Re: JBO: CONLANG: Conlang Travelers's Phrasebook

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

> >>>>      .i do mo
> Perhaps for coipei.  In which case "coi .ipei" would work.
Yeap, ".ipei" sounds good.

> >> > > 7. Where is...
> >> >      .i ... zvati ma
Exactly there is another thing I missed, it should be "stuzi" for places, not
"zvati".
     .i ma stuzi lo vimku'a
        What is-the-site-of the toilet
Assuming, of course, this is not a Port-a-loo.

> >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.
The rule seems deceptively simple, but it is so easy to trip up.  Another
trap is forgeting "kei" to close an abstraction so that the rest of of the
sumtis don't get swallowed up.  Maybe these should be listed in the FAQ under
"things learner's should beware of".

> >.i mi se jbobau fi'o na'e certu
> I DON'T love "fi'o", and being an English speaker, yes I am prone to
Well I like "fi'o".

> >> >> 5. I am lost.
> >> >     .i mi na djuno ledu'u mi zvati makau
> This comes down to what the word "lose" means.  Obviously in English, one
> can be "lost" without astrally projecting.
In ba'e English.  I don't think there is any place for abusing gismu just
because English does.

> >> mi pu cirko mi
> >> mi se cirko
> >> cirko mi ti
> 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 %^)
    .i lo bende pe mi cirko mi
       The group associated-with me has lost me
This is fine, but it is not the meaning I was translating.  Not knowing where
one is is not the same as being lost by one's group.  I would have used this
if I had meant it.  The zgabri amounts to the same thing, there is something
(not myself) from which I have been lost here.

> >> >> 18. How much do we owe you...
> >> >      .i mi'a dejni ma do...
> >I don't think that ".ei" is necessary.
> I think that is a cultural assumption.  ...  In which case ".ei" is making
> it clear that you are using the word
Again, in this case I am purely interested in how much I owe.  What I do
about is another matter entirely.

> IN any event, I am promoting the use of attitudinals because they are an
> important part of the language for conveying subtext.
Yup, but only where necessary.

> Use degji to talk about an presumably agreed amount to be paid
> at some later time.
How did "degji" = "finger" slip in there?

> >What does:
> >  .i fe ki'a
> >mean?
> 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.
Maybe.  But imitiating English is not the name of the game.

> >    ({<[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.
I am trying to say what I thanking for.  So,

    .i lo xrula ku ki'e
       The flowers, thanks.

would be "thanks for the flowers".

    .i .uudai ki'e

would be "thanks for the sympathy".

    .i fi'idai ki'e

"thanks for the hospitality".

Or not.

ni'o co'omi'e dn.