On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:28:00AM +0100, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> En réponse à Amanda Babcock <[log in to unmask]>:
> LOL! And although I can understand the translation 'has', for |a|, 'With' for
> |A| is alien to me ;)))) .

That's Babelfish for you :)  In Azak, they translated "-oj" as "- agenda"...

> Isn't it? :)) Moreover, all sufixes are uniformly VC (except a few which are
> VCVC) and to make bigger numbers you just concatenate suffixes in the opposite
> order of French or English (meaning that you begin with the units, and then on
> with the tens, the hundreds, etc...). Imagine the result ;))) .

Hmm, if you're not paying attention and drop a syllable you could be off
by a power of ten - bringing the dangers of the written form to the spoken...
and imagine someone trying to say "1,000,000,000" and getting lost in the
zeroes :)

> > Well, I'll just go and see what Babelfish has to say about that then
> > :)
> Well, if something is still not clear afterwards, just ask! :)

:(  Babelfish is not very helpful :(

In the section on overdeclination, it has stuff like:

              lineva|n mojesu  : the leg of the bird.
              linevea|n  : celui/celle of the bird.
              bvaj linean  : your bird.
              bveaj  : the tien/la holds.
              koga ipe|laj itos linean  : the bird which I see.
              koga ipe|laj iteos  : celui/celle/ce that I see.

which does not make much sense :(  I don't think it can handle /'s :(
Does it mean that by adding the definite particle to a genitive, you get
"the something of the X", like when we say "mine" for "my thing"?

Further down, I particularly like Babelfish's translation "The prefixes
Mo and di- get busy to specify the space or temporal direction cases." :)

(Then after the bivolugen, Babelfish just gives up...)