3 Nepo traci le norsiclai A Trip to the Country.

Fa lepo le fagdua {ga nu fando/pa fadkai guo}, mi{/u}pa fangoi le ckafe. I la Gromxlitc, djadou mi lepo na le nerfucdei {ai/}Gai {/roi}godzi ne cmasitci{,/}ji nu sitfa le farlai.
After the fireworks ended, we returned together to the cafe. And Gromkhlitch tells me that in the next day Gee (Gromkhlitch) intends to go to a village that is situated in the farmland. And Gee goes in order to visit the-Gee parent(s), who happen to live there. And Gee asked me about my accompanying him.
To be a thing with an end (nu fando) and to have an end (fadkai, which I’ve made parallel to sackai, a word made in 03) are not quite the same thing. Nu fando is not incorrect; it works. But fadkai is more precise, don’t you think? Notice what pa fadkai says: in the past, end-had. (But If you don’t like fadkai, go back to nu fando.) In any case it’s wise to end this LEPO-clause with a guo rather than just a comma, though commas alone currently work to end such clauses. But this is a risky feature of the current grammar. It will, I’m confident, turn out to be a bad one. For so long as it exists, a speaker may not pause within what s intends to be an ongoing LEPO-clause without unintentionally ending it! As we move into the world of real speech, and make the kind of punctuation that expresses it a textual option, this will prove to be an awkward feature of the current grammar. Surely pauses must be permitted within LEPO-clauses, especially as they get longer and acquire more complex internal structures. So I’d abandon any personal reliance on this dubious feature in anticipation of its early demise. This is again “phantom grammar” talk from JCB; but as our major novelist, you may find it worth listening to.

RAM: JCB was mistaken here. The grammar has not accepted a comma to end a lepo clause for many years, if ever. A gu works, but guo is preferable.$$
Roi rather than ai. One of the most important uses of the auxiliaries and objective probabilities is to permit objective accounts of 3rd-person behavior.

fagdua: fireworks (FVL.1)
fadkai: B ends/stops/has an end/is finite.
______________________________________________________

— That district is very beautiful. And the village is situated in the middle of the big forest that is near the mountains. And my parent(s) are now very old, and pee (my parents) maintain many old customs, says Gee.
I thank Gromkhlitch, and assert that I will be happy to accompany Gee.
— Ah-wee! says Gee. And we will go together using the-me car.
APL: veu or tie ?
JCB: I think tie is best. The car will be the tool/instrument of their journey. Cutse takes a designation of a bit of speech in its 2nd place; djacue allows LEPO-clauses in its 2nd place but means “know-say”, so is best translated here as assert.. We need a weaker -cue form. How about juircue “opine-say”. I’ll add it to my LOD Edits; please use it here if you want to. But since people often believe they know what their future acts and feelings will be, djacue might actually be better. Also, fa seemed to be called for here. And kingoi is better than godzi kii as a matter of principle. A specific cpx predicate is nearly always better Loglan than the general predicate plus a preposition, which is the E way of doing things. The rest are just some recommended punctuational changes.

juircue “opine-say” : says/opines/expresses opinion...
______________________________________________________

Now on the next day I and another left together from the hotel at nine. And the car of Gromkhlitch is an old and open Jeep-type car. And, in the back seat, two cross-tails are sitting, and the-kays’ (the cross-tails) tongues are hanging out. And kay seem to be excited by the fact of being car-carried. And during my mounting of the car, kay try to lick the-me neck. And Grom hisses and hand gestures, and as a consequence the two dogs lie down.
kasytilba : karsa-tilba : one of the Loglandian dog breeds (see FVL.2)
tongytco : tongu-totco : to lick. (perhaps tongu-satro, or tongu-vlaci ?)
kuvcle: kuvga clesi: open/uncovered, as of a ruin or an open car.
rufcle: trufa clesi: open/roofless, as of a ruin or an open car.
zvopendi: zvota pendi: is hanging out of, as of a tongue or a shirttail.
zbufio: zbuma filmo: explosive-feel: is excited/aroused by

______________________________________________________

— The male dog is named the word Mucrias, and the bitch is named the word Marmos, says Grom. And kay who are the pair adore farmland.
cluclu : experimental reduplicated preda : cluva-cluva : adore

