Lo neri bukpai
Chapter One
1 Lepo Fadgoi The-event-of arriving

APL: The novel has been written in relatively short episodes. Roughly ten episodes form a chapter.

JCB: This document has been slightly modiŮed by me during a 2nd ftc-ing [Ůne-tooth-combing] made during 10-14 Apr 99. The most recent edits are surrounded by braces and shown in the L and E texts, as: {old/new}and. (Accordingly, {/new}is an insertion and {old/}is a deletion.) I’ve left the earlier generations of comments and edits alone.—JCB, 10 Apr 99.
Li, Hoi Racyski, kae, mu faza ▀esti le ▀ehao je la Grasic.
(Open quote) O Passenger (Travel-Sitter), gentleperson, we will-soon land-(▀y-stop)-at the airport-(▀y-harbor)-of [the] Grasic (Grand-City).

I don’t think you want this novel to be in “punctuated” form, do you? Your choice, of course; but I’ve taken the liberty, on this pass, of eliminating it, just to see how the unpunctuated forms look and feel.

Standardly in the full Loglan text, an indented sentence will mean that it is Ůrst in its paragraph. Note the use of the Loglan left-quotation-mark «, pronounced /li/, of course. [APL: JCB is here referring to an earlier version, which was in “punctuated” form. Note also that in narrative Loglan the paragraphs are indented; elsewhere in La Logli paragraphs begin flush left and are, as here, separated by a half line.] When we see this mark, or any other abbreviating mark, we know that the writer is “punctuating” w’s text. Normally we can then expect w to use punctuation marks instead of punctuation words. letterals instead of letter words, and numerals instead of number words, and to do so throughout w’s composition. Marked at one end but not the other, this quotation is apparently to be continued.

To maintain the distinction between airport and terminal I suddenly saw that what was wanted here was ▀ehao (▀y-harbor)! You need to tell me that this change is ok, of course, but I think it is. (These old metaphors are sometimes right on: port = harbor = safe-from-the-hazards of voyaging!)
I eo klomao letu curpilkoe.
And please close (closed-make) your (the-you) seat-belt (safe-planar-cord = safety-belt).

That this sentence is ▀ush-left shows that it is non-initial in its paragraph. This is shown in speech as well, of course, by the fact that it is I-initial, a “continuing utterance”. The quotation evidently continues.
I eo gensnible ke letu certoe lepu nu fodmao ki letu cerpripai lepu vreti.
And please check (again-close-look = again-inspect) both your seat-table (chair-table) for-the-property-of having-been-folded (folded-made) and your seat-back (chair-back-part) for-the-property-of verticality.

Note that gensnible has the interesting 3-place structure X checks Y for property/condition Z. From the E, one would be tempted to use a 2-place predicate meaning Please check that Y is true. But that is not what this logli stewardess is asking her passengers to do; she is asking them to check two things for two speciŮc properties, and that is exactly what gensnible allows her to do. Note too that ki closes off the Ůrst lepu-clause wthout beneŮt of guo. How handy! The quoted utterance evidently still continues.
I eo fagstimao ra sigre, e norduo lopo smarue pia lepo tu nenri le ▀estana, lu.
And please extinguish (Ůre-stop-make) all cigarettes, and refrain-from (not-do) the-mass-of-events-of smoking (smoke-breathing) until the-event-of you being-inside the terminal (▀y-station) (end quote).

Only the »/, lu. change.

Note the right-quotation-mark » (pronounced /lu/ of course) indicating that this is the last sentence in the quoted paragraph.
Nao, mi pa nurtreci bleka le la Loglandias, ▀ehao.
Now (new para) I in-the-past interestedly (as someone who {was/is}interested) looked-at the [the] Loglandia airport.

The quoted utterance is evidently over. Grammatically, it turned out to be a solitary argument. But utterances that are arguments are used as titles, answers to questions, and observatives. Here is yet another use: a quoted announcement with which a story begins. L writers, like other writers, are free to make use of all such literary devices. The pa in this sentence sets the tense for the rest of this story as that of the simple past. Later tense operators may, as we’ll see, alter this assumption.
I ga mutce groda ga leu poldi ji nu dilri leu dumbe ▀emai ji {/nia}▀esti ze ▀esatci le kubra ▀estirodlu.
And (fronted predicate) very large-was (deferred 1st argument) the-set-of nations that was represented by the-set-of elephantine aircraft (▀y-machines) that-were landing {on/}and-jointly taking-off-(▀y-starting)-from the wide runway(s) (landing-road).

JCB: With my insertion of nia in this sentence, I am suggesting the same continuousness of the landing-and-taking-off activity that your E does, but leaving it within the framework of the narrative present, which has been established, once and for all for this narration, by the pa in its Ůrst non-quoted sentence.

