From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Oct 02 20:33:50 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MtvNV-0000JQ-PZ for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:33:50 -0700 Received: from ol.freeshell.org ([192.94.73.20] helo=sdf.lonestar.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MtvNR-0000It-3O for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:33:49 -0700 Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:jwodder@iceland.freeshell.org [192.94.73.5]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n933XXk0014544 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2009 03:33:34 GMT Received: (from jwodder@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.3/8.12.8/Submit) id n933XWVw000283 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 3 Oct 2009 03:33:33 GMT Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 03:33:32 +0000 From: Minimiscience To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: using 'se' in conversation Message-ID: <20091003033325.GA27364@sdf.lonestar.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org References: <7f1d42860910021120n1033c6a3wbef9131c23f2c9a0@mail.gmail.com> <27513e550910022003g4c4bb780s8c36f55c805feba0@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27513e550910022003g4c4bb780s8c36f55c805feba0@mail.gmail.com> Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-archive-position: 2439 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: minimiscience@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners de'i li 03 pi'e 10 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Oren .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra. > 'i've never seen something i haven't liked' > (there exists no thing, such that (i have seen it) and (i do not like it)) > .i na kanxe du'u se pu viska be mi du'u na se nelci be mi > > ...I'm sure I'm off on the second one. .skamyxatra Yes, you are amazingly far off. First of all, abstractions (including those made with "{du'u}") are {selbri}, not {sumti}, and so the first abstraction is the {tertau} to "{kanxe}"'s {seltau}, and the second abstraction is the {tertau} to "{viske be mi}"'s {seltau}. Secondly, even if the abstractions were made into {sumti} by putting "{lo}" before each of them (and putting "{kei}" after the first one), the sentence would mean "Something is not a conjunction stating that something was seen by me and something [not necessarily the same thing] was not liked by me." Also, you need to switch the "{se}" and the "{pu}" in front of "{viska}," and the "{be}"s connecting "{mi}" to "{viska}" and "{nelci}" are unnecessary. I would recommend saying instead "{noda poi mi viska cu na se nelci mi}" -- "Nothing seen by me is not liked by me." mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. -- loi jetnu ka'e bartu .ije ku'i loi jitfa cu nenri lo stedu be do