______________________________________________________

Nao {mu/miu}{/dir}traci {veu/}{le/lo}nordi {rutma ja/go}pirle le vrici.
Now I and another together travel (toward the) north, paralleling the river. And, a little later, the city is behind us (me and that other). And the district that is near Garsic has many hills. And here cultivated are many orchards, which incidentally furnish the city with apples and jointly cherries and jointly pears and jointly plums. And in some fields many brown and jointly white cattle were peacefully chewing grass.
It is better to make a new preda to get a semantic variation on an old one rather than use a prepositional phrase; so Ive made you dirtraci, parallel to dirgoi, so you can really say what you want. And dirtraci invites the generality of lo nordi instead of the specificity of le nordi.
Next I used a go-phrase adverbially, that is, as a modifier of the main preda. Thus go pirle le vrici = paralleling the river modifies dirtraci lo nordi. What this implies is that “paralleling the river” is a subspecies of “going north”; as I believe youll agree it is. (This is a feature of L that logli writers have not yet learned to use as effectively as they might. The new, more “liberal” go, if the K adopts it, may encourage them to do so.)
I suggested vi rather than ga for your GA sentence, to give it a bit more sparkle; and in the last sentence lo seemed vague (try it, In fields ...); so I suggested su, matching its indefiniteness to that of the upcoming ro. And I made makzaa for you, for chew or munch. (/zak zaa/ are both still available; so I assigned them to zakra, no competition. Youre allowed to do this, just so it gets into your LOD Edits as 1) one or more new affix entries, and 2) a change in the entry of the prim it affects.)
prune : from Prunus.
makzaa : mouth-grind : K chews/munches B
zaa : an affix of zakra.
zakra : add zak zaa.
dirtraci : direction-travel : travels toward(s)..., a distant target or direction.
RAM: makzaa appears to be in error for chew, munch which I think is more crushing into pulp than crushing into powder, particularly grass. makykraco, though not as pretty a word is more accurate. I am rather surprised as the makzaa in view of JCB's pointing out the difference in crush words just two sentences further on.

______________________________________________________

I, vi ba, mio vizka ne muogru je ro{/cu}ans{e/u}, ice mei nu {glida/krani}to cmalo {/ge}nordjadio kangu, ice niba ji humnu ga kinci mei.
And somewhere we both see a flock (consisting) of (a set of) many geese; and em (the flock) are herded by two small “not-know-direction” dogs, and no one who is human accompanies em. And, when the car nears em, kappa (the two not-know-direction dogs) force the set of geese to walk at the side of the road.
The 2nd place of all “set” words, including set itself and many others like group, forest, and flock, is now to be occupied by designations of its consitutents, e.g., le grupa je nemacu murku the group (composed of a set) of (some) 100 monkeys. Since these constituents are always sets and not multiples, you must use the -cu suffix on any number word you use to designate them indefinitely, as in my use of nemacu above. The constituents may be partial or the sole constituent, as in your rocu ansu, or it may be a set of sets, as in Da gratrigru sucu pansu ze rocu sokcu. = X is a forest of some pines and jointly many oaks. (I’ve just changed the LOD definitions of such words to conform to this new understanding; the superset idea just didn’t work!)
The word for herd is krani, q.v. You need ge because you don’t want cmalo to modify nordjadio directly (what would that mean?). Finally, I think you should use kappa keo to anaphorize the two herd-dogs; it’s available; kei is presumably still assigned to the pair of crosstails, though this is still an unsettled matter you should keep continuously under study as you write.
And oh yes, anse is now of course ansu. (I made the full set, Bob.) And again, if it can be assumed from the structure of a predicate—and it surely can from this one—the 1st arg of a following lepo-clause preda need not be specified.

ans-a/e/i/o/u : geese, in all their variety.
redefined setci, grupa, etc., with constituents (rather than supersets) in 2nd place.
__________________________________________________

— Not-know-directions are very intelligent, says Grom, and enn (the not-know-directions) frequently work alone. And enn herd geese, and sheep, and cattle. And in fact enn sometimes try to herd humans. And have you yet (by this time) eaten Loglandic goose liver? And vee (Loglandic goose liver) is very delicious.
APL: patmi is given in LOD as dough/pasta, so if it is strictly limited to flour paste, then we’ll need another word for paté. Perhaps zakra-mitro : zakrymio, but one needs to distinguish mince/ground beef from pate.
RAM: That was the original intention, but it might be reconsidered.
APL: I’m not sure whether glida is adequate for (v) herd : perhaps grupa-troli : grutro, or nimla-grupa-troli : nimgrutro.
And even ? Is ifeu the nearest we can get? Even implies that what is described is somehow extreme.
JCB: Even has many meanings, only some of which have yet been captured in LOD. In your target E it means unexpectedly. The subjective expression of this in L is ue, which I’ve used above; but use the objective expression, noidau improbably, should you wish to make it part of Gee’s claim.
RAM: The word for herding animals was krani, which JCB strongly opposed for operating automobiles, (despite the fact that in his original L4&5 dictionary, this was given as a meaning of krani). Steve opposed JCB’s bapra for driving since it conveyed no idea of going anywhere, and offered linguistic justification for retaining krani for driving automobiles as well as animals and I have retained Steve’s use of krani in putting L3 on the WWW. However, it is still suitable for animal herding.
JCB: This discussion is over. Steve accepted bapra for drive as in drive a car, and it is so used in L3. In bringing up the L4&5 entry, RAM is apparently objecting to the process of error-correction; I, in contrast, do not mind either finding or correcting errors. Besides, L4&5 was the work of many hands, Bob—those of 37 co-workers, in fact—along with mine.
RAM: Most of the remarks I inserted into these notes while reviewing them for supplements to La Logli.
The above were during initial discussion with APL before the review by JCB. As an aside, I have resisted changes to well-established words while accepting modifications to rarer words as appropriate. I gave up on krani long ago.