As a metaphor for runway, “▀yroad” bothered me. To an airman it suggests one of those radio-guided airways between major U.S. cities (I forget what they’re actually called); certainly it suggests nothing on the ground. After looking at a number of alternative metaphors and their L products, including “▀y-stop-road”, “wheel-place/path”, “terrestrial-road/path”, “dirt-road/path”, “solid-road/path”, “hard-road/path”, “smooth-road/path”, and “land-road/path”, all failing to please, I’m suggesting ▀estisia /▀e-sti-SI-a/ from “▀y-stop-place” = “landing-place”. Landing-places are also take-off-places, of course, but one’s ability to land at a place seems to be of greater importance to an aviator than its also serving—usually later—as a place for taking off.}
APL: I Ůnally decided I preferred ▀estirodlu.

Lots of wonderful things are going on in this sentence. First, there is the fact that the main claim of this sentence is that the sheer number of countries represented by this ▀ock of jets is large. Second, is the insight that the designations of both these objects—those numerous countries and that ▀ock of jets—must, in L, be of sets, not multiples; see JCB’s paper on this topic in LN 95/2. Third, while dumbe is not in LOD, it should be; it means elephantine, i.e., like an elephant. Surely this is perfect for talking about “jumbo” anything! Fourth, is the insight that the landings and takings off of these jets constitute a mixture of actions and thus deserve ze, not e, as their connective. Fifth, while the very liberal back-translation given here—which really represents this English-speaking logli’s literary intent, soi crano—doesn’t suggest this, the best word-order for the L is the ga P (A...A) ga A order with fronted predicate and deferred 1st argument. But all these oddities come together to make a splendid L sentence.
Mi dioble le notbi spali je le ▀ehao, e vizka la Logle Kerbilca, ja nunrarpai leu ri laldo ge mela Spitfair, kad▀emai ze leu ri mela Maskitos, bom▀emai, guu ja nu krani lo kersko.

(New para) I looked-toward (direction-looked-at) the other side of the airport and saw the Loglandian Airforce (Air-Military), which was composed of the-set-of several old for [the] SpitŮre [type of] Ůghters (Ůght-▀y-machine = Ůghter-aircraft] and-jointly the-set-of [the] Mosquito [type of] bombers (bomb-aircraft) (close termset), which were driven-by propellors (air-screws).

I suggest replacing the whole of the above sentence with the new one given below. In it I’ve 1) replaced leu ri with the new ricu, as planned, 2) made kersko ci nu krani coordinate with laldo in a connected modiŮer of the connected modiŮcand mela Spitfair kad▀emai ze mela Maskitos bom▀emai (which sidesteps the problem, raised by the original formulation, of whether it is the set or its members that is/are “propellor-driven”!), and 3) removed the commas after the airplane-type names.
Mi dioble le notbi spali je le ▀ehao, e vizka la Logle Kerbilca, ja nunrarpai ricu laldo ce kersko ci nu krani mela Spitfair kad▀emai ze mela Maskitos bom▀emai.

(New para) I look-toward (direction-look-at) the other side of the airport and see the Loglandian Airforce (Air-Military), which is composed of a-set-of several old and propellor-(air-screw)-driven [the] SpitŮre [type of] Ůghters (Ůght-▀y-machine = Ůghter-aircraft] and-jointly [the] Mosquito [type of] bombers (bomb-aircraft).

I believe you'll agree that the result is much closer to your original E.

Again the liberal E represents the intentions of the writer and is, in this case, very liberal, soi crano. Both the order and the logical structure of the L sentence that Alex, with our help, produced to convey these ideas had to depart very far from those original, E-shaped intentions. But there are no real oddities in the resulting L sentence...except, perhaps, that again, the two ▀ocks of old aircraft, the SpitŮres and the Mosquitos, had to be designated as a set of sets, not a multiple of multiples. They are the two parts that together constitute a single thing, namely the Loglandian Airforce. Note also the use of logle, the territorial sense of Loglandian, in making a name for this military force. Oh yes, we had to change the LOD deŮnition of bilca from military person to military force to be able to use it in this way; but we will need such a word to translate Shakespeare, anyway, soi crano. Probably the most interesting thing about this sentence is that it revealed a defect in our designative machinery, actually a gap, a piece missing from it. To designate the two constituents of the Loglandian Airforce we had to use two deŮnite, intentional set-designations: leu ri laldo ge mela Spitfair, kad▀emai (the set of several old SpitŮre Ůghters I have in mind) and leu ri mela Maskitos, bom▀emai (the set of several Mosquito bombers I have in mind). But this does not really express Alex’s intention; A undoubtedly doesn’t want to commit A-self to providing the addresses of old airplanes! So what is needed here are two indeŮnite, non-intentional designations, such as ri laldo ge mela Spitfair, kad▀emai (each of some several old SpitŮre Ůghters) would be if this was a multiple. But the truth is that we don’t yet have an indeŮnite designator for sets in L! But we’ll soon have one.
[APL: We now have, of course, and it is -cu.] Finally, note that guu, the termset right-closer, spreads the modiŮer ja nu krani lo kersko (which are propellor-driven) over both sets of ancient aircraft.
I la Logle Kerbilca{,/}ga nermoi nerbi lopo rigclemao lo coirpozfa kulgrudjo ji vi le mela Lojbandias{,/}monca lopo cortakma.

