From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 18 05:42:00 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp1mJ-0006ry-FX for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:41:57 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.224]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp1mB-0006rq-G4 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:41:49 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so1572529wxd for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=IVkjUH1cCAmrO2wxX3tLXxAtPzj7mHjgbtPFgLPzqxMHKOHyGh0zjl+bhsDKuqmYAunYziCTxcmg2VjyCh2m8Kkk2JafKA6KOr2HWqSopMqpCfsNmYhk5G2z6lnqusBt1txUrVJeGWg+uK01slcYYOgX995AiM1PfJ4Z3RQuhLs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=lpILKXLGpAjE4UegAMme8z+z8dbcJZXoCHwT/3Ii3c5bgQ54MHp7chNdnBLX3HK92201WhxEjDXs4r05OYLe85Eu4XxnXCgK8x9iVoS2H4SYg+IHdUGJ808aPlFLTgya2Dxv3K9hdQ+Arm7Wy1s4YUTz6JVdnQz1K7o4wAWs2Ok= Received: by 10.90.89.5 with SMTP id m5mr1635308agb.1179492100525; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.19 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0705180541p131cbc0dh5ffd737f0f8452f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 13:41:40 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" In-Reply-To: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D34@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_29518_23774181.1179492100461" References: <2f91285f0705180417l7a84e4a5mc65ccb3c57b10ae@mail.gmail.com> <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D34@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4493 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: picos.picos@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_29518_23774181.1179492100461 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I see. Just to make sure, if there's no ".i" and the sentence of John continues... la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u la meri= s cusku lu ku'i pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u ... that doesn't bear any logical meaning, right? Or can the second "cusku" be the second selbri of "la djan" ("la meris" being the x2 of the first "cusku"), even though there's no connective like "gi'e" between the two bridi? On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] wrote= : > > Remember that ".i" is not so much a sentence _*terminator*_ as a > sentence _*separator*_. It's often found at the beginning of utterances > to show that what you say has no connection to the previous utterance (by > you or another person) (and NOT usually at the end). So the first senten= ce > says: > > Ranjit says, "I want beef curry and onion bread" > > The second says: > > Ranjit said, "Jhoti greeted me" Either could have used or not used the .= i > at the beginning. It just makes it clear in the course of conversation t= hat > you are not piling onto the previous utterance. For example, consider th= is > valid excahnge: > > > > la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u > > .i la meris cusku lu ku'i pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u > > > > John says, "I want beefy curre and onion bread" > > Mary says, "=85.but not cooked spicily". > > > > Without the ".i" in Mary's quote it continues the sentence of John. > > > > --gejyspa > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto: > lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] *On Behalf Of *Vid Sintef > *Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2007 7:18 AM > *To:* lojban-beginners@lojban.org > *Subject:* [lojban-beginners] the ".i" after "lu" > > > > Along the course "Lojban For Beginners" I saw sentences with the direct > quotation word being followed by the sentence terminator ".i", like this: > la ranjit cu cusku lu .i mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba > li'u > On the other hand, there are also sentences without ".i" after "lu": > la ranjit. pu cusku lu la djiotis. pu rinsa mi li'u > What is the difference between them? > ------=_Part_29518_23774181.1179492100461 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I see.


la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u la meris cusku lu ku'i pu'e na= 'e cpina jukpa li'u

...  that doesn't bear any logical mean= ing, right?
Or can the second "cusku" be the second selbri of &quo= t;la djan" ("la meris" being the x2 of the first "cusku= "), even though there's no connective like "gi'e" be= tween the two bridi?




On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:<= /span>

  Remember that ".i"= ; is not so much a sentence _terminator_ as a sentence _separator_= .  It's often found at the beginning of utterances to show that what you s= ay has no connection to the previous utterance (by you or another person) (and NOT usually at the end).  So the first sentence says:

Ranjit says, "I want beef cur= ry and  onion bread" 

The second says:

Ranjit said, "Jhoti greeted m= e"  Either could have used or not used the .i at the beginning.  It just m= akes it clear in the course of conversation that you are not piling onto the previous utterance.  For example, consider this valid excahnge:=

 

la djan cusku  lu mi djica lo= bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u

.i la meris cusku lu ku'i pu&#= 39;e na'e cpina jukpa li'u

 

John says, "I want beefy curr= e and onion bread"

Mary says, "=85.but not cooke= d spicily".

 

 Without the ".i" i= n Mary's quote it continues the sentence of John.

 

     &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;     --gejyspa

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: lojban-beginners-boun= ce@lojban.org [mailto: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007= 7:18 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners= ] the ".i" after "lu"

 

Along the course "Lojban For Beginners" I saw sentences with the direct quotation word being followed by the sentence terminator ".i", like this:
la ranjit cu cusku lu .i mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u
On the other hand, there are also sentences without ".i" after "lu":
la ranjit. pu cusku lu la djiotis. pu rinsa mi li'u
What is the difference between them?


------=_Part_29518_23774181.1179492100461--