rona : often/frequently/many times.
______________________________________________________

I pei nu madzo {veu/sau}lo fungi (or: pei nu madzo ba lo fungi ??)
— And also in France, we (I and others independently) are very fond of goose-liver pulp, say I. And pee (the pulp) is made from source fungi (from fungi as a source).
I made a word for pulp/paté for you: nurkraco. There are two words for crush in L, one for dry crushing into powder (zakra), the other for wet crushing into pulp (kraco); paté is obviously nurkraco. In the next sentence, veu should be sau. But you could also do several other interesting things with this sentence. In addition to the variation you suggest, namely Pei nu madzo ba lo fungi. = Pee is made by someone [probably everyone!] from fungi, you could also, instead of nu-ing the preda, tag both args: Pou pei madzo sau lo fungi. = Product pee is made from source fungi. Or you could use nufu to change the 123 order of the preda to 231, and then drop off the 1. Thus Da nufu madzo de. = X is made out of Y. (I expect that this is the one you’ll like best.) In fact, there are six permutations of the places of a 3-place preda: 123, 132, 213, 231, 312, and 321; and the last five are obtainable by conversion most economically by nufunu (or funufu), nu, nufu, funu, and fu, respectively. Just for the hell of it, I’m putting the 3 polysyllabic words on this list into LOD.
fungi : fungus or mushroom.
nufunu : exchanges the 2nd and 3rd places of a sute-place preda.
nufu : reorders the 1st 3 places of a sute-place preda as 231.
funu : reorders the 1st 3 places of a sute-place preda as 312.

_____________________________________________________

I, oa no, tu {ju mordu/tsubae}titci, ica tu {/fa}frelycea.
— And take heed, I’m warning you, says Grom. In Loglandia goose-liver pate is made from magic mushrooms. And you should not too much eat, or you will go mad.
You need a period and an I here, as with your upper-case V you signalled your intent to begin a new sentence. Ansu again; nurkraco again; sau again; and the word for too much is tsubae sufficient-beyond. (a pretty metaphor!). Finally, I expect Gee is making a definite prediction here, and if so, it should be fa-ed.
APL: ee : experimental new UI, meaning Watch it, I know more about it than you appear to.
JCB: Why not just Caution/Careful/Take care!
APL: While on the topic, what about aa as I see (what you mean). And oo as Hm, I don’t like the idea, but I suppose I’ll have to ?
JCB: I like all three of these words; so just put them—experimentally, as you say—into LOD.

______________________________________________________

Nao, fa lepo miu {/papa}traci nia ne horta {/guo}, miu pa fadgoi le bidju le ranjytrigru. I {pi/}re {lo/levi}tricu ga sokcu, ice letei {nu/}forma ga gutra ze torni. I na riba mio corvia ri cervu ji prano go bitsa {lo/le}tricu.
Now, after we (I and another) had traveled during one hour, we arrived at the edge of the forest. And most of the local trees are oaks, and each of the-tee’s (that of each one of that majority of the local trees that are oaks) form is strange and jointly twisted. And at several times we (I and another individually) glimpsed several deer that are running among the trees.
I suggested papa here because it works well with the following pa. Again, I wouldn’t rely on a comma to close this lepo-clause; use guo as a matter of good (because safer-in-the-long-run) style.

RAM: I see now how JCB was confused about a comma ending lepo clauses. The form is lepo sentence guo, but guo can be elided if the following words do not fit -- the parser inserts a guo when this happens-- actually the guo is necessary in the above. With or without the comma, miu is absorbed into the lepo phrase as an argument of traci. Note, horto is misspelled as horta in Lz Logli$$
l
In the 1st -ed sentence, you want to say that each one of some majority of the multiple of local trees is an oak; re levi tricu says this (see specimens 5-6, p.5 of L3/3 ); pire lo tricu doesn’t (I’m not sure what it does say; perhaps Most of the mass of all trees ?); and re leuvi tricu would have each one of some majority of the set of local trees you have in mind be individually an oak. That is not a very different designation from re levi tricu but it will have different implications when you anaphorize it, as you are about to do. For the multiple made with levi clearly works better than the set when you say that their forms are, individually, strange and twisted. But then you have to decide whether it is the form of each of that particular majority of local trees that you’ve already said are oaks that is strange and twisted—this you can do by replacing re levi tricu with tei, as you in fact did—or the form of each one of some other majority of local trees, regardless of their oakness, that is strange and twisted. What you would have to do then is designate them afresh by repeating re levi tricu. (Repeating an indefinite description does not mean you intend it to have the same designatum. Observe the E sequence: There were three men in the room; some two of them were bachelors; some two of them were taylors. But anaphorizing a designation does mean that the same designatum is afoot.) You don’t need nu in this sentence; both letei forma and le forma je tei work; but letei nu forma doesn’t, Finally, not among trees in general but among the trees.

