Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_DKIM_INVALID,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on chain.digitalkingdom.org Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Fri, 07 May 2010 10:49:48 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OARg0-0002in-DA; Fri, 07 May 2010 10:49:32 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 07 May 2010 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OARfY-0002ib-Ly for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 07 May 2010 10:49:01 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OARfR-0002i1-Hr for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 07 May 2010 10:49:00 -0700 Received: by vws8 with SMTP id 8so1063883vws.40 for ; Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lCOX6L4iy2yakU6aphii2X1ixLaqSQQxvsY+gpXuap0=; b=Y4ipIMdk6sgyA+NoVHWBARx3hF4OSi60YYCnAFdrh9efaTKXp1oYavs3zdRnv3RoIv fC9D6FjkIBhb1CxAxppOgfGKiiXJsulLtgjAklt6qTqBIs0x9WFC/Ixc2HnzOkOwXADz 3fpjAU+fqi5rDluGOXzTAewy+hwoGqbYfs7cE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=GorTzotPfXpYSygRfRqXXbobkebh/fyL9Zgnq8IUu4lHGM0mDT+PLJQJ00v2VOQwwM N8hOB7eRgxJHAo8C3Y9NZm9C9/87FP95d7nHT6L1vdSZiPVtkZa7wgDLeISU6P2Ji3iD s/lQPGLr0/lUGGNjHY54qEBfIF4213LA+MVlA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.61.73 with SMTP id s9mr275839vch.52.1273254526265; Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.94.77 with HTTP; Fri, 7 May 2010 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100507173217.GE29740@nvg.org> Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:48:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: out of control From: Luke Bergen To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e887a7dbf3026048604ab9c X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 2855 Lines: 80 --e0cb4e887a7dbf3026048604ab9c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've always understood lujvo to be basically like fu'ivla that have been created from rafsi. That is, that they don't HAVE to adhere to the exact place structures/left-right-grouping/etc... But I've always thought that i= t was a good idea to make a lujvo be as close to the tanru from which it come= s as is pragmatically possible. It's not a big deal, I was just wondering why it was of this form. 2010/5/7 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote= : > > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:15:06PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote: > > > >> Because of left grouping this implied to me that > > > > I can only guess that someone started with {se'itro}, and just tacked o= n > a tol- to invert it without thinking about it much, since that the usual = way > of doing that with gismu. > > Is there any official or jvajvo rule that dictates left grouping of > rafsi for lujvo? My understanding was that grouping in lujvo was > normally left unspecified. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > --e0cb4e887a7dbf3026048604ab9c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've always understood lujvo to be basically like fu'ivla that have= been created from rafsi. =A0That is, that they don't HAVE to adhere to= the exact place structures/left-right-grouping/etc... =A0But I've alwa= ys thought that it was a good idea to make a lujvo be as close to the tanru= from which it comes as is pragmatically possible.

It's not a big deal, I was just wondering why it was of = this form.

2010/5/7 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.= com>
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:= 32 PM, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org= > wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:15:06PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
>
>> =A0Because of left grouping this implied t= o me that
>
> I can only guess that someone started with {se= 'itro}, and just tacked on a tol- to invert it without thinking about i= t much, since that the usual way of doing that with gismu.

Is there any official or jvajvo rule that dictates left grouping of rafsi for lujvo? My understanding was that grouping in lujvo was
normally left unspecified.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




--e0cb4e887a7dbf3026048604ab9c--