Twery's Trauma, Mark 2 :*)

[cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!nsn]

Now, I hate to go correcting Mark *yet again*, but hey, think of it as an
asymptomatic process %^)

>Date:         Tue, 3 Sep 1991 17:24:32 EDT
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson%CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
>Subject:      Dave Twery's Journal

>.i ca la xanict. ge'u .e vi le ckafyzda beme'e zo .kairos.

No. First, {ge'u} terminates only a term introduced by selma'o GOI, which
{ca} isn't. {pe la xanict. ge'u} would be correct. The {.e} is also
unnecessary (and possibly wrong): you are introducing two arguments to
an elliptic predicate, there is no need to link them (in any case, to link
them you'd need a termset construct, which is tr'es r'echerch'e. So:

ca la xanict. vi le ckafyzda beme'e zo kairos.

>.i mi pupu krici ledu'u le banrtali krasi zoi .tik. mocha .tik.
>I earlier-earlier believe the-sentence the language-italy is-origin-of
>   "mocha"

You left out {cu} between banrtali and krasi. I don't think you needed to
restate the thing; context makes it obvious what you're talking about. I'd
plain omit it.

>ni'o la stiv. jo'u la bet. puze'a klama vi
>(new) Steve in-common-with Beth earlier medium-interval come to here

No, because {vi} cannot be a sumti, but only a sumtcita. What you've said is
"earlier came. This (the whole predication, not what they came to) was at
the same place as something elliptical". This sorta makes sense, but what
you intended was {klama le vizyklo}, or {levi diklo} or {levi zo'e} or {levi
zu'i}. Or something.

>.i seba'i le sego'i ko'e pu lebna leko'e sanze'a la kairos.
>Oh, dear.  I just realized:  Does this conflict with using
>BAI words attached to the sentence link?

Not at all, though {.iseba'ibo} would make a lot of sense.

>ni'o la patsis. klain. cu lu'a sanga la'elu nu cadzu ba le midycte li'u vecu'u
>le zgidribra
>(new) Patsy Cline (loosely) sings the-referent-of "event-of walking after
>  mid-night" in-media music-ribbon-apparatus.

{lu'a} has become {sa'enai} (we've gone from 'loose', not very descriptive, to
inexact, na'e satci. I don't think this predication is that loose.

>.i mi ji'a pu lifri le li'i go'i ca lepu'u mi cilre le banrsperanto
>I (additionally!) earlier experience the experience-of: the-last-sentence
>  during the-process: I learn language-Esperanto.
>This is definitely wrong.  Even beyond any other mistakes, it means that
>writing helped him learn Lojban when he was learning Esperanto.  Maybe I
>should have just ellipsized it; I think the orig. did.

{.iji'a pu go'i lepu'u mi cilre le banresperanto} is adequate.