Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) 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=3.3.1 X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:29:58 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OjzwX-0005jg-9B; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:29:29 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ojzvr-0005jX-Ay for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:28:48 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ojzvl-0005iy-Db for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:28:47 -0700 Received: by vws15 with SMTP id 15so1733895vws.40 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:28:35 -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=2huL1zhhTJksL7oWJ5JNXkPUjNwVeKx4YbTVfa73/Gs=; b=CMRQgskyi2RDJXeBS+KNmd13VbjcIJKlXUJ0Wqglawd+x/dtzSy/MDWh5woEeLA9WE oGJnX2dqNLhKmDy3HNHXzDfA4127Sn4Mqj5KiA93tGv+ECcrzJAhC/rABtBZC+2/YheV yZ9r5iPUFK58elazUygNgcOAXaXzO9awnggZc= 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=YEFVr7LjAd9LJ6jHtyZnvBaXgreXUPdCAqZpPuzFpsLD77RCOjQ1I2PLsBjmvli1V3 a0To7mGN1Em+B3Xg1dxblD6ucwMTQn+GAtOdHdIoLXHnsvqOzAJTTbn3rIghS1cgAGIa qzs/xFB5aYwnBfWxJIYHTXHavUl/b5NbkqPI8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.46.17 with SMTP id h17mr1069838vcf.174.1281727714969; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.123.96 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:28:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:28:34 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: zu'edji From: Luke Bergen To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6509e88264ad0048db97dc1 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: 6477 Lines: 169 --0016e6509e88264ad0048db97dc1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable yeah, I just made up zukpla. I don't know. It seems to me like "plan" and "intend" are two different things. Maybe neither word is necessary. xorxes, if I say "do bilga lo nu rinka lo nu lo do cteki vreji cu jai mulno" and you want to say "mi lo nu gasnu tu'a lo cteki vreji". what would you put in for that notion of "intend to do an action". I don't think {djica} is right because you don't necessarily "want" to do it (i.e. if you somehow discovered that you were exempt from filing taxes you would probably be happy because you are n= o longer obliged to do them). But at the same time I'm not sure that {platu} makes sense because how much planning really happens when you think to yourself "I really _should_ to do ~X~ soon... ok, I've decided... I intend to do ~X~ tonight". I haven't planned any aspect of HOW I will be doing ~X~, only decided that I will do it. oh... there we go. How about {zu'ejdi}. I have decided to do ~X~. I intend to do ~X~. That seems right, I think. 2010/8/13 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Luke Bergen > wrote: > > > > I propose changing the definition of {zu'edji} just a bit so that inste= ad > > of: > > Definition: z1 intends/wishes to do z2 for z3 > > we have: > > Definition: z1 wishes/desires to do z2 for purpose z3 > > Sounds reasonable, but in what case would "zu'edji" be preferable to > plain "djica"? I find two relevant hits for "zu'edji" with Google. The > first one is: > > mi pu pensi lo nu do zu'edji lo nu cusku lu pixra li'u > > which seems like a fancy way of saying > > mi pu pensi lo nu do djica lo nu cusku lu pixra li'u > > or just: > > mi pu pensi lo nu do skudji lu pixra li'u > > (Though probably "krici" or "jinvi" would make more sense than "pensi".) > > The second hit (from the "cmaci" article in wikipedia) is: > > .i le selpla be la .xilbert. zu'edji lonu gasnu loza'i lo cmaci cu > se jicmu lo jdari ke .aksioma jicmu > > I asume a "cu" is missing in front of "zu'edji", but a "selpla" > wishing or intending to do something is strange. Also "se jicmu lo > (...) jicmu" is kind of redundant. I would suggest something like: > > .i lo selpla be la .xilbert. cu nu gasnu lo nu lo cmaci cu jdari se > jicmu lo .aksioma ciste > > or similar. > > > and create a new lujvo: {zukpla} with a definition like: > > Definition: z1 intends/plans to do z2 (event) for purpose z3 > > OK, but same question as for "zu'edji". In what case would "zukpla" be > preferable to plain "platu"? (No hits for usage of "zukpla".) > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > --0016e6509e88264ad0048db97dc1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable yeah, I just made up zukpla.

I don't know. =A0It see= ms to me like "plan" and "intend" are two different thi= ngs. =A0

Maybe neither word is necessary. =A0xorxe= s, if I say "do bilga lo nu rinka lo nu lo do cteki vreji cu jai mulno= " and you want to say "mi <intend/plan-on> lo nu gasnu tu&#= 39;a lo cteki vreji". =A0what would you put in for that notion of &quo= t;intend to do an action". =A0I don't think {djica} is right becau= se you don't=A0necessarily=A0"want" to do it (i.e. if you som= ehow discovered that you were exempt from filing taxes you would probably b= e happy because you are no longer obliged to do them). =A0But at the same t= ime I'm not sure that {platu} makes sense because how much planning rea= lly happens when you think to yourself "I really _should_ to do ~X~ so= on... ok, I've decided... I intend to do ~X~ tonight". =A0I haven&= #39;t planned any aspect of HOW I will be doing ~X~, only decided that I wi= ll do it.

oh... there we go. =A0How about {zu'ejdi}. =A0I hav= e decided to do ~X~. =A0I intend to do ~X~. =A0That seems right, I think.
2010/8/13 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>=
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1= 0:53 AM, Luke Bergen <lukeaberg= en@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I propose changing the definition of {zu'edji} just a bit so that = instead
> of:
> Definition: z1 intends/wishes to do z2 for z3
> we have:
> Definition: z1 wishes/desires to do z2 for purpose z3

Sounds reasonable, but in what case would "zu'edji" be = preferable to
plain "djica"? I find two relevant hits for "zu'edji&quo= t; with Google. The
first one is:

=A0 =A0mi pu pensi lo nu do zu'edji lo nu cusku lu pixra li'u

which seems like a fancy way of saying

=A0 =A0 mi pu pensi lo nu do djica lo nu cusku lu pixra li'u

or just:

=A0 =A0 mi pu pensi lo nu do skudji lu pixra li'u

(Though probably "krici" or "jinvi" would make more sen= se than "pensi".)

The second hit (from the "cmaci" article in wikipedia) is:

=A0.i le selpla be la .xilbert. zu'edji lonu gasnu loza'i lo cmaci= cu
se jicmu lo jdari ke .aksioma jicmu

I asume a "cu" is missing in front of "zu'edji", bu= t a "selpla"
wishing or intending to do something is strange. Also "se jicmu lo
(...) jicmu" is kind of redundant. I would suggest something like:

=A0.i lo selpla be la .xilbert. cu nu gasnu lo nu lo cmaci cu jdari se
jicmu lo .aksioma ciste

or similar.

> and create a new lujvo: {zukpla} with a definition like:
> Definition: z1 intends/plans to do z2 (event) for purpose z3

OK, but same question as for "zu'edji". In what case wo= uld "zukpla" be
preferable to plain "platu"? (No hits for usage of "zukpla&q= uot;.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes




--0016e6509e88264ad0048db97dc1--