______________________________________________________

— Lo {/ranjytrigru) cmaspi {je lo ranjytrigru/}{pa/ga}mutce djipo le piplo je la Xias, {e/ikou lepo cei}helba pei, hue la Grom{,/.} I pei pa lidclu cei. I ei tu vizka leva ctimoa {/je}ro{/cu}troku?
{I vi/Vi}le spali je le rodlu ba pa ctimoa ro{/cu}troku, ice ri tei nu pinduo {lo rorkle/rocu}kolro.
— Forest fairies are very important to the people of Xia, because see (forest fairies) help pee (the people of Xia), says Grom. And pee worship see (forest fairies). And do you see that pile of rocks?
On the side of the road there was something that was a pile consisting of (a set of) many rocks, and (each of) a few of tee (of that set of many rocks) is painted with (a set of) many colors.
Why not use just plain forest fairies ? In that connection, I’m tiring of the length and over-explicitness of the LOD word for forest and its metaphor, ”extensive-tree-group”, when something less explicit, like gratrigru or grotrigru or kubtrigru, would make a much nicer word. I’m not going to edit this into your text, Alex, but if you, too, are beginning to feel this discontent, be my guest. I am, however, putting one of these words, the marked one and my favorite, into LOD as an alternative to ranjytrigru This is always an acceptable move—Bob and I decided long ago—whenever a logli sees a better way of saying something said before. Metaphors tend to get better and better over time.
As for the rest, for once I think that timelessness is better; and I think that, as your target E suggests, you should state a causal connection between the importance of the fairies to the people and their helpfulness. Finally, I don’t think you should ever start a non-dialogic para with I.
The two -ed sentences both have problems with -cu in them. Most of the indefinite descriptors designate sets, not multiples. I’ve indicated in my E-trat which is which. Finally, there’s an omitted je, a rare error but a crucial one. Omitting it turns one argument into two.
gratrigru : grand-woods : is a forest consisting of...

______________________________________________________

— I lo laldo pernu ga nua setfa ne nu pinduo troku {vi/}le tovru je le ctimoa, na lepo ba nable, a fatru, hue la Grom{,/.} Ifeu lemi farfu ga narlidydia, ice fei takna lo cmaspi je lo ranjytrigru. I lemi matma ga djano {lo/}ra herba{,/}ji nu plizo {ba}lopo kicmu. I mei lagkuo kicmu.
— And old people are now customarily putting one painted rock on the top of the pile when something is a problem or an annoyance, says Grom. And in fact my father is a shaman, and eff (my father) talks to fairies of forests. And my mother knows individually all the plants used by anyone for doctoring. And em (my mother) is a traditional doctor.
Vi is definitely wrong here, not just redundant; the destination of putting is part of the predicate. Then, if you’re going to talk to someone, don’t they have to be pretty definite? Wouldn’t le cmaspi je le ranjytrigru the fairies of the forest be better than lo cmaspi je lo ranjytrigru? But I’ve left this alone and translated it as it reads. I think you want the maximum multiple here; so use just ra, which means each of all. And you don’t want to pause before a restrictive clause. Finally, you left out the 2nd arg of nu plizu; I’ve put in ba, the minimum argument. Notice that ba can be translated by anyone here. To think about this, spell out the quantifications: all plants x such that someone y uses x for doctoring. You could use raba here; but in that case you’d be saying all plants x such that everyone y uses x for doctoring. But that would apply to mighty few plants!
narlidydia : natra-lidji-ditca : nature-priest, shaman
lagkuo : langa-kusmo : traditional, old-fashioned

_____________________________________________________

Nao mi{/u}pa fadgoi ne groda kapsia, ja sitfa {le lanbie je}ne bilbii vlako. I le cutri ga blanu, ice vi le notbi {spali/bidje je}le vlako ba {pa/}sloslo vrelai. I, via le bidje je le vlako ro pelto irhisi ga rodja.
Now I and another arrived at a big clearing, which is located on the shore of an exquisite lake. And the water is blue; and on the other side of the lake there is a steep cliff. And, along the edge of the lake many yellow irises grow.
You can’t locate a clearing in or on a lake without getting it wet; so I gave your lake a shore and put the clearing on that. You left out a je in the next sentence. Also spali side is not the word you want; bidje side is. (I added side to the bidje entry in LOD, by the way, so that people who come after you will have a choice.) Finally, I took out the pa because it seemed discordant among your other narrative presents in this para. The leading pa is fine; it sets the stage.
kapsia : kapni-sitfa : a clearing, open space
bilbii : bilti-bilti : exquisite (experimental redoubled preda)
sloslo : slopu-slopu : very steep, precipitous
irhisi : ?? iris flowers

