From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Feb 06 08:17:26 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:17:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1F693N-0001YR-QM for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:17:25 -0800 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.205]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1F693K-0001YI-Ax for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:17:25 -0800 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id n1so1158758nzf for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:17:19 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=pHUyZindV1oALby55v3THTLzhj1/UwpmrmoVzbAIp2oj91MBn9zhDPe9zMESoqYVnnhIFXOgr1kD6eER/ihZjWvJQMEH+BMUAlWaSdVraYqcEh1OMiiDFyBADQLD/URx87loD3AQpIZ2z/ZWT0DRFb59LTkQU/nbVAHL8l3JrP8= Received: by 10.64.208.19 with SMTP id f19mr218356qbg; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:17:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.21.10 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:17:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2d3df92a0602060817s25d1da84t96c51ccfd901073c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:17:18 +0100 From: HeliodoR To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Lojban Reader In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_14702_25476563.1139242638024" References: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 3046 X-Approved-By: exitconsole@gmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: exitconsole@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_14702_25476563.1139242638024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Just a few corrections: > .i ti cukta fi la .alex lo jbobau cilre Pointing at non-phisical existences is illegal; at least xorxe taught me that... In addition a period should go after Your name, too, so: {la .alex.}. > fi'o valsi le valsi pe lu velcli befi la lojban. bei loi co'a cilre li'u A {la'e}, "referent of..." must be attached, hence: {la'e lu velcli befi la lojban. ... li'u}. > remo'o Is this a new sentence? If so, that ought to be indicated with an {.i} besides every tabulation or newline characters or anything. As to all the further sentences generally, I'd advise You to use {lo} quasi everywhere instead of {le}. > .i la maris. klama le vecnu fu la pikis. How could she do that? :O > .i le vecnu cu vecnu loi kabri This one must be a misunderstanding that caused quite a few problems to me, too. {loi} means - according to me - that there is a mass of objects or some uncountable thing the name of which (the *whole*) is, let's say, broda. If I'm talking about loi broda, I'm thinking about something the exact parts (lo broda) of which are not important, not worth counting - which is not the case when we're talking about selling distinct items. I always think of {lai loglandias. kontrapozitivos.} to clarify the situation for myself. (Notice there are no {la loglandias. kontrapozitivos.}.) Thus the correct version most likely is {.i le vecnu cu vecnu lo kabri}, or more simply {.i le vecnu cu kabri vecnu}. Though I may be wrong. > .i fi le rokci cu kabri Wow. I'd never have thought about that. Nice solution. (I would have written sthing like {.i le kabri cu rokci} or such. Oh, it's the next sentence exactly. :)) > .i la djonas. fanva fi la lojban la gliban le cukta The result is not the book which he tranlates, it is another. .i fanva le cukta fu lo cukta > .i la djonas. tivni lo jungo Now IMO that is where a {loi} can be useful. .i dy. tivni loi jungo Please correct me if I'm saying nonsense. mi'e darves. ------=_Part_14702_25476563.1139242638024 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Just a few corrections:
 
> .i ti cukta fi la .alex lo jbobau cilre
 
Pointing at non-phisical existences is illegal; at least xorxe taught = me that...
In addition a period should go after Your name, too, so: {la .ale= x.}.
 
> fi'o valsi le valsi pe lu velcli befi la lojban. bei loi co'a cil= re li'u
 
A {la'e}, "referent of..." must be attached, hence: {la'e lu=  velcli befi la lojban. ... li'u}.
 
> remo'o
 
Is this a new sentence? If so, that ought to be indicated with an= {.i} besides every
tabulation or newline characters or anything.
 
As to all the further sentences generally, I'd advise You to use = {lo} quasi everywhere
instead of {le}.
 
> .i la maris. klama le vecnu fu la pikis.
 
How could she do that? :O
 
> .i le vecnu cu vecnu loi kabri
 
This one must be a misunderstanding that caused quite a few probl= ems to me, too.
{loi} means - according to me - that there is a mass of objects or som= e uncountable
thing the name of which (the *whole*) is, let's say, br= oda. If I'm talking about loi broda,
I'm thinking about something the exact parts (lo broda) of which are n= ot important,
not worth counting - which is not the case when we're talking about se= lling distinct
items.
I always think of {lai loglandias. kontrapozitivos.} to clarify the si= tuation for myself.
(Notice there are no {la loglandias. kontrapozitivos.}.)
 
Thus the correct version most likely is
{.i le vecnu cu vecnu lo kabri},
or more simply
{.i le vecnu cu kabri vecnu}.
 
Though I may be wrong.
 
> .i fi le rokci cu kabri
 
Wow. I'd never have thought about that. Nice solution.
(I would have written sthing like {.i le kabri cu rokci} or such.
Oh, it's the next sentence exactly. :))
 
> .i la djonas. fanva fi la lojban la gliban le cukta
 
The result is not the book which he tranlates, it is another.
.i fanva le cukta fu lo cukta
 
> .i la djonas. tivni lo jungo
 
Now IMO that is where a {loi} can be useful.
.i dy. tivni loi jungo
Please correct me if I'm saying nonsense.
 
mi'e darves.
------=_Part_14702_25476563.1139242638024--