From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Sep 05 06:20:05 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1ECGtI-0000F1-Ij for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:20:04 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.207]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1ECGtD-0000Ee-KA for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:20:04 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i32so657068wra for ; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:19:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=XTVS7vHOBZLCuThowoVsFupxYEpAobdjaMJQuDz78THZHNDAZkpM8vGUZTlcUWmIrRr3s/uezmVLjQnaBTbk1tuLatWcNCQePmQMP2QRmoZLVbySOspO3gofyQkHd6uHDXq6gQCzYMYBfgM1wshOjrbv0TehoI7bfcytCLTrDD8= Received: by 10.54.32.69 with SMTP id f69mr3687359wrf; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.140.6 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:13:57 -0400 From: Matt Arnold To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Another Newbie Intro In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_6896_21471544.1125926037826" References: X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 1954 X-Approved-By: matt.mattarn@gmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_6896_21471544.1125926037826 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I think what Scott wants there is {gi'e}, which is the type of "and" that= =20 connects bridis together. But does a vocative phrase stand in for a complet= e=20 bridi? If not, how can he use some form of "and" in this case? -Matt On 9/5/05, Newton, Philip wrote: >=20 > la .skat. cu cusku di'e > > > mi'e la nei,omis...and that's as far as I will delve into lojban, > > > before i make a fool of myself unwittingly ;) > > > > coi la nei,omis .e coi rodo .i mi'e la skat. > > > > And I have no doubt made an error or more even in those short > > sentences! lol. >=20 > Yes - .e connects sumti, so you could say {coi la nei,omis .e rodo} but= =20 > not > {coi la nei,omis .e coi rodo} since {coi rodo} is not a sumti. >=20 > I would've left out {la} after COI and would've said {coi .nei,omis. .e= =20 > rodo > .i mi'e .skat.}, but leaving in the {la} is not wrong. >=20 > (Random minor point: note that it's {mi'e .skat.} with mandatory pauses a= t > either end of {.skat.} but {mi'e la skat.} with a mandatory pause only at > the end, but not the beginning, of {skat.}, due to the "no la/lai/doi in > names" rule -- though neither pause needs to be written if you use spaces= , > as I understand it. I try to write mandatory pauses anyway.) >=20 > > co'o > > la skat. >=20 > BTW that means "Goodbye, Scott!" -- COI is followed by the person you're > addressing (except for {mi'e}). >=20 > You probably meant >=20 > co'o > mi'e .skat. >=20 > or, if you prefer, >=20 > co'o > mi'e la skat. >=20 > As for me, I tend to use {mu'o} in email exchanges since I'm not parting= =20 > or > saying good-bye, as such; rather, I expect people to respond to my messag= e > and so I say the equivalent of "I'm finished talking now; you can respond > now if you wish". Personal preference, I suppose. >=20 > mu'o mi'e .filip. >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------=_Part_6896_21471544.1125926037826 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I think what Scott wants there is {gi'e}, which is the type of "and&qu= ot; that connects bridis together. But does a vocative phrase stand in for a complete bridi? If not, how can he use some form of "and" in th= is case?
-Matt

On 9/5/05, Newton, Philip <Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de> wrote:
la .skat. cu cusku di'e
> > mi'e la nei,omis...and that's as far a= s I will delve into lojban,
> > before i make a fool of myself unw= ittingly ;)
>
> coi la nei,omis .e coi rodo .i mi'e la skat.
>
> And I have no doubt made an error or more even in those sh= ort
> sentences!  lol.

Yes - .e connects sumti, so y= ou could say {coi la nei,omis .e rodo} but not
{coi la nei,omis .e coi r= odo} since {coi rodo} is not a sumti.

I would've left out {la} after COI and would've said {coi .nei,omis= . .e rodo
.i mi'e .skat.}, but leaving in the {la} is not wrong.

= (Random minor point: note that it's {mi'e .skat.} with mandatory pauses at
either end of {.skat.} but {mi'e la skat.} with a mandatory pause only = at
the end, but not the beginning, of {skat.}, due to the "no la/la= i/doi in
names" rule -- though neither pause needs to be written if= you use spaces,
as I understand it. I try to write mandatory pauses anyway.)

>= ; co'o
> la skat.

BTW that means "Goodbye, Scott!" -= - COI is followed by the person you're
addressing (except for {mi'e}).

You probably meant

  co'o
  mi'e .ska= t.

or, if you prefer,

  co'o
  mi'e la= skat.

As for me, I tend to use {mu'o} in email exchanges since I'm = not parting or
saying good-bye, as such; rather, I expect people to resp= ond to my message
and so I say the equivalent of "I'm finished talking now; you can = respond
now if you wish". Personal preference, I suppose.

mu= 'o mi'e .filip.




------=_Part_6896_21471544.1125926037826--