And the Loglandian Airforce is only (for one-motive) necessary-for the-mass-of-events-of discouraging (courage-without-making) the-mass-of rebel (authority-opposing) tribesmen (culture-group-members) that-are in the [the] Lojbandian [type] mountains from-the-mass-of raidings {/(brief-attackings)}.

I’ve removed the two commas-after-names and supplied the E metaphor for cortakma.

Again there is a notable difference between the structure of the “target English”—we might as well call it that—and that of the L sentence that now so clearly expresses its meaning. But from these differences, we learn not only about how L works, but also about how the logical features of our native E are, it would seem, so cunningly covered up! It was during our study of this sentence, or hereabouts, that Bob, Alex, and I began to wonder if we really needed those name-marking commas we have always conventionally used in text to mark the obligatory pauses after names; for they certainly mislead the eye...especially when used to mark a mela-phrase, as the 2nd of these two commas does. Perhaps we will try getting along without these eye-disturbing commas in one of these columns and see what happens to our speech—in this case, to reading text aloud. That’s a possibility we’ll explore another time.
I ne tantcely▀emai ga normuo▀e va le tolganynurbai.
And one helicopter (turn-wing-{/▀ying-}machine) (end description) hovered (non-move-▀ew) (and) near the control-tower (control-high-built-thing).

I think I spotted a redundancy in tantcely▀emai, which, if removed, shortens it. If a thing has wings, it ▀ies; so saying it both ▀ies and has wings is redundant. Removing ▀e makes a better metaphor than removing tcely. Not only that, but /tan-TCEL-y-mai/ is, to my ear, a mighty pretty word.
[APL: I still preferred tantcely▀emai; the slight redundancy doesn’t bother me—I’m a lot less Zipfean than JCB—and I like the idea that a search for ▀emai would show us all the different aircraft.]

No problems with this one...except possibly, for a quick reader, those three mighty metaphors behind tantcely▀emai, normuo▀e, and tolganynubrai.
Nao le ▀emai ga stise, ice le nengoicibra ga nu setfa le daorhou.
Now (new para) the airplane (end description) stopped, and the jetway (in-going-bridge) (end description) was placed-in the doorway (door-hole).

There is little to notice here except that doors are different from door-holes...just as windows are different from window-holes. You will Ůnd these inventions—both occasioned by this sentence—in the next LOD.

I changed the 2 pa’s to ga’s to comply with the “implicitly assumed until explicitly changed” principle stated in an early comment. Also, I Ůnd that, after Ůrst liking it, the one-wayness of nengoicibra is disturbing. I haven’t changed it to anything else yet. But what about racycibra? Traveller’s-bridge? Or fleracycibra? Or even kertracycibra? Of these, I personally like the simplest best: racycibra. (Racyskicibra won’t work because the crew, too, use it!) I personally like the metaphor of “air-traveler’s-bridge” much better than either “jetway” or “in-go-bridge”.

LOD Note: Bob, LOD makes keryracycibra from kerti traci cibra and, in my opinion, shouldn’t. Kertracycibra sounds better on my personal vocal chords. How about yours? And yours, Alex?—Jim
APL: I still like nengoicibra, so that’s what it is in the Ůnal version, soi crano.
RAM: It's either in-go to the aeroplane or in-go to the terminal. I don't see the problem and agree with APL
I mi fansea lemi racysakli ze lemi sribuu komta gu, le tovbao, e dirgoi le daorhou kii le notbi racyski.
And I retrieved (reverse-put) my duf▀ebag (travel-sack) and-jointly my notebook (writing-book) computer (end term) from-the overhead (over-box), and went-toward the door{/way}with the other passengers.

Gu is discretionary here. Essentially the same parse results without it, but it does no harm and seems to emphasize the end of one term and the beginning of another—like a phrasing comma—and so is clearly a matter of “writer’s choice”.

I couldn’t resist making your retrieve from fansea reverse-put. These fan-word are so vivid! They are like running a Ůlm backward!
I le nilbii ge logli ▀esua ga crano mi. I hue {f/fei}:
—Haispe lepo tu stolo!
And the pretty (girl-ly-beautiful) Loglandian steward (▀ying-server) (end description) smiled-at me. And said {f/eff}(that stewardess):
Enjoy (happily-experience) the-event-of your staying!

The thing to note here is that because the hue-phrase is effectively sentence-initial (it is preceded by I, but that doesn’t count), it gets a colon and terminates its paragraph. Then the next paragraph is the quotation. In this case, it is just one sentence long, a well-wishing imperative.
Mouhu tu vizgoi la Loglandias? hue le gartua, ja respli le tilnitci ce vegri rulresfu pe le logle polylimji furgalpai.
(New para) Why-do (For-what-motive-do) you visit (see-go-to) [the] Loglandia? asks the ofŮcial (governing-worker), who-is wearing (clothes-using) the smart (attractively-neat) and green uniform (rule-garment) of the Loglandian border (nation-limit) department (organization-part).

