2012/3/3 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gm= ail.com>

On 3 March 2012 15:30, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/3/3 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> I suggest starting with
>>
>> 2. mi me la .clalis.
>
> Why not simply {mi'e la .clalis} ?
> BTW, {clalis} doesn't have the same sound of the orginal that is (= if I
> understood correctly) roughly equivalent to the Chinese "Chen Li&= quot; I'd
> prefer {tcenlis}
>

The straightforward and realistic sentence would be {mi'e .clalis= .},
I just considered that paralleling 2 and 3 helps understanding the
sentence structure in 3 (as 2 and 4 in the original).

This is the burden of translating an introduction to a different language.<= br>

>> 3. ta me la .djan.
> This seems a good place to assign {ko'a} -> 3. ta goi ko'a = me la .djan.
>

Just consider how hard it is to figure out the sentence structure at<= br> first sight.
Firstly, it is too long and too dissimilar from nearby sentences. Secondly,= the
concept of assignment is highly unexpected. To introduce it via illustrated=
examples, I would dedicate a whole sequence of examples to that single
concept and employ at least one reassignment.

Furthermore, when do you expect to use {ko'a} again? The girl is pointi= ng
all the time. And, in particular, in 16, she is talking to a guy who was ab= sent
in 3.

>> 4. zo .djan. cmene ta
> I would use the lujvo {selme'e} -> 4. ko'a selme'e zo .= djan.
> This would avoid using {se}, I agree it's too early, the nintandi<= br> > would not know about the relationship between {selme'e} and {cmene= },
> they would just guess it means "is named".
>

That is fine. But why are you avoiding the gismu?

>> Also, I recommend using the ti-series in place of the ko'a-ser= ies.
> Not sure. I would prefer introducing {ko'a} and friends.
>

It is nice to introduce {ko'a}, but, as I said, that is infeasibl= e without
a dedicated story, or at such an early point of this one.

>> Using the latter while pointing can cause so much confusion...
>>
>> In 12 we may do
>> 12. lo prenu cu zvati tu
>
> My preference would be {vuku ko'e goi tu zvati}
>
> Using {tu} as zvati2 seems too prone to ambiguity. At least it should<= br> > be {lovu} so that it is clear you're talking about "there yon= der".
>

Wouldn't the roles of zvati1 and zvati2 be clear from 10 and 11?<= br> Similarly, isn't it clear from the green circles that they are talking = about
position?

To me, once you know {mi} or {do} you can figure out the sentence
structure right away, which in this case would show the reader the
flexibility of lojban demonstratives.

S= howing flexibility at this early stage seems like showing off, i.e., a bad = thing. Once the learner becomes comfortable with a single way to express an= idea, then you can add new ways, one at a time. This seems far too early i= n that process to me for demonstrating the capabilities of the language. Re= petition is much more important (and tedious).=A0

stevo

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.