From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 18 06:57:56 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 06:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp2xw-0000VR-1P for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 06:57:56 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.236]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp2xt-0000VJ-1v for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 06:57:55 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so1613579wxd for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 06:57:51 -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=Xqns9RigArkS/KY+usbIUnJR4AurJhpL2NbHXyNscaHt/cMkXCf1rr7OBBRBXZ+rv9GTJ3xxatHjAhArNKIWgKa1cfY2FEgurhwENCKW6Ikz1VdLqcQq+l1hTKwv6CET0Vvo/FrA3ON/VvqiJYYi/v5Mjwz+xA3v5f8N7gIddIA= 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=N7UJkCkr9QxCUoV6XOw8g2rGzwr5qYOm+IK7cLontu0HHWm41T8KK2IwbE3cAnMkJbqXTOSRxqVuJCgB3QiXZT1nb+aR2+MStSRvhvz1T3VQchqSJWxQ4pw/WlQadyXzBeLamtNZQD2fnFr85XB5NKDiIykcJ7nKJQZnjaTMGFo= Received: by 10.70.31.14 with SMTP id e14mr2590137wxe.1179496671033; Fri, 18 May 2007 06:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.19 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2007 06:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0705180657v62c66fe3q55e7b16540c5281a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:57:50 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" In-Reply-To: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D37@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_30254_28259449.1179496670886" References: <200705181505.08607.todurov@gmail.com> <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D37@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4498 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_30254_28259449.1179496670886 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I understand Michael's point. However, some collections of text on www.lojban.org show sentences without being separated by ".i". The following is from "terpa lo tirxu": A: doi patfu do terpa xu lo tirxu B: na go'i A: xu go'i lo cinfo B: si'a na go'i A: je'e .ija'o do terpa le mamta po'o Is this omission of ".i" a permissive, casual application for an aesthetic reason? Or should it be avoided as is the case in Elmo's example? On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] wrote: > > Actually, Elmo, your sentences came to me without any line breaks (due > to my mailer, no doubt), and demonstrated quite clearely that YOU needed > to add .i before the second and third instances of "la ranjit" in order > to break them up, rgeardless of what ranjit is sying ;-) > > --gejyspa > > > -----Original Message----- > From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org > [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Elmo Todurov > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:05 AM > To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org > Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" > > Very little. Theoretically one might talk in several short > sentence-parts, > like > la.ranjit.cusku lu mi crino li'u > la ranjit cisma > la ranjit cusku lu je cmalu gi'e xabju la.mars li'u > In this case the .i should be inserted there in the beginning of a new > sentence. On the other hand, common sense would suggest citing whole > sentences at once. > > In short, stay on the safe side and use .i. > > > > ------=_Part_30254_28259449.1179496670886 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I understand Michael's point.
However, some collections of text on www.lojban.org show sentences without being separated by ".i".
The following is from "terpa lo tirxu":

A: doi patfu do terpa xu lo tirxu
B: na go'i
A: xu go'i lo cinfo
B: si'a na go'i
A: je'e .ija'o do terpa le mamta po'o

Is this omission of ".i" a permissive, casual application for an aesthetic reason?
Or should it be avoided as is the case in Elmo's example?



On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:
  Actually, Elmo, your sentences came to me without any line breaks (due
to my mailer, no doubt), and demonstrated quite clearely that YOU needed
to add .i before the second and third instances of "la ranjit" in order
to break them up, rgeardless of what ranjit is sying   ;-)

                --gejyspa


-----Original Message-----
From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
[mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Elmo Todurov
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:05 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu"

Very little. Theoretically one might talk in several short
sentence-parts,
like
la.ranjit.cusku lu mi crino li'u
la ranjit cisma
la ranjit cusku lu je cmalu gi'e xabju la.mars li'u
In this case the .i should be inserted there in the beginning of a new
sentence. On the other hand, common sense would suggest citing whole
sentences at once.

In short, stay on the safe side and use .i.




------=_Part_30254_28259449.1179496670886--