We know this to be the beginning of a new paragraph because it does not commence with an I-word. In speech, there would also be a “3rd magnitude” pause between this utterance and the preceding one, but that’s a matter for the algorithmic “Producer” that is now a-building.
Mi stude la Loglan, la Loglan Stogrusia, ja vi la Sandiegos, e na danza lepo cirna la Loglan, e lo loglo, vi letu garsitci, hue mi.
(New para) I am-a-student-of [the] Loglan at-the Loglan Stogrusia (Lasting-Group-Place) {that/, which}-is-incidentally in [the] San-Diego, and now want the-event-of learning [the] Loglan and the-mass-of Loglandian-culture (pause) in your capital (ruling-city), said I.

Alex has asked Bob to change the place-structure of stude from X is a student at Y of subject Z to X studies Y at institution Z feeling that the latter is a more useful order of arguments. We always encourage writers to make such place-structure explorations in their writings, though whether the changes they suggest get adopted in LOD sometimes depends on ratiŮcation by the Purmaogru (Word-Makers-Group). Also, the pause-comma after loglo is discretionary. Everything else in this passage is straightforward.
Gei hancapri lemi paspo, e volduo le kusmo ge remcli po spopa, ice mi pucto le racvelkarti le nenbei snible grokru.
(New Para) Gee (the ofŮcial) stamped (hand-printed) my passport, and voiced (voice-did) the customary type-of friendly (friend-like) events-of hoping; and I pushed the baggage-cart (travel-vessel-cart) to-the customs (in-carry) inspection (near-look) hall (big-room).

Everything is straightforward here...although Alex has coined some lovely metaphors!
Ei ba nu furvemtaa? hue le gartua je le logle nenbei furgalpai.
(New para) Is-it-true-that something-x is declarable (buy-tellable)? says the ofŮcial of the Loglandian customs department (organization-part).
Siba; ice ba sribuu komta, hue mi. I mi cnida {ba/da}lepo mi cirna la Loglan.
(New para) At-most-one-something-x; and that-x is-a-notebook (write-book) computer, said I. And I need /it (that x) for-the-event-of my learning [the] Loglan.

Our new, sentence-long scope limitation for ba-words requires da here.

Notice that ba keeps the same reference, A’s computer, throughout A’s speech; we could translate its sutori instances as that x, that very x, and notice that these ba’s are still non-designating (the computer hasn’t yet been designated; no offer has yet been made to produce it). Notice, too, that it doesn’t matter where hue mi goes in this speech so long as it isn’t sentence-initial. In any non-initial position in a sentence the scope of a hue-phrase is the whole of the embedding paragraph. Recall that if a hue-phrase is sentence-initial, its scope is the whole of the next paragraph.
Geo marmao lemi komta legeo blanu tokri, e crano mi.
(Lower-case) Gamma (the 2nd ofŮcial) marked (mark-made) my computer with-his (the-gamma’s) blue chalk, and smiled-at me.

There are four new things to notice here: (1) The L sentence must be I-less; if it commenced with an I-word, it would, by the rule given above, be absorbed into A’s speech. (2) The L sentence uses a replacing variable (pronoun) where the E one doesn’t; the L system of anaphora is evidently much richer and deeper than the E one and is, accordingly, used much more freely. (3) Gei cannot be used as the replacing variable in this case—i.e., to co-designate this second ofŮcial—because gei has already been used for the immigration ofŮcial...who may come back! So the text follows the convention of using the Greek lowercase letteral with the same phonemic value, in this case (pronounced ‘gamma’ in E and /geo/ in L), for this second assignment of a letter-variable to a /g/-prominent description. (4) When is combined with le to make a possessive descriptor, it must be separated from le by a “silent” (text-only) hyphen, producing le- (pronounced /le-ge’-o/). Without that hyphen, some odd-looking textual critters would result, e.g,, *leg composed of le + g, /le’-gei/, as well as some deŮnitely ambiguous ones, such as *lea from le + a, /le-a’-si/.

I couldn’t resist teaching the logli a little bit more about the letter-variable system. Will you permit me this opportunistic use of your text for teaching, Alex? Thus imputing to you a sophistication that you didn’t have then? But never mind. Everybody knows that we work these Nurvias out together. (The arrival of that 2nd ofŮcial was a pedagogical godsend, wasn’t it!)
Haispe lepo tu stolo! hue geo.
Enjoy (happily-experience) the-event-of your staying! said gamma (the 2nd ofŮcial).

This, too, must be indented because it is a new para and is about to be quoted.
Nao mi sifdui le grutaksi stisia le frena je le ▀estana.
Now (new para) I found (location-discovered) the bus (group-taxi) stop (stopping-place) at-the front of the terminal.