______________________________________________________

— Ta bi {le sento vlako pe le Bragardea/la Sento Vlako pe la Bragardea}, hue Grom{,/.} I, coi {lemu/ne lemiu}{hisy/}pipstu, ba pa bragardea go mutce bilti, ice {bei/ba}pa clucea ne spicu {ja clivi/ji spalii}vi {lo/levi}ranjytrigru. Ibuo le spicu no gau cluva, inumoi le bragardea pa selreo levi vlako, e pa flimorcea
— That is the Holy Lake of the Princess, says Grom. And, according to one of our legends, someone x was a princess who was very beautiful, and x fell in love with a spirit who lived in this forest. And however the spirit was unable (strong sense) to ever love, so the princess threw herself into this lake, a drowned.
You can to turn this whole expression into a name, as your target E suggests you want to do, by changing le to la. New LIP will then write the ensuing description, with its modifiers, in upper-and-lower-case. Again, a period, please, before the new sentence. Ne le- works better than le- here, and of course it’s miu you want, not mu. I shortened hisypipstu to pipstu and put it (as an alternative?) in LOD.
With our new scope rules you can now reuse ba in the same sentence with the same referent. You’re giving mixed signals about the next clause. The lack of a comma suggests it’s restrictive; in which case ja should be ji. But the ja suggests it’s not restrictive, that you actually mean who incidentally lived in this forest; in which case ja stays but you should put a comma before it.
Wrong live.; what you’ve said here is that he was alive in this forest. Was it this forest? The one they’d just come from? It would seem so. So why not say that? The rest is fine.
selreo : selji-renro : throw oneself at/into …
pipstu : piplo-stuci : a legend about...among...

______________________________________________________

Nao, faza ta, miu pa fadgoi {lo/le}cmasitci ji nu spalii {lo/leu}penre je la Grom. I lepei hasfa ga nu sitfa le bidje je le rirhasgru, ice hei bitsa ri{/cu}groda sokcu. I miu zvogoi le tcaro, e godzi le darto. I {le/leu}to kangu ga pleprano vivi miu.
La Grom kap{ni/mao}le darto. I hue Gai kraku{,/:}
— Hoi Matm, miu {/na}pa fadgoi!
Now, a little after that, we (I and another) arrived at the village lived in by the parents of Grom. And the-pee’s (the parents’) house is situated at the edge of the hamlet, and aitch (the house) is among a set of a few big oaks. And we get out of the car and go to the door. And the two dogs scamper together around us.
Grom opens the door. And says Gee (Grom), shouting:
— Hi Mom, we’ve arrived!
You probably don’t really mean that you arrived at “a manifestation of the mass of villages” lived in by Grom’s parents. They don’t live in “a mass of villages”! Leu for Lo makes better sense.
Here’s an edit I didn’t execute but would like you to consider. Instead of saying you arrived in a village and then tell us, confusingly, that the village was a hamlet, it would be better to tell us right off that what you arrived at was a hamlet. In this same sentence, ri should be ricu. The things that other things are among or between are always sets. Leu again. (I have the feeling that this was written before the set-multiple distinction was really nailed down, in you or anyone.) Use kapmao for the transitive verb.
RAM: Now they are Longtails! (but just kangu in the L). I will eventually probably have a lot more remarks on your interesting story. I have just given it a quick read up to now, as I am still working on the dictionary and putting L3 on the Web. Speaking of the dictionary, did you ever get my editing addition to work? I use it all the time, and have yet to notice the problems you and Emerson were having. If you have, why not submit some of your words so they can get into the next addition. I look favourably on virtually all of them, and if I have second thoughts, we can defer inclusion of the second-thoughters for further discussion. I have taken the position that silence on a submitted word implies consent, else we would not get anywhere on enlarging the dictionary!
As regards prune, I am not sure that you have prunde in your LOD, but you may have (in LE only since you got an update to the LE side when I sent the editor). However, I don’t think this violates any of our resolution rules; both come from Prunus (prunde is almond)
Added in 2002. The above was a comment of several years ago. Note that rirhasgru is incorrect for hamlet, as rir is the affix for rirda, record. The proper form is riyhasgru when little words not in the set that add 'r' are linked.

rirhasgru : hamlet
pleprano : scamper
______________________________________________________

— Khrrrlkm [Xlang: come in], O Son,” said a voice. Vrrnak-shthm [Xlang: be safe in this place], and drink some cups of tea.
Su is more generous than ne, and would probably be used by a son-welcoming parent.
APL: the transcriptions of the old Xlang phrases that Grom’s parents use, are very approximate. The hyphen represents a glottal stop. The apostrophe represents a glottal click. Vrrnal’cqm can also mean May he rot in hell, as he well deserves, see FVL.2, on the ambiguity of Xlang.

