From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 23 13:43:45 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NuAwy-0008OG-CV for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:43:44 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NuAwr-0008NH-TB for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:43:43 -0700 Received: by vws4 with SMTP id 4so583032vws.40 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) 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=7wYieWOmBX9SOXqG8LUsiZhRwAVZhFa2v2YTBkn0Qq8=; b=ThtVWdlKE0zTjPICUsArsfcj36SsW+HzHHAWUQCM5tsU0FBMd4YIljmnm57OfUq6qb F/cArVO8Jcu2zoWIFdEbzJ/q5KA7wYPclcuGqzTItm2K7cXRVvTsWtpGeBPeFmqDCZmX Wg6U83l6eQ/896nMt2b5NX0bLNjL3n8KroepM= 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=cPwbC0LaAw6gLIc0Aq8JGEyqh/wAB2LxS2aD+tbks2iRNCnegVwzxdbBRHvtRgjWoV 9gypMoTMA04YWdHlQxdprZs4t0AM3++SVBUh74nCAhLSeRXFCo+WGi+RGEGcwMb26ouz HQ/2B1mXjV+tJAUnq0UXn0vZfld6acnWBGDW0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.157.140 with SMTP id b12mr626067vcx.215.1269377011497; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17561003230545s3d54d111nc43bfa64a8c16144@mail.gmail.com> References: <5715b9301003210025q7f680f5eo50b3e7d76c38f116@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003210712r4b4a02f7l1531cf6997f361c7@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003211010h21ddaf0ch95f5f80ae56de924@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003211043w34812aa9p8f5b0b323657e06@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003211046s6e0035ddj9a6144fa453de11@mail.gmail.com> <16d9defd1003211607v44b3b829xb62d34a3b76b5308@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003230545s3d54d111nc43bfa64a8c16144@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:43:31 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9301003231343p30854781tf74255ceedb03e7c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: .imu'ibo From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e8877d7db3b6704827dddbb X-archive-position: 3060 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --e0cb4e8877d7db3b6704827dddbb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, so the difference between: broda .ibabo brode and broda .ibaku brode Is that the first one is saying that {brode} happens after {broda} and the second one is saying that {brode} happens after (?) default of the speakers present? I'm probably being a little intentionally thick here. The first time I saw {.ibabo} I tried to figure it out on my own and got incredibly confused whe= n I got to the cmavo {bo}. Everything prior to that made sense; [new sentence][in the future][tanru short scope link] ?!?!?! Why was it decided to use an already used cmavo for this convention of {.ibo}? It seem= s to me like one of the most non-conventional parts of the language at this point. Or is {bo} supposed to be more general in some way that it actually makes sense to use it in this other way? 2010/3/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, chris kerr > wrote: > > Why was this xoxes? If "pu" had equaled "fi'o purci" it seems like > > everything would have been more intuitive. Personally I find it odd > > that the sumti that "pu" eats (when it's not in front of a selbri), is > > what's in the future. > > I think it's actually quite intuitive that "pu ko'a" has the meaning > of "purci ko'a", i.e. "broda pu ko'a" =3D "lo nu broda cu purci ko'a". > For me it's "mu'i ko'a" not being "mukti ko'a" that is less intuitive. > > As for the reasons why PU and BAI ended up different, the way it was > explained to me is basically that they started from different places. > PU was originally just a selbri tcita, and its extension as a sumti > tcita came later. BAI started as sumti tcita, and it was later > extended to selbri tcita. Also, BAIs were associated with a gismu so > that they could be converted with SE to get each of the arguments, and > for that to work properly the argument that it tagged had to be the x1 > of the associated gismu rather than the x2. PU (and other "tenses") > are not strictly associated with a gismu and cannot be converted with > SE. In fact, not every "tense" has an obvious gismu to go with it, and > while FAhAs do generally follow the pattern of PU ("ne'i" =3D "fi'o se > nenri", "zu'a" =3D "fi'o se zunle", etc.) sometimes they don't ("fa'a" = =3D > "fi'o farna", "zo'i" =3D "fi'o ?????"). > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > --e0cb4e8877d7db3b6704827dddbb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, so the difference between:

broda .ibabo brode
<= div>
and

broda .ibaku brode

Is that the first one is saying that {brode} happens after= {broda} and the second one is saying that {brode} happens after (?) defaul= t of the speakers present?

I'm probably being a little intentionally thick her= e. =A0The first time I saw {.ibabo} I tried to figure it out on my own and = got incredibly confused when I got to the cmavo {bo}. =A0Everything prior t= o that made sense; [new sentence][in the future][tanru short scope link] ?!= ?!?! =A0Why was it decided to use an already used cmavo for this convention= of {.i<cmavo>bo}? =A0It seems to me like one of the most non-convent= ional parts of the language at this point. =A0Or is {bo} supposed to be mor= e general in some way that it actually makes sense to use it in this other = way?

2010/3/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, chris kerr <letsclimbhigher@gmail.com> wro= te:
> Why was this xoxes? =A0If "pu" had equaled "fi'o pu= rci" it seems like
> everything would have been more intuitive. =A0Personally I find it odd=
> that the sumti that "pu" eats (when it's not in front of= a selbri), is
> what's in the future.

I think it's actually quite intuitive that "pu ko'a"= ; has the meaning
of "purci ko'a", i.e. "broda pu ko'a" =3D "= ;lo nu broda cu purci ko'a".
For me it's "mu'i ko'a" not being "mukti ko'= a" that is less intuitive.

As for the reasons why PU and BAI ended up different, the way it was
explained to me is basically that they started from different places.
PU was originally just a selbri tcita, and its extension as a sumti
tcita came later. BAI started as sumti tcita, and it was later
extended to selbri tcita. Also, BAIs were associated with a gismu so
that they could be converted with SE to get each of the arguments, and
for that to work properly the argument that it tagged had to be the x1
of the associated gismu rather than the x2. =A0PU (and other "tenses&q= uot;)
are not strictly associated with a gismu and cannot be converted with
SE. In fact, not every "tense" has an obvious gismu to go with it= , and
while FAhAs do generally follow the pattern of PU ("ne'i" =3D= "fi'o se
nenri", "zu'a" =3D "fi'o se zunle", etc.) = sometimes they don't ("fa'a" =3D
"fi'o farna", "zo'i" =3D "fi'o ?????&q= uot;).

mu'o mi'e xorxes




--e0cb4e8877d7db3b6704827dddbb--