Notice how the L word-order departs from that of the target E. This is because, in L, the location where something is found is a logically essential part of the process of Ůnding it, not an incidental modiŮer of the Ůnding claim (as it appears to be in E). So the designation of the location of the found thing goes in the 3rd place of the L predicate sifdui (X Ůnds/locates Y at/in place Z ). Alex could have fronted the 3rd argument with gi—Nao le frena je le ▀estana.gi mi sifdui le grutaksi stisia = Now the front of the terminal (is where) I located the bus-stop—thus bringing it more in line with the target E; but we all decided that using the LOD-standard word-order made for better L.
I ba sanbarta va, ice hue {sei/ba}:
Na le nazdei lo logli ga grarisdri lo bradei je la Braon. I ni grutaksi na godzi le sitci. I haispe lepo tu stolo.

And something-x was-a-sign (sign-board) there, and said that-something-x:
On the present-day the-mass-of logli (close-description) are celebrating (great-respectfully-remembering) the-mass-of birthdays (born-days) of [the] Brown. And zero buses are-now going-to the city. And enjoy the-event-of your staying.

Notice how the L is very differently paragraphed from the target E. This is another case of a hue-phrase being sentence-initial, and so ending one para in order to quote the whole of another. The L-speaker must now be careful to end the quoted para by starting a new one; for if s fails to do so, s may Ůnd s-self including more in p than s intended. (This is our loglanoid system of alphabetic anaphora put to work in E.)

I had to replace sei with ba, which, on being repeated in the same sentence, has the sense of that same something x.. One wonders whether one ought to write the ba/be/bo/bu set as x/y/z/w in this punctuated textual form. Probably not...or at least not yet! But what do you two think? [APL: Jim means RAM and me.]
Nao mi fuo cutse liegei, Dammit{/.}, gei.
Now (new para) I to-myself say (start E expression) Dammit (end E expression).

Notice the foreign-language quotation with lie-, in this case coupled to the alphabetic boundary-words -gei, ... ,gei signifying gleca (from the English).
I mi vizka lepo ro pernu ga linpazda lo taksi. I mi sudna hirti ne volsi ji prire mi.
And I saw the-event-of many persons (end description) queueing-up-for (in-line-waiting-for) the-mass-of taxis. And I suddenly heard one (exactly one) voice that-was behind me.

This is a continuation of the “Dammit.” para. Quotation there was handled by liegei ... gei, so we do not need to end it by starting a new para...as we would have with hue.
Hoi Traci, ei tu godzi le sitci? hue vei.
Mi trana, e vizka ne Ůtlevtaksi, ja nu bapra ne bilti ce londa junfua.
O Traveller, is-it-true-that you go-to the city? said {v/vee}(the voice).
I turned and saw one pedicab (foot-lever-taxi), which-was operated-by one beautiful {for-a/and}blonde young-woman (young-woman).

Pay particular attention to the paragraphing of the L in this passage and the way it relates to the L dialog. E dialog conventions are much looser.
Nao lo Ůtlevtaksi pacena mutce rornurfundi lo logli. I lo junti logli pacena no godzi lo jelrizgru. Ibuo lei tiftua lepo bapra lo Ůtlevtaksi. I duo tao lei gudmao lepo lei djela, ice lezo zavlo kerti ji nu ckozu lopo berti na nurmou.
Now (new para) the-mass-of pedicabs were-then-and-are-now very popular (many-liked-by) the-mass-of Loglanders. And the-mass-of young Loglanders did (not)-and-do not go-to (the-mass-of) health-clubs (healthy-private-groups = health-clubs). And-however el (those young Loglanders) {did-and-do/volunteer-(work-offer)-to-do the-event-of operating the-mass-of pedicabs. And by-these-(acts) they}improve (better-make) the-state-of el’s (their) being-healthy, and the-amount-of bad air that-was-and-is caused-by (the-mass-of-events-of) carrying {(end-description)/}is-now less.

There are several things to notice here. One is how the compound tense operator pacena (then-and-now ) takes us out of the simple past of narration and into the “then and now” tense of historical observation, and how that new tense is assumed to be carried on by the ga’s and untensed predicates until it, too, is changed in the last sentence by the mention of na, the simple present. Clearly pa must again be mentioned when we drop back into somple narration. That won’t happen for a few more sentences yet, we’ll discover.

I did some adjusting to our tense-conventions here, Chaps, to allow the writer to leave the simple past of narration and adopt, with pacena, the “then and now” tense of historical observation; then later, with na, w shifts into the “writer’s present”. The assumption I am making here is an old but implicit one: namely, a tense once used lasts “forever”, that is, until changed by the mention of a new one. This differs from, and seems to work better than, the principle that new tenses play a “time-tune” on whatever “time-line” or “-vector” has been previously established. This principle, the “pc principle”, as we might call it from its ancient author, soi crano, is, I’ve been gradually convinced, unworkable. A Ůnal point: I Ůrst put pacena after the no as A had it in no ga; but that would mean not both then and now (which in turn means either not then or not now)! So I put it before the no. The alternative solution, to replace no pacena with no pacana was just too logically hairy for all but the trained logicians among us to fathom!
I loe glireu je loe Ůtlevtaksi pacena damni, inukou ro logli ga kamki namdou ra Ůtlevtaksi liu rirgyviudou.
And the-typical handlebar (guide-bar) of the-typical pedicab {(end description)/}then-and-now is-low, therefore (in the physical sense) many Loglanders (end description) comically christen (name-give) all pedicabs with-the-word ‘rirgyviudou’ (bottom-view-giver).