______________________________________________________

— And I am safe in this place, said Grom. “And your tea is [Xlang: fragrant with a hint of skunk].
APL: This is the traditional Xlang response.

______________________________________________________

Now entered an old lady, who is incidentally behaired longly and jointly greyly. And eff (the old lady) bowed to me and loglandically embraced Grom.
— Be a guest in my house, said the mother of Grom. And I am the wife of Snorradin. And I am very happy to meet the foreign friend of Grr’om-xlitc.
She pronounced the name in the old Xian way.
Except for the two commas, I have no edits. But I do have a suggestion about rendering the glottal stop in these Xian words: a close period [.] would do it better than a hyphen [-], in my opinion. I’m slightly prejudiced, because that’s the way we do it—or used to do it—in Loglan phonemics, soi crano, Thus Grr’om-xlitc would be written Grr’om.xlitc. Just an idea.

______________________________________________________

Nao le fasli je la Fum Snorrydin, pa {nu fodliacko (? pa fodliacea)/fodliaflo}, ibuo le{da/Sai}menki ga brili ci blanu ce muvbrili. I Sai respli ne langa ce nu sanydjoso skara, e ne blabi blusa. I Sai fregoi miu le kokykru{, ja cefli kruma je/. I vi}loe loglo hasfa {neba cefli kruma, ice ba kokykru}. I le krukua {/je levi spebi kokykru}ga damni, ice ro drani herba kinsei ga pendi {va/keicine}.
Now the face of Mrs Snorradin was full of wrinkles, but the-Ess’s (Mrs Snorradin’s) eyes were bright-blue and sparkling. And Ess was wearing a long embroidered skirt and a white blouse. And Ess led us (me and another jointly) into the kitchen. And in the typical Loglandian house there is exactly one chief room, and it’s a kitchen. And the ceiling of this particular kitchen is low, and many dry plant bouquets are hanging from kay-sub-1 (the ceiling of the kitchen)
Fodliaflo is certainly better than either of these; I’ve added it to LOD. Leda becomes leSai of course, and later, mu becomes miu. But now you say with the ja-clause that this particular kitchen, the one you have in mind, is “the chief room in the typical Loglandian house”! That could hardly be true. So how do we say this truly? Try “a kitchen is, etc..” That is, in the typical Loglandian house there is a room that is its principal room and it’s a kitchen. That claim cannot, obviously, be made as a modifying clause of le kokykru; so we have to make it differently. I have.
In the next sentence I inserted je levi spebi kokykru to make sure the reader doesn’t think we’re talking about the kitchen ceiling of “the typical Loglandian house”! In the last clause of this sentence I replaced va—which really doesn’t work; it means near this, the point of speech —with keicine kay-sub-one . This is the first subscripted variable I’ve ever recommended a writer use; but I designed subscripting for just such situations as you’re now in. The letter kei is free. It was last used 16 paras ago in Para 8. Surely it’s cold enough by this time to be reused. But here we have a total of three k-initial final descriptive predas to which it could apply: krukua, kokykru, and kinsei. We want to replace the description that uses the first of these, krukua, namely le krukua je levi spebi kokykru, but we can’t assign it the kei from the kei-keo pair because there’s a triplet of descriptions to be dealt with. So we use keicine from the triplet of subscripted letters keicine-keicito-keicite, using the same assignment rule as we use for the doublet kei-keo.
Do you think this is going to work? Let’s try it. But if you want to avoid the whole issue of replacement—and I wouldn’t blame you if you did; it’s a complicated subject—you can of course reuse the first part of any description to replace the whole: le krukua, in this case. Take your choice; but neither va nor ta will do.
fodliaflo : wrinkled/full of wrinkles.
fodliaflocea : becomes wrinkled, full of wrinkles.

______________________________________________________

— Vihu la Far{,/?} hue la Grom.
— Fai kinci la Xrrk{,/}lepo Xai vizgoi le troku ctimoa{. I/, i}moi le{/Xai}merfua {je la Xrrk,/}{/na}pazi nu brana to braseidjo. I la Far{,/}fa fangoi na le midmia{./, hue Sai.}
— Where’s Dad ? says Grom.
— Eff (Dad) is accompanying Xrrk in Eks’s (Xrrk’s) visit to the stone-pile because Eks’s wife has just given birth to two twins. And Dad will be back for lunch, says Ess.
I’ve removed 3 post-name commas, inserted a ‘?’—we can count on New LIP’s listening for signs of questions and punctuating accordingly—and repunctuated and de-capitalized imoi. Imoi’s an ICA, not an I-word. Just how we will recognize when a speaker does want Imoi treated as an I-word hasn’t been settled yet. Probably by length of pause. But that we’ll have to do so now seems clear. Steve used the causal ICAs especially in this sentence-initial way many times in L3 . It was just one of the many creative—but strictly speaking, ungrammatical—uses S made of the language. And you have evidently learned from S! This is just one of the many current ambiguities that the Resolver Project will have to resolve, soi crano.
Let me say something more about the grammar of ICA. Unless it’s marked, its clause will lie within the scope of any preceding lepo; but if the ICA is preceded by guo, its clause will be coordinate with the main sentence. (Explore this on your own LIP and you’ll see what I mean.) So with this imoi, it’s a question of whose motive it is. If it’s X’s, then the way we have it is correct; if it’s F’s, then you need to insert a guo. (Decisions, decisions! L does rather force them on us, doesn’t it?)
The immediate present perfect napazi translates has just had better than pazi. Finally, I’ve attached the phrase hue Sai to the end of the last para. I don’t think you can count on even New LIP’s transcribing a bit of speech as dialog unless the speaker has marked it as being such in some way. Let’s keep this audio-visual isomorphism constantly in mind as we write our fictional texts, and in that way identify the transcription problems especially that New LIP will have to solve in a routine way.

