From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Feb 18 18:25:19 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NiIYQ-0000LO-Iv for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:25:19 -0800 Received: from mail-ew0-f224.google.com ([209.85.219.224]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NiIYE-0000BG-OW for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:25:15 -0800 Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so3014552ewy.26 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:25:00 -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=kVm50yKQ7d8K2DyLp6eBK13gBayWhCaS3nmf0IKfH8M=; b=qm+0+BQ5FI0gMxt4JQFRcmbc207tB9UZrqt7dnjC81b29P2KsdTsW4gRbGOO2hn3ML fhCIAZOR1+fXcU/zxIqCZyZUTUqxN3J9Np5NwYdw00pN0GIqZiuxhvFlloDj4TJN3PD1 3IdL9a1bKYs15oiiargCkOOpSp48gugnmwl/Q= 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=JuyMGUZmRUY9Z0R6knUw69jAWep9AsIkL2zR7KUhU6NXEN7dL38XYTFSABkmjcl8uh eFWEqK6YL5Af4hNr5mDU7DLGY/oHbMGBQL5AdjoH6kBYE+vaZRpj8vQ76wilEAR394vX 2qJWKIpEf7V4/p+4fjgSe7Frw/MfHj/2gPjpk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.107.20 with SMTP id z20mr4794095ebo.81.1266546300109; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:25:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20100219014246.GY19917@digitalkingdom.org> References: <1f1080831002181721w425a462dpd6cdae84a97b4d0f@mail.gmail.com> <20100219014246.GY19917@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:25:00 -0500 Message-ID: <1f1080831002181825s174b3e2dicc8251571742e6dd@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Not needing terminators From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5b3834f449b047feaca7e X-archive-position: 2854 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 --001636c5b3834f449b047feaca7e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I see now, thank you. Written that way I can read jbofi'e's output much more easily than in the format I saw it before. {se nandu} really does turn out rather cumbersome when you have to write it out like that, doesn't it? Also, {lojbo tavla}, that's a nice way to do that. mu'omi'e latros. On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Robin Lee Powell < rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:21:23PM -0500, Ian Johnson wrote: > > I'm trying to work out when you need and don't need terminators. For > > example, here's a sentence I wrote today: > > > > xu do se nandu lonu do tavla mi fo la lojban. lonu do tatpi > > > > In idiomatic English, what I'm intending here is: "Do you find it > > difficult to talk with me in Lojban when you are tired?" > > > > I put this sentence into jbofi'e and it appears to have parsed it the > way > > I intended. > > Then you're reading jbofi'e's output incorrectly. le'o ru'e ("no > offense"). > > (0[xu {do <(1se nandu)1 (1lo [nu {do }] [lo {nu > }])2>}])1>}])0 > > See the (1...)1 section? That's grabbing the entire sentence after > "se nandu". This means that everyhting to the right of "se nandu" > is ending up in the second place of "se nandu". Not what you wante. > > In particular, note that (2...)2, which is the stuff that fills the > places of tavla, includes the second "lo nu". > > > However, when writing it, I was not sure if I needed to have a > > {kei} after {la lojban.}. I know {cu} makes it so you don't need > > terminators in situations like these, but what exactly makes it so > > that {lonu do tatpi} does not run into the {tavla} clause here? > > A terminator on the first "lo nu" clause. > > The way that xorxes and I handle this in long-form writing is to > move "lo nu" clauses in front of the selbri. I also find "se nandu" > cumbersome in this case, so I'd just do: > > xu lo nu lojbo tavla cu nandu do lo nu do tatpi > > If you wanted to keep your original structure: > > xu do lo nu do tavla mi fo la lojban. cu se nandu lo nu do tatpi > > > Also, just subjectively, is it somewhat..."polite" to include a > > {kei} here even though it's not grammatically needed? > > The only time I included un-needed terminators is when *I* am > confused. :) > > -Robin > > -- > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something > other than the default outcome?" See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/*** > http://www.lojban.org/ > > > > --001636c5b3834f449b047feaca7e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I see now, thank you. Written that way I can read jbofi'e's output = much more easily than in the format I saw it before. {se nandu} really does= turn out rather cumbersome when you have to write it out like that, doesn&= #39;t it?

Also, {lojbo tavla}, that's a nice way to do that.

mu'om= i'e latros.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8= :42 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:21:23PM -0500, Ian Johnson wrote:
> =A0 =A0I'm trying to work out when you need and don't need ter= minators. For
> =A0 =A0example, here's a sentence I wrote today:
>
> =A0 =A0xu do se nandu lonu do tavla mi fo la lojban. lonu do tatpi
>
> =A0 =A0In idiomatic English, what I'm intending here is: "Do = you find it
> =A0 =A0difficult to talk with me in Lojban when you are tired?" >
> =A0 =A0I put this sentence into jbofi'e and it appears to have par= sed it the way
> =A0 =A0I intended.

Then you're reading jbofi'e's output incorrectly. =A0le&#= 39;o ru'e ("no
offense").

(0[xu {do <(1se nandu)1 (1lo [nu {do <tavla (2[mi {fo <la lojban&g= t;}] [lo {nu <do tatpi>}])2>}])1>}])0

See the (1...)1 section? =A0That's grabbing the entire sentence after "se nandu". =A0This means that everyhting to the right of "s= e nandu"
is ending up in the second place of "se nandu". =A0Not what you w= ante.

In particular, note that (2...)2, which is the stuff that fills the
places of tavla, includes the second "lo nu".

> However, when writing it, I was not sure if I needed to have a
> {kei} after {la lojban.}. I know {cu} makes it so you don't need > terminators in situations like these, but what exactly makes it so
> that {lonu do tatpi} does not run into the {tavla} clause here?

A terminator on the first "lo nu" clause.

The way that xorxes and I handle this in long-form writing is to
move "lo nu" clauses in front of the selbri. =A0I also find "= ;se nandu"
cumbersome in this case, so I'd just do:

xu lo nu lojbo tavla cu nandu do lo nu do tatpi

If you wanted to keep your original structure:

xu do lo nu do tavla mi fo la lojban. cu se nandu lo nu do tatpi

> Also, just subjectively, is it somewhat..."polite" to includ= e a
> {kei} here even though it's not grammatically needed?

The only time I included un-needed terminators is when *I* am
confused. =A0:)

-Robin

--
They say: =A0"The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons.&= quot;
And I'm =A0thinking: =A0"Does it even occur to you to try for some= thing
other =A0than =A0the default =A0outcome?" =A0See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz
ht= tp://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/




--001636c5b3834f449b047feaca7e--