le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

Way to go on the first crack at the ckafyzda, Veijo!  Looking good.  Some
comments, as I try reading it:

>Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:26:21 -0500
>From: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
>X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu

>ni'o zdani

I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice.  {zdani} implies
some sort of dwelling-place, and you're leading into this with these
observatives as "A house.  A coffee-house...", where habitation isn't
implied.  For that matter, is {ckafyzda} malglico?  It expands to {ckafi
zdani} == "coffee-ish nest/house/bivouac/dwelling-place".  Most coffehouses
aren't inhabited by anyone, they're solely places of business.
{ckafyzarci} implies a more of a store where you buy coffee beans to me, so
that's no better, and {ckafybriju} is right out.  Aha!  {ckafybarja}!
That's really *much* better, I think.  {barja} even has a place for what's
served, which is filled, in the lujvo/tanru, by {ckafi} (though other
things may be served as well).  I think this is an important change to
make, even if {ckafyzda} has acquired some sacredness.  It's only a week or
two old, and it's broken.  Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}.

>.i ckafyzda
>.i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai

"I am-at the door-place [doorway] and am-a-smell-receptor-of
[smell-emitted-by] mass-of coffee [smell being] x1"

Whoa!  Took me a long while to work out how that works.  Sentence seems to
be redundant, but somehow manages actually to sensibly bind {da}, making an
existential claim at the same time.  Confusing, but very clever, and rather
uniquely lojbanic.

>.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da

I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time-interval
past)"..?  Oh, "it's now a long time that..."  Hrrrm.  I let John Cowan be
the judge of that, if he gets a free moment.  I believe, though, that {da}
gets unbound between sentences (except at ijeks), so you should either have
an {.ije} there or use some other sort of anaphora to get the smell.  You
could probably just ellipsize it entirely and get the meaning across fine.

>.i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna

Not sure what {ctacarna} really implies, but I get the gist.

>.i rancindu jubme
>.i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a

*sigh*.  This is such a common mistake something should be done.  A selbri
can't take {noi}.  You can't use it this way in an observative.  Use {gi'e}
or something.

>.i ji'ipano zutse remna

This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same as the
previous observatives.  Observatives are sentences with selbri but no sumti
(or at least no x1 sumti).  The x1 is considered to be ellipsized, so
"jubme" is "(something unspecified) is a table".  This is a sumti with no
selbri, since it's quantified, and would likely be interpreted as "about 10
sitting people (do/are something unspecified)", which to me has a slightly
different meaning.

>.i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri
>.i vrici
>.i mi visfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme
>   goi ko'a

Zow!  That's good.

>.i mi co'a zutlamji ko'a
>.i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u

"event-of-cooking volume"?  Maybe {jupkumfa}?  It *is* a room, after all,
isn't it?  Not sure the {nun-} is necessary, but it's not badly placed.

>.i le jukpa selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i

This isn't quite grammatical.  {le jukpa selviska} is a sumti, and you
can't have a {gi'e} inside or after only sumti with no selbri.  I take it
you wanted {le jukpa cu selviska}?

>.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe ckafi.au

Thinking about drunk coffee?  Maybe.  I might be thinking about {le nu
pinxe loi ckafi} or {le nu ckafi pinxe} or something, but not likely about
a mass of drunk-type coffee.

>.i ckafypanci fi mi.ui
>.i ckafypanci
>.i .ui.o'u
>.i zdani

Neat ending.

~mark