______________________________________________________

Nao la Fum Snorrydin{,/}pa kromao {pire/su}tcati to kupta {sau/}ne groda ce rasto ketli, e handou {lo kupta mu/ne kei mio}. I le gusto je le tcati feu ga katli ba ji gutra, {i/e}buo no{, gei/}norplu. I Sai tifru dio mio {beu/}su licgrato {jao/ji}nu durna ro cmalo {ze/ce}vegri sidza.
Now Mrs. Snorrydin poured some tea into each of two cups from one big brass kettle, and handed one of kay (one of the two cups) to each of us (to me and another). And the taste of the tea in fact tastes of something x that is strange, but not unpleasant. And Ess (Mrs Snorrydin) offers each of us biscuits with small green seeds on them.
You need su here: one or more bits/drops/splashes of tea, in short, some tea. And kromao obviously needs a 4th place, so I corrected its LOD entry and removed sau. Now comes another logical bit: using lo is a copout. What S actually did is hand exactly one of the two cups designated by kei to each of the two persons designated by mio, “to me (the writer) and some other”. L allows you to say that both exactly and briefly.
I replaced ibuo (which is an I-word, and so starts another sentence) with ebuo (an A + UI) and removed the gei, because what your sentence says without it is much closer to your target E. However, if you want to refer back to le gusto je le tcati with gei, you will need to replace ibuo with icebuo, an ICA + UI.
In the last sentence, I removed the second case-tag as unnecessary. My theory of case-tag usage—neither clearly stated anywhere nor ratified by anyone, I admit—is that the first out-of-order argument must be tagged, but that the rest can then follow in their usual sequence. Of course you may use this second tag if you wish. You may also formulate your own rules for case-tag usage and tell us about them later.
Finally I corrected your jao to ji: (1) this is clearly a restrictive clause; and (2) the predicate nu durna applies directly to the modificand, so you don’t need a jio-form. I also corrected your ze to ce; small and green is not a mixture of properties but two independent properties of the seeds.
kromao : its places expanded from 3 to 4 to include the vessel S being poured from.

______________________________________________________

Nao na lepo mi pa kapli hompi le{/mi}tcati guo, la Fum Snorrydin, pa tokna lemi kupta{/,}e snible le{kei/keo}nenri.
— Uaui, hue Sai, {Tu/tu}mutce gudcanspe, irau tu fa mutce haispe {lo/le}po tu stolo {vi/}lem{/i}u landi gu{/o}, e fa cirna ro treci. Isui tu napa ti pa jmite ne fumna{, ja/ ji}fa merfua tu. I tu fa siflii la Garsic, e turka {va/vi Gai}.
Now when I finished drinking my tea, Mrs Snorrydin took my cup and looked closely at kappa’s (my cup’s) insides.
— It’s wonderful, she said, that you are very lucky, because you will much enjoy your stay in our (my and others’ jointly) country, and will learn many interesting things. And also you’ve by this time already met one woman who will be a wife to you. And you will live in the Capital, and work in Gee (the Capital).”
It turns out that I have created an interesting problem for you in the first paragraph with my edits of the previous one. You’re using kei here (in lekei) to refer back to lemi kupta. This is certainly legitimate, but a look even further backward shows that I had suggested using kei to replace to kupta in the preceding para. There are two ways of resolving this apparent conflict: (1) We can say that the scope of a letter-variable assignment is just one para long—which seems too short—and so permit ourselves to reuse kei for a new assignement. Or (2) we can recognize that kei is occupied and use 2nd string keo for this second k-initial description. The second course leaves the scope question open but does suggest that the scope of a letter-varoable assignment should be at least two paras long, and possibly a good deal longer. I’ve opted for keo and the longer scope convention, but you may ultimately decide this question quite differently. You will be the one studying scope conventions as you write.
In the second paragraph you put the hue-phrase inside a sentence; so I left your comma where it was and decapitalized Tu. (This may not be the sense you want, however. If you want the quite different sense suggested in your target E, you’ll have to replace this comma with a period and recapitalize tu.)
In the next clause, your stay in Loglandias is surely a lepo, not a lopo; and vi is quite unnecessary, in fact wrong: the place stayed at is part of stolo. Miu again. And gu doesn’t work here; it doesn’t close the clause; so I replaced it with guo. I would adopt the custom of always closing lepo-clauses (when they need closing) with guo. It is true that gu sometimes works; but when it does and doesn’t work remains an arcane mystery to most of us. Avoid these mysteries. And don’t assume your readers can fathom them either. Use guo.
In the next sentence you’ve a confused restrictiveness with non-restrictiveness. To understand why this should be ji (without a comma), consider the proper translation of ja (with a comma): You’ve already met exactly one woman, who, incidentally, will be your wife ! As you almost certainly don’t mean that—you, the character, have already met many woman—please use ji without a comma. These questions of restrictiveness/non-restrictiveness are very close to the heart of logic.
The last time you used Gai was in Para 18 for la Grom. I expect it’s cold enough now, after 10 paras, to be used again, don’t you? In any case, I felt that your va was just too vague. Strictly speaking, va alone means near here / near this / near the point of current speech, and the Capital obviously isn’t. You could say vu, far from the point of speech, which the Capital is, but obviously that’s not very good either. You are being misled by your E, I fear, in which there in this context does seem to co-designate the last designatum. But in L, we can do this much more precisely with vi Gai.