The pacena tense must be reestablished because the last tense was na, the narrator’s present. Note also the use of loe, a seldom-used but very precise descriptor meaning the typical (whatever). Notice too that Alex can’t use fei instead of ra Ůtlevtaksi because fei would refer to loe Ůtlevtaksi, the typical pedicab, and they’re not the only pedicabs to which many logli presumably give this name. Instead, we must say exactly what we mean, namely that many logli give all pedicabs this name. Finally, note that the order of the implicit quantiŮers is quite important here: that many name all is quite different from all being named by many.
Sia, ai. I mi godzi la Mykaivr Famymra Hotle, hue mi pa cutse.
Mi tovneagoi le Ůtlevtaksi.
(New para)Thanks, I will. And I go to the MacIvor Arms Hotel. was said-by me.
(New para) I boarded (above-and-next-to-went-to) the pedicab.

The writer has had to augment the stark hue mi-form, which is untensed, with a tensed predicate, and chose pa cutse. For, having departed from the simple past of narration to make his historical observations, Alex must now reestablish it. Once pa has been reintroduced in this way, it is again the implicit tense of every ensuing sentence until another departure from it—say, for another historical observation or present-time comment—is signalled by the writer’s use of a different tense operator.

I’ve had to change hue mi to hue mi pa cutse in order to accommodate the required retensing. Would you prefer a different preda, Alex? Alternatively, we could use « ... » pa nu cutse mi; but I thought it better to stick with hue. But would you prefer explicit quotation here, Alex? By the way, this whole tense muddle raises the question: How does one signal the timeless tense in the middle of a narration? In the middle of any other implicitly tensed passage, for that matter! It seems to me that the timeless tense option is utterly destroyed by this implicit-tense convention! We may have to go back to the NL practice of always tensing unless we speciŮcally wish to speak timelessly. What do you two think? Is there a neat way out of this? (Looks like another visit to the K is going to be occasioned by this Nurvia!)
Mi nu namci liu Selis. I hu namci tu? I tu kamla hu? I tu kamki loktaa, hue le Ůtlevtaksi bapra.
(New para) I am-named-by the-word ‘Selis’. And what names you? And you come-from where? And you comically speak-with-an-accent (locally-talk), said the pedicab operator.

Loktaa deserves a little attention. It has the place-structure X speaks language Y with a local accent characteristic of people from locality Z; so the incomplete form used here means You speak some language—inferrably Loglan—with an accent, and this suggests you come from somewhere else. All that is implicitly contained in tu kamki loktaa.
Mi kamla la Frans. I mi nu namci liu Aleks. I ga nardu ga lepo cirna lo logla po soncue guo, ikou{, vi le zvoto je la Loglandias, ri pernu ga lentaa la Loglan/ ri pernu ga lentaa Lai vi le zvoto je la Loglandias}, hue mi dapli.
New para) I come-from France. And I am-named-by the-word ‘Aleks’. And (fronted-preda) difŮcult-it-is-to-do (deferred subject) the-event-of learning the-mass-of Loglan events-of pronounciation (end clause), because (physical) {in the-outside-of (the) Loglandia, few people (end description) speak L/few people (end description) speak El in the-outside-of (the) Loglandia}, said (the) I that-was replying.

I’ve shifted vi le zvoto je la Loglandias to the end of the sentence, both to make the L more like the target E, and to permit the replacement of la Loglan with Lai instead of the more awkward gaoLai, which would be required if la Loglandias were there to be jumped over.

Notable here is A’s choice among L’s four because ’s. A used ikou, the physical one, because (and this because is justiŮcational!) it is the physical distribution of L-speakers on this planet—their “thinness on the ground”, so to speak—that is the cause of L pronunciation’s being difŮcult to learn. Making the ikou/imoi/irau/isoa distinctions regularly and accurately is admittedly rather taxing for our E-formed minds. Yet their claims are obviously very different. The guo is necessary to close off the lepo clause because, without it, the ikou-clause will be heard as part of the lepo event.
Ouui. Iceu tu cmabii loktaa Lai, hue la Selis.
Sai sacduo lepo Ůtlevpuo. Ipaza {mu/miu}kukra linmuo le spebi ge Ůtlevtaksi rodpai.
(New para) It-doesn’t-matter-happily. And-anyway you cutely (diminutively-beautifully) talk-with-a-local-accent Ell (Loglan) said (the) Sally.
(New para) Ess (she) started the-event-of pushing the pedal(s). And-that-was-shortly-before we (I and another jointly) were quickly moving-along (line-moving-on) the special pedicab lane (road-part).

