Re: TEXT: pemci

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Goran:
> >      lo ni fa le vi nanmu cu pinji
> >      vau bancu le lakne zei linji
> >      .i zmabra .i gohu
> >      cu mukti .oirohu
> >      le spepli be lo cmadesminji
> Translation:
> (Amount-of: the-man-here is a penis) type-of
> exceeder of probable-line
> . Bigger. That

Maybe "trabra" might have been better.

> motivates <sexual discomfort>
> spouse-use of vibrator
>
> Comments on the language:
> 1. The {fa} is not necessary (just a 'warning', not an 'error' - if you do C
>    programming - like, dunno if you wanted it there, so I better warn you :))
> 2. I believe you want {se pinji} in the first line...

"fe"

> 3. You better put in a {cu} after {vau}, or replace the {vau} with {ku},
>    else you wind up making a tanru {ni}+{bancu}, and you don't get a
>    complete sentence

Quite right. "Ku" it should be.

> 4. Your use of {linji} is metaphorical - doesn't work for boundary (sorry
>    to ruin your rhyme) - {linji} is 1-dimensional, continuous set of points.
> 5. I find {spepli} quite vague for a lujvo - tanru would be quite OK.

Poetic licence. "Linji" would be better "korbu", if you take it as
"beyond the bounds of probability"; or you can take it as "off the end
of the scale of probability". As you say, it's a metaphor, & NB it was
LE linji, not LO linji, so no solecism there, I hope. "spepli" is vague
for a lujvo, but lojban does insist on eating up the syllables, so lujvo
it had to be. "Cmadesminji" is too vague for a lujvo, too.

Thanks for your comments. Do they have limericks in Croatia?

---
And