From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Feb 07 14:22:05 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:22:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NeFW0-0008Is-OW for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:22:05 -0800 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.145]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NeFVu-0008Gj-G3 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:22:03 -0800 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so1045319eyg.36 for ; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:21:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=By87QEKiAMQS4NeFf8mq2wbWLPp3IdQyBz9w6y4p0b8=; b=mAjIFOY6qgj4MUN11IlCg9tQNGjWqNuEccVh28vp+MqmT7+GhysXEwxdS90sGSn7Gp phqz+BqLZ70DkhzsRlYsx6SPH7JYElN6SFR7hkjUZW2Jo15BoqxdOA0+scqYd3p0wPpJ V6cl6djuv+dHiLYcfotZs67lB3vBbm//KdZ8E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=GBG12HD6rClzJ6Sta79X2dwu4MEmDnuiCVoGVlnnwKR5yfJzs7TRid36364x+KhqcN rFq0+AvjE1u9YRWHpWfGpzlvMO+8D1DHo1fdkCpZR2KT4Kb2SViPvO190dkMa/O2vHWc q7TxOuHNlA6a7DWb0HKuIS8Hy3pMVVNqfTmMY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.1.15 with SMTP id 15mr3202582ebd.42.1265581316838; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:21:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20100207215510.GA27254@sdf.lonestar.org> References: <1f1080831002071208v7f7c3f11v956c0c669b146948@mail.gmail.com> <20100207202319.GA6434@sdf.lonestar.org> <1f1080831002071322q4618a850x93f36dcabf4a29e0@mail.gmail.com> <20100207215510.GA27254@sdf.lonestar.org> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:21:56 -0500 Message-ID: <1f1080831002071421r629a292agb165e25e81e226f3@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Introduction From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce03fe0d3149d047f0a1c69 X-archive-position: 2783 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: blindbravado@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --000e0ce03fe0d3149d047f0a1c69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Minimiscience wrote: > I just used it because it's the default {gadri}. If you're learning Lojban > via > either *Lojban for Beginners* or *{la lojban. mo}/What is Lojban?*, both of > these (last time I checked) describe the {gadri} ("{lo}," "{le}," "{la}," > and > some other uncommon ones) as they were specified in *The Complete Lojban > Language* in 1997. However, in 2004, the definition of "{lo}" was changed > from > "a thing which truly is..." to "a thing associated with...". Along with > the > other minor changes made to the {gadri} at the same time, you can find more > information on this at > . As a > result, "{lo}" is now the preferred {gadri} to use whenever in doubt, and > it is > always acceptable to use "{lo}" wherever "{le}" can be used. > This is interesting. I've been learning out of Lojban for Beginners (with some supplements, mostly dictionaries), and I found "le" to be a bit more vague than it could have been there. From what I see there, now I see that lo is evidently quite a bit more vague even than le was before...just at a glance I don't think I like it quite as much this way as the other way. The main problem with lo that I had before was the "lo ..." meaning "one or more of the in the universe...", which seems to be gone. Thank you for that anyway (although I have actually seen that already in fishing around on the mailing list). > The definition of {fanmo} is "x1 is an end/finish/termination of > thing/process > x2", i.e., its x2 can be either a process or a thing, which is what {lo > ckule} > is. > I suppose then the idea that "a thing ends" is being a problem in my head. Even trying to strip the layers of English it seems odd. However, I do see that with the changes to lo, lo ... se fanmo makes sense. It still doesn't get to everything in "is closed", but I don't know if anything really will without way too much detail. mu'omi'e latros. --000e0ce03fe0d3149d047f0a1c69 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Minimisc= ience <mini= miscience@gmail.com> wrote:
I just used it because it's the default {gadri}. =A0If you're learn= ing Lojban via
either *Lojban for Beginners* or *{la lojban. mo}/What is Lojban?*, both of=
these (last time I checked) describe the {gadri} ("{lo}," "{= le}," "{la}," and
some other uncommon ones) as they were specified in *The Complete Lojban Language* in 1997. =A0However, in 2004, the definition of "{lo}" = was changed from
"a thing which truly is..." to "a thing associated with...&q= uot;. =A0Along with the
other minor changes made to the {gadri} at the same time, you can find more=
information on this at
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3DH= ow+to+use+xorlo>. =A0As a
result, "{lo}" is now the preferred {gadri} to use whenever in do= ubt, and it is
always acceptable to use "{lo}" wherever "{le}" can be = used.

This is interesting. I've been learning = out of Lojban for Beginners (with some supplements, mostly dictionaries), a= nd I found "le" to be a bit more vague than it could have been th= ere. From what I see there, now I see that lo is evidently quite a bit more= vague even than le was before...just at a glance I don't think I like = it quite as much this way as the other way. The main problem with lo that I= had before was the "lo <number> <sumti>..." meaning = "one or more of the <number> <sumti> in the universe...&qu= ot;, which seems to be gone.

Thank you for that anyway (although I have actually seen that already i= n fishing around on the mailing list).
=A0
The definition of {fanmo} is "x1 is an end/finish/te= rmination of thing/process
x2", i.e., its x2 can be either a process or a thing, which is what {l= o ckule}
is.

I suppose then = the idea that "a thing ends" is being a problem in my head. Even = trying to strip the layers of English it seems odd.

However, I do se= e that with the changes to lo, lo ... se fanmo makes sense. It still doesn&= #39;t get to everything in "is closed", but I don't know if a= nything really will without way too much detail.

mu'omi'e latros.

--000e0ce03fe0d3149d047f0a1c69--