Here I replaced mu with the new miu.

Alex’s la Loglan may be replaced by Lai in Sally’s speech because of A’s immediately antecedent use of it. Also, note that attaching -paza to the connective I- turns the compound Ipaza into a connective between the two sentences. That’s why it means And-that-was-shortly-before ... . This is a bit counterintuitive and takes some getting used to. It is easier for our E-accustomed minds to understand this relationship when the PA word is unconnected to I-, i.e., separated from it by a comma, and followed by tao. For exactly the same claim may then be conveyed with the phrase I, faza tao = And, a-little-later-than that, .... It takes some thinking to see that I, faza tao and Ipaza mean exactly the same thing! But once that is seen, it is very easy to see that Ipaza is the more elegant, and hence the preferred, form. Notice, too, A’s combining ou + ui to get a single word for Happily it doesn’t matter, thus extending our attitudinal pallette.
Nao mi mutce haispe le rirgyviu, ice Sai dedsanduo le ro treci vidju ji via le rodlu. I na lepo le rodlu ga cenja ne gandio slopu guo, Sai jugra ne muvdo totkoe ji {vi lo krilu/tovmuo rocu glikrilu}ji vi le spali je le rodlu. I Sai kocduo tei le Ůtlev{gy/}taksi, inumoi tei kincpu fei, ice ga no nerbi ga lepo Sai Ůtlevpuo. I Sai fredirsea mi, ice sacduo lepo djadou mi ro fekto je lopo clivi vi la Loglandias.
(New para) I much enjoyed the bottom-view, and Ess pointed-out the many interesting sights that-were along (throughout) the road. And, when the road changed into an upward slope, Ess grabs a moving rope (thick-cord) that {was on/moves-over a-set-of-many guidewheels}that-were on the side of the road. And Ess ties (cord-does) tee (the rope) to-the pedicab, so-that (of motivated consequences) tee pulled-along (accompany-pulled) eff (the pedicab), and (fronted preda) not necessary-was-it (deferred subject) that Ess pedal (foot-lever-push). And Ess faced (front-direction-sets) me and started (start-did) the-event-of telling (know-giving) me many facts about the-mass-of-events-of living in (the) Loglandia.

1) I made 2 new predas, tovmuo, to move over or upon something, to relate the rope to the guidewheels, and glikrilu guidewheel itself, and 2) saw an occasion for using the new -cu form in rocu glikrilu = a set of many guidewheels.

We’ve taken rod from broda and given it to rodlu to make A’s rodpai = lane possible. Apart from this and being careful about his because ’s and therefore ’s, this was all very straightforward.
Tu djano lepo le nazdei bi la Sacdondein, ioia, hue Sai. I na le pasnai ba fa grada nurvizlei lo fagdua va le vrici. I mi fundi lepo gangoi le folhaa ji vi la Uorf Ganpea, moi lepo mi katca le fagdua. I {ramu/muu}fa madzo ne groda hapvei va. I kanoi tu danza {/nepo kinci mi,}ki tu fa {kinci mi/dui}. I, moi tio tu fa jmite ro logli fremi, eaia. I la Sacdondein, bi le bradei je la Braon. I ei tu djano {be/ba}la Braon?
(New para) You know today is Founder’s Day (Start-Giver’s-Day), probably-certainly, says Ess. And in the evening (early-night) something-x will-be-a great exhibition (let-be-seen-thing)-of the-mass-of Ůreworks (Ůre-adornments) near the river. And I like the-event-of going-up-to the castle (strong-house) that-is on (the) Whorf Peak (Whorf High-Point) in-order-to-do the event-of watching the Ůreworks. And all-of-us {(including you!)/I, you, and others collectively)}will make a big party there. And if you want {/an event of accompanying me, then}you will {accompany me/ do that}. And because-of (motivational) this (situation) you will meet many logli friends, I-suggest-that-certainly. And Founder’s Day is the birthday of (the) Brown. And is-it-true-that you know something-{y/x}about-(the) Brown?

Here’s an opportunity to 1) use our new muu; 2) let S be more exact about what A might want—saying kanoi tu danza nepo kinci mi, ki tu fa dui instead of kanoi tu danza (ba!), ki tu fa kinci mi—and 3) correct our earlier, and now mistaken, para-wide scope convention for ba.

With new words like ioia and eaia, Alex is expanding our emotional pallette. He says that ioia (probably certainly) conveys an attitude similar to the one conveyed by the ambivalent I’m sure that ... probably in E, while eaia (I suggest that certainly) “allows more possibility of doubt but expressed in an optimistic way”.

Notice quite particularly the use of two non-designating variables, ba and be, in Sally’s speech. If we assume that the scope of each such variable is its embedding para, then this is a precaution similar to saying a new something y in E after having alluded to something x. Notice, too, A’s use of tio (this) to mean the situation just alluded to where other writers might have used tao (that). Toi/toa/tio/tao usage is still developing; and different writers are still using them in quite different ways. This is good; for different explorers will make different discoveries in this undiscovered country.

