Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa

[cbmvax!uunet!viikki21.helsinki.fi!VILVA]

>Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:25:18 -0400
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>In-reply-to: CJ FINE's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:34:30 BST

>Colin (>) on me (>>) on Veijo

>>>>.i ji'ipano zutse remna
>>>
>>> This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same
[]
>>Nice point. For consistency, ".i zutse remna ji'ipanomei" or
>>".i zutse remna selkancu fili ji'ipano", or else
>>".i kancu le zutse remna li ji'ipano" (I rather like this one)

>Those work.  I'm not dead-set on changing what's there, since that
>works well for me also, but if we really wanted to avoid selbri-less
>jufra (which I think are to be avoided in general, though not
>necessarily to the point of fanaticism),

  I agree. I think in belles-lettres we'll have to flex a little bit.

>I'd probably rather expand the tanru in the simpler way:
>
>.i ji'ipano remna cu zutse
>
>Or, keep the tanru and do something like
>
>.i zvati fa ji'ipano zutse remna
>
>Whatever.

 or

   .i selzvati ji'ipano zutse remna


>Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:57:32 -0400
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>In-reply-to:

>>Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:34:44 -0500
>>From: VILVA%VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>Connotations are fine in describing the place, in the objects you
>put in there, etc., but if you call something by what it isn't,
>people won't know what you're talking about.  {ckafyzda} would imply
>maybe the home of a coffee grower (rotten lujvo for it, though), or a
>coffee-colored house (also not so great), or a place where coffee
>lives (decent lujvo)--- yes, that's probably the most likely
>interpretation.  Just as {remzda} is used to mean "house" (i.e.
>typical habitation of human beings---some cultural bias there, no?),
>{ckafyzda} seems to conjure up some kind of habitation for coffee (as
>if it were a living being).  Maybe those big burlap sacks that coffee
>beans are kept in, or a cannister on your shelf.  In either case, the
>word would be very poetic, but more for its implication that coffee
>"lives" anywhere than for connotations of hominess on {zdani}.

  I get the point.

  I'll switch to using {ckafybarja}. This takes care of one half of
  the problem. The lone {zdani} still remains to be replaced.
  I'll give up the connotations and bring things closer to focus
  with {sriku'a}. OK?

>>>>.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.

>>  Was built along the lines indicated in 'Imaginary journeys'

>Yes, tense probably works.  Though I've been thinking that {na'e}
>might not be the right negator.  "I was other-than-a-smeller-of it1
>(the smell of coffee)" --- well what were you of it, then?  Maybe an
>emitter?  {na'e} usually implies negation to somewhere else on the
>scale, but there's not much of a scale in {sumne}.  Really what
>you're saying is that the relationship of {sumne} didn't hold for you
>and {da} (in whatever tense). You smelled other things, and {da} was
>smelled by others, and you had other relations with {da} (you thought
>about {da} perhaps), but that particular relationship didn't hold.
>That's precisely the sort of negation provided by {na}, if I remember
>the negation paper properly.  I think {na} might be a better negator
>here.  Any other notions?  Is {na'e} really better?

  The tense was the reason I used {na'e}. If you put in {na} and
  export it to the prenex you get:

     naku zo'u mi ca ze'upu sumne da

  which isn't the meaning I want (?). Now afterwards reading the
  negation  paper, I think I ought to have had {nai} instead of
  {na'e}:

     mi ca ze'upunai sumne da

  and including the attitudinal:

     mi ca ze'upunai.oi sumne da

  Satisfied?

>>>.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.
>>
>>  Wanted to have a mass of beverage-type coffee, not the event of
>>  drinking. The time for that comes later, after contemplating the
>>  stuff.
>
>I dunno.  I may have the wrong mental image of {pinxe}.
>
>~mark, tea-drinker.

Used to be a tea-drinker myself but Finland is one of heaviest
coffee drinking countries in the world and getting a decent brew
of tea turned out to be too much of an effort in the long run so
I gave up around the age of 25 and started drinking coffee. I still
enjoy properly brewed decent teas, though.

Now about {loi selpinxe ckafi}. Does it bring to mind the beverage or
the coffee beans/powder the beverage is made of? I had the beverage
in mind and I want to have the gismu {ckafi} in a position where I
can tack the attitudinal on it. Well, now I have it : {loi selpinxe
co ckafi.au}. What do you think? Better? Or was it you just couldn't
imagine someone thinking more the beverage than the actual act of
drinking? Many a time have I been sitting and enjoying the fragrant
smell of tea, this being an essential part of the total enjoyment
when the tea isn't just something nondescript. Same goes for coffee.
There are brews and BREWS. And think of the Japanese tea seremony,
to take an extreme example. In the seremony the act of drinking is
really almost superfluous.

------------------------------------------------

Unless someone finds something really wrong with the following,
it will be the final version of this first trial fragment.


   le la vei,on ckafybarja srinuntroci xipa xire

ni'o sriku'a
.i ckafybarja
.i mi zvati le vorstu gi'e terpanci loi ckafi da.uicai
.i mi ca ze'upunai.oi sumne da
.i mi dzukla le jbustu gi'e ctacarna
.i rancindu jubme
.i seldandu lo vrici to'erninda'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a
.i selzvati ji'ipano zutse remna
.i ckafypatxu fi lei mudri
.i vrici
.i mi visfacki fi pa lo poi loi remna na zutlamji ke'a ku'o jubme
   goi ko'a
.i mi co'a zutlamji ko'a
.i ko'a lamji le nunjupca'u
.i le jukpa cu selviska gi'e jukfinti de.a'ucu'i
.i mi pensi.a'e loi selpinxe co ckafi.au
.i ckafypanci fi mi.ui
.i ckafypanci
.i .ui.o'u
.i sriku'a


ni'o la mark. .e la kolin. .e la nitcion. selckire mi loi pinka .e
     loi nunsidju

     co'omi'e vei,on
------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi