On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:02:21 +0100 lojban@65536.org wrote: > coi rodo > > It seems that my {cu}-problem is no longer one, at least at the > moment. Thanks for your help. > While I was working trough "Lojban for Beginner" I found the > gismu {facki} > > x1 discovers x2 (du'u) about x3 > x1 finds (fi) x3 > > The last line is clear: {mi facki fi le barja} - I discover the > bar. But if I want to use the first version, do I have to use > {du'u}? At the moment I don't know {du'u} and I will probably > wait until it will come in "Lojban for Beginners". I only want to > know how to "read" (i.e. understand) the explanation for {facki}. There is no difference between the two. The second only illustrates that you can omit x2 and just go straight to x3 to indicate what you discovered something about. mi facki fi le barja == mi facki zo'e le barja What you discovered about the bar is left to context, in this case I would assume that you found the location. du'u is a full bridi. It is an abstractor and can be used thusly: mi pu facki le du'u la alis. melbi I found out that Alice is pretty. The whole x2/x3 thing seems a little redundant to me. It seems to me that you would never need both at the same time and that the effect of x3 could be emulated with x2 + tu'a. In fact, until your letter, I didn't even know that facki had such a third place. Perhaps someone else will point out its utility. -- Theodore Reed (rizen/bancus) -==- http://www.surreality.us/ ~OpenPGP Signed/Encrypted Mail Preferred; Finger me for my public key!~ " Your moral authorities don't always have your best interests in mind." -- Matt Groening
Attachment:
pgpEPf8kBP9JV.pgp
Description: PGP signature