I changed Sacdoudein to Sacdondein, which is LOD-standard...and prettier. Also, guided by your original E, Alex, I inserted grada before nurvizlei; it seems to have got left out. Also, from your deŮnition of it (I-suggest-that-certainly) I think you meant to say eaia instead of euia (let us suppose that certainly), and so I have changed euia to eaia in the text. But do change it back to euia if I’ve misinterpreted your use of the E-word suggest.
Noiu. I mi stude ba la Loglan Stogrusia, hue mi.
It’s-not-the-case-that-I-know-nothing. And I study something-x at-the Loglan Institute, said I.

Note A’s elegant use of a negative indicator to express the speaker’s slightly offended sarcasm. Note, too, the very logla use of the non-designator ba as a place-holder, allowing s to skip over the obvious and get rapidly to what s really wants to say, namely that s studies at The Loglan Institute. Ba can be used afresh here because this is a new utterance.
Faza {tao/toi}mu fadgoi le sitci. I la Selis, spuro tcegoi le tcakro le hotle.
(New para) Soon-after that ({situation/speech}) we arrived-at (end-go-to) the city. And (the) Sally expertly went-through the trafŮc (vehicle-▀ow) to-the hotel.

Wrong demonstrative. Don’t we need the proximal langauge one? Or would ti be better? I’m of two minds here..
APL: Actually, no: the demonstrative was to refer to the situation of the whole journey, not to the last piece of speech. So what it really ought to be is tio, and that’s what it is in the Ůnal version.

We are wise to re-mention Sally at this point. Even though the assignment of the letter-variable Sai as a codesignator of Sally is arguably permanent in this story—so that the just-mentioned Loglan Stogrusia would require (capital Sigma) if the replacement of its long name by a variable were desired—a careful speaker/writer—and our Nurvia writers when abetted by the team of Nurvia editors are nothing if not careful, soi crano!—will be aware that an Sai used here could be inadvertently taken to co-designate the Loglan Stogrusia. So why not just remention Sally, which will give Sai a clear fresh start?
Nao la Mykaivr Famymra Hotle, pacena groda ce norsapla ci nu durna nurbai, ja katli ro bamtrufa ce peartrufa, e ne grogro rorkolgliso cundo ji fu vidju le vrici, e ne stobii cibra. I le Ůtlevtaksi pa siasti le frepai je le hotle, ice Sai cutse li, Ai mi vizka tu na lena pasnai. I haispe lepo tu stolo, lu.

Now (new para) the McIvor Arms (Family-Marks) Hotel was-and-is a-large and intricately (non-simply) (hyphen) adorned building (built-thing), which has (is characterized by) many domes (ball-roofs) and spires (pointed-roofs), and a huge (big-big) stained-glass (many-colored-glass) window that-is a-point-from-which-may-be-viewed the river and a classic (lastingly beautiful) bridge. And the pedicab stopped-at (place-stopped-at) the front-of (front-part-of) the hotel, and Ess said (quote) I-intend-that I see you this (the-current) evening. And enjoy your stay! (end-quote).

I found a major error in conception here, the Ůrst in this ftc-ing, and that’s in our/your rendering of with many domes and spires. in the Ůrst sentence. As we/you wrote it, the L sentence won’t parse. The reason is that there’s no argument for ja katli ro bamtrufa ce peartrufa to modify! But the sentence will parse if ja is inserted before pacena—making it and its sequel the subordinate clause—and if ga replaces ja before katli, making it the main predicate, thus:

Nao la Mykaivr Famymra Hotle, ja pacena groda ce norsapla ci nu durna nurbai, ga katli ro bamtrufa ce peartrufa, e ne grogro rorkolgliso cundo ji fu vidju le vrici, e ne stobii cibra.
Now (new para) the McIvor Arms (Family-Marks) Hotel, which was-and-is a-large and intricately (non-simply) (hyphen) adorned building (built-thing), has (is characterized by) many domes (ball-roofs) and spires (pointed-roofs), and a huge (big-big) stained-glass (many-colored-glass) window that-is a-point-from-which-may-be-viewed the river and a classic (lastingly beautiful) bridge.

The claims are the same; but what is subordinate and what is the main clause have been exchanged. The point is that, in an L sentence, you need an argument to which to attach each subordinate clause. The last sentence in this para needs depunctuating but is otherwise ok.

This passage is studded with new words made with Alex’s telling metaphors: Famymra, bamtrufa, peartrufa, grogro, rorkolgliso, and stobii. A is teaching us how to use our language...poetically and freely!

I tried out revisiting the “historical observation” mode by replacing ga on the Ůrst line with pacena and using is in the E; the return to narrative mode was then effected by using pa before siasti. Also, guided by your E, Alex, I changed na le pasnai to na lena pasnai = at this evening. The same effect can be produced by naming the local evening: na la Pasnai, just as la Farfu is the local father or “Father”; but that’s probably too much logla for this third’s already lavish spread, soi crano!