_____________________________________________________

— Lemi matma ga spuro {saadja lo tcure ji nu forma/ridle} lo tcati clife, hue la Grom{,/.} I lemei nu vetcue {na raba ga/rafa}vetci. I mi pa pasyjui {la Selis/}, lepo {Sai/la Selis}fundi tu.
— Ia no. I tu fa mercea no la Selis{,/}ji fremi la Grom, hue la Fum Snorrydin, {I/i}{rau/soa}Sai londa, euia. I letu futci merfua ga nu herfa go nigro.
— Ueui, hue la Grom, {M/m}i fundi lo gursmi.
— My mother is an expert reader of tea-leaves, said Grom. And em’s reported events will always happen. And I had a premonition that Sally liked you.
— Certainly not. And you will marry not Sally, Grom’s friend, said Mrs. S, because (which follows from the fact that) Ess (Sally) is blonde, isn’t she. And your future wife is be-haired blackly.
— Wow, said Grom, I like mysteries.
I liked your idea (below) of using ga spuro ridle lo tcati clife, and edited it in. I changed the first post-hue-phrase comma to a period, but left the other two after decapitalizing their sequelae: Irau and Mi. Both seemed to suggest that its hue-phrase was in mid-sentence. Recall that irau is normally an ICA, and that only some special treatment on which we’ve not settled yet allows it to head up a new sentence.
I made rafa for you; pasyjui is not in my (98) LOD. Shall I assume you made it earlier? Anyway, I will assume it means have a premonition that...is true of..., on the jupni model. In which case, la Selis can and should be omitted,
and should replace Sai in the clause.
RAM: JCB didn't find pasyjui, because the canonical (LOD) form is paorjui, I have added premonition to the definitions already there
APL: What about simply ga spuro ridle lo tcati clife? But cultures that don’t do it might be puzzled.
gursmi : gutra-smike : a mystery, something strange and puzzling. I don’t think what Mrs. S. put in our minds was a gurvei
rafa : will always be/do...

______________________________________________________

— Nao, oa tu ze letu fremi ga zvogoi le hasfa, hue la Fum Snorrydin, e dzoru vuva le troku ctimoa, imoi tu {/fa}jmite la Far, e kinci Fai lepo {ra tu/tuu}hompi su birju vi le barcu. I mi cnida nepife horta, lepo mi kokfa le midmia. I kambei su breba {/na lepo fangoi}. I no nordri. I {ia no/no, ia,}tsefui.
— Now I feel that you and your friend jointly must leave the house, says Mrs Snorrydin, and walk towards the stone-pile, so you will meet Dad, and accompany Eff (Dad) in your (your and his) drinking some beer(s) (together) at the tavern. And I need an hour and a half, for me to cook lunch. And bring some bread when returning. Don’t forget. And don’t, certainly, be late.”
I think you need a fa for meeting Dad. Then comes a chance to replace ra tu with tuu; but ra tuu would also serve. Then, after studying various ways of expressing the sense of E bring something back, I settled on na lepo fangoi (on returning ) as the best way currently available. (There ought to be other ways to say this, Bob. The new go privilege, which was supposed to do this, does permit one to say (i) I kambei su breba, go fangoi but doesn’t parse right; and though (ii) I kambei je su breba, go fangoi does parse right, the need to anticipate the go-move by early je-linking defeats the whole purpose the afterthought. If you could make (I) parse like (ii), we’d have it!)
Finally, following your target E, Alex, and our new conventions for emphasizing with fms, I made ia follow no and comma-ed ia, which made no emphatic.