more appropriate.  Pronominal
>tanru!? .iisai

We put the rafsi in there specifically for this type ofproblem.  It is an
alternatve approach to the multitudinous culture words, since in most cases
culture words are being used in coversatio to talk about my culture, your
culture or ko'a s (some specific person or person's) culture.

>> >     .i lu ... li'u cmene mi
>> Actual usage is  "mi se cmene zo/lu...li'u"
>Surely that usage is influenced by English.  The gismu puts the name first
>and I colour my usage correspondingly.

I understand and you could be right, but italso could be the start of selcme
becoming a more used word than cmene because the word order is more
appropriate.  the reason ofr the Lojban word order is NOT because that is
a more useful order for bridi based on cmene, but because "le cmene" is more
used than such bridi.

Not allsentneces change word order to mathc English.  Only cmene, cumki, and
cfipu that I can think of have usage patterns strongly different from the
x1 selbri x2 norm.  (lakne, probably also, would be because of the parallel
with cumki, but it hasn't seen as much use).  We argued this on Lojban List
a while ago, and And, I think, said that "cumki fa le nu ..." was not
necessarily because it parallelled the English phrasing, but posited another
reason - maybe it was heaviness of phrase.

>> >> 5. I am lost.
>> >     .i mi na djuno ledu'u mi zvati makau
>> Actual usage has been one of the following
>> mi pu cirko mi
>> mi se cirko
>> cirko mi ti
>I was very tempted to use "cirko" myself, but it has got to wrong in this
>context.  It doesn't make any sense that one loses oneself at some place
>because one will always have one's body.  The exception is astral
>projection and the spirit becomes detached from the body and can't find the
>way back.

This comes down to what the word "lose" means.  Obviously in English, one
can be "lost" without astrally projecting.

But your argument only kills the first of my 3 suggestions.  The other two
leave the "loser" place unspecified, which is what English does as well - when
you say you are lost,no one asks who lost you %^)

>> >> 18. How much do we owe you...
>> >      .i mi'a dejni ma do...
>> Add attitudinal ".ei" after dejni, and probably other attitudinals
>> after the words for meal/room/things-broken appropriate to the situation.
>I don't think that ".ei" is necessary.  Obligation is implicit is the
>relation of "dejni", why re-state it?


I think that is a cultural assumption.  People do borrow without serious intent
to pay back.  Butthe English is not clear as to the context, and one might
use "How much to we owe you ..." when there is less certainty that there is an
actual debt to be paid, as for example when someone has done you an unsolicited
favor.  In which case ".ei" is making it clear that you are using the word
debt there BECAUSE you feel an obligation.  Otherwise "how much do I owe
you" should be stated as "What is the price of this transaction" based on
vecnu or canja or pegji.

IN any event, I am promoting the use of attitudinals because they are an
important part of the language for conveying subtext.   Never assume that a
debt implies an obligation.  Use bilga or ".ei" if you wish to talk about
obligation.   Use degji to talk about an presumably agreed amount to be paid
at some later time.


>> jdima ki'a
>> price (please clarify?)
>Yes, it's difficult to know how closely to translate this without falling
>into the trap of idiomatic expressions.  I thought of adding:
>  .i ke'o fe ma go'i
>What does:
>  .i fe ki'a
>mean?

Contetx dependent of course.  But it is asking for some clarification referring
to the x2 tag or the x2 place of some predicate.  Either you did not hear the
x2 or for some reason the stated or implied value of x2 seems to be confusing.
Perhaps it makes no sense, perhaps you did not hear it correectly, perhaps
it should have been someother place than x2.

But jdima ki'a is more clear for the general problem because you are not
clear what the price relationship is.  It matches exactly the ellipses in the
English.

>> >      .i fi'idaido'u ki'e .i lenu mi'a vitke cu pluja mi'a .iku'i .ei mi'a
>> >      xruti vo'a .iki'ubo lo vu selzu'e be mi'a vajni jo'u so'imei
>> do'u not needed after "fi'idai
>> since you are following only with more attitudinal and then a ".i", though
>> the do'u does serve kind of as a comma between the attitudinals.
>Yes, I thought that without "do'u" the "ki'e" would attach to the "dai", but
>the jbobanlanli gives:
>    ({<[fi'i dai] ki'e> DO'U} FA'O)
>which I think is saying that "ki'e" is attached to "fi'idai".

It is.  But the meaning of fi'idai is the meaning of fi'i colored by the
discursive quality of dai.  Vocatives are parsed at a different stage than
attitudinals, and hence do not just merge with them in the parens.  But with
this phrasing, omitting the dai gives "fi'iki'e do'u", I believe with no
parens.

In any event it is not clear to me what you are trying to do in spearating and
or joining the ki'e to diferent structures.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";