Good that you asked for help!
Okay, let’s start with the most serious mistakes: Grammatical mistakes.
First, missing articles:
> a1. .aunai snime cu carvi le cmana
Not grammatical. “snime” is probably missing a “lo” or “loi”.
> a5. .i tcima cu simsa le mi menli sevzi
“tcima” without article …
> b5. .i cusku na selxanka mi
again, no article for “cusku”
Remember: All sumti have to have an article. The reason for this:
Otherwise they would look like the brivla (the predicate word) and it
would not be possible to tell predicate word from sumti apart.
Different grammatical failures:
> a2. .i vi claxu lo pluta
> Here there is no path.
“vi” expects a sumti after it to indicate the location.
Without that, the sentence is not grammatically correct.
But you can “vi” also without sumti, if you use a “ku” after it.
(“vi ku”). This means something like “around here, you know what place
I am referring to” (I guess).
I am not sure with this one:
> c0. .i benji lo mi vlipa lo loldi fu ti
> My power is transfered to the ground via this.
Careful! “lo mi broda” is the same as “lo broda pe mi”.
And “pe” is only weak association. I am not sure if you wanted this.
A stronger association needs “po” (if you meant it that way) and can
not be shortened.
Additionally, “lo vlipa” already refers to the powerful one, so it
should be “lo se vlipa”. Since the powerful one is already part of the
“vlipa” predicate, you can, much more elegantly, use “be” instead to
refer to an argument of the sumti. So:
“lo se vlipa be mi” or, condensed “lo selvli be mi” (“The power of me”)
Poor tanru:
> c9. .i curmi snime
> The permitted snow.
Nope. “lo curmi” is the permitter. So this tanru would probably more
mean something like “the permitter snow”.
The permitted thing is “lo se curmi”. So:
“.i se curmi snime” or, condensed: “.i selcru snime” for
something like “permitted snow”.
But apart from that, as an observational it is perfectly OK.
> d2. .i lo pa bisli spoja pensi cu dunja
> One frozen exploding thought congeals.
“lo pensi” refers to the thinker, not the thought. The thought is “lo
se pensi”, or short: “lo selpei”. So I suggest:
“lo pa bislu spoja selpei cu dunja”
> b9. .i lono jitro terpa cu pagre fi mi .u'e
> None of the controlling fears enter the wondrous {.u'e} me.
“lo terpa” is the fearer, “lo se terpa” is the fear.
Use something like “jitro se terpa”
Semantical problems:
Missing NU cmavo:
> a4. .i mi simlu lo turni
x2 needs to be a property, sorry.
> a7. .i ko na curmi lo viska
x2 must be a event, therefore “lo nu”
Obviously misunderstood cmavo:
> c2. .i .ia zi'o marde fi mi
> .ia non-existant are morals applying to me.
This is not how “zi'o” works. This word is intended to remove a place
from a predicate. This does not mean the thing in question does *not
exist*. Removing a place from a predicate means you simply do not make
any assertion about it. In fact, you automatically create a new
predicate by using “zi'o”.
A probably more intuitive example may be “latna”. It’s defined as:
“x1 is a lotus, plant/flower/herb of species/strain x2 symbolizing x3
to culture/religion x4”.
While there are certainly lotus flowers which mean something to
someone, I don’t want always to imply that by using “latna”.
If you say “ti latna”, you say: “This is a lotus of some species, which
symbolizes something to some culture”. But what if I just don’t care
whether this flower does mean anything to some culture? Then I can use
“zi'o”.
“ti latna fi zi'o zi'o”
= “This is a lotus flower of some species.” (This carries no assertion
about culture whatsover)
Btw: I invented the word “atna” as a shorthand for “latna fe zi'o
zi'o” :)
If you want to express that something is absent, you probably want to
use “no da” (“nothing”).
Other semantical problems:
> b0. .i mi facki lo kakne mi
> I discover the ability of myself.
Nope. x2 must be a bridi. “lo kakne” means
What you probably want here is an indirect question (“ma kau”) word.
An indirect question is a way to specifiy something without mentioning
it explicitly, by using question words.
Here is what I suggest as alternative:
“.i mi facki lo du'u ma kau se kakne mi”
= “I discover WHAT is/are the ability/abilities of me.”
Note that the “WHAT” is the indirect question word in English here.
Careful here:
> b7. .i .o'enai mi nelci lo lenku
This means “o'enai I am fond of something which is cold.” (not the
cold-ness as an state!)
> c3. .einai
> Freedom.
Please note that “.einai” is an attidudinal. This is more like
“Freedom!”, you are expressing that you feel free (or so I understood
this attituduinal). Note this means freedom FROM something.
> d5. .i pe'a mi vu cermurse
Quoted directly from the CLL:
“The cmavo ‘pe'a’ is the indicator of figurative speech, indicating
that the previous word should be taken figuratively rather than
literally:”
I don’t think you meant the sentence seperator figuritavely, implying
that you use Lojban’s grammar as a metaphor. XD
I *think* “pe'a” belongs after “cermurse”. But I really don’t know.
The CLL is not very clear on how to use “pe'a”.
Questoins:
> a1: Should I use {lo} in place of {le} here?
It depends. If you meant “cmana” literally, use “lo”. If you meant “the
thing which I describe as mountaion but is not neccessarily actually a
mountain”. The “le” is useful if you want to refer to something but
just quite don’t know which word.
Please note I am using an accepted proposal called “xorlo”
here. Please read up on it, it is NOT documented in the CLL!
> a3: Is {loi} correct here? or should it be {lo} or {lo'i}?
“loi” is correct, as you are obviously referring to the people as a
mass. You don’t care about the indivuduals here (“lo”)
> a7: I am made to understand that it is ok to use {ko} to command
>oneself if the context makes this usage evident.
This is okay. If everything fails, you can always use “doi” to
explicitly say to whom you are talking to. Although it sounds funny to
say “doi mi ko co'e” but it is certainly possible. (“O me, do this!”)
> a0: Is {ri} used correctly here?
Yes. “ri” refers to “le tcadu” here.
> b4: Did I get any sumti places mixed up here?
No.
> c2: Can {zi'o} be used in this way?
No. I discussed the reason above.
> c3: The problem is that it technically modifies {mi}, but there is a
> pause in the song, so it should be ok, right?
No. It is still part of the same text, therefore part of the same song,
and therefore a seperation is required, otherwise, it sticks to “mi”.
It does not MODIFY “mi”, it just means that you have this particular
feeling of freedom towards “mi”.
> d3: Is {noroi} used correctly here?
> d3. .i mi noroi xruti lo sevzi lo purci
> I am never returning myself to a state from the past.
Yes. “roi” means “n times” and “noroi” literally means “zero times”.
Note this sentence is vague on the time here. I don’t know if
this is intentional.
Note there are also other ways to say “never” in Lojban.
But now I am to lazy to comment the rest of your text and answer the
rest of your questions. There are some other things in the text I didn’t
like, but I just skipped them. :P
I hope it helped anyways.
--
Wuzzy
XMPP:
Wuz...@jabber.ccc.de
E-Mail:
wuz...@mail.ru