From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 04 08:59:03 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:59:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18qFkt-0005O8-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:59:03 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:59:02 -0800 To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Usage of {vi} Message-ID: <20030304165902.GO16221@digitalkingdom.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 201 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:41:35PM +0100, lojban@65536.org wrote: > coi rodo coi Sorry I didn't respond earlier; very busy. > I have just worked trough "Time and Space" of Lojban for Beginners > and have made some "observations", but I am not sure whether they > are correct? > > {mi sanli ri'i vi do} should be be "I stand just to the right of > you." You mean ri'u, but yes. > But the usage of the {vi} troubles me. Does {vi} really > take an object/action/person and it becomes "here where the > object/person is" or "here where the action took place"? It sounds > a little bit strange to say {vi lenu mi jbena} - "here at the > event to me beeing born". That's *exactly* what vi as a sumtcita is used for, yes. But it only orients you in space, not time, and it is somewhat vague. The jbofi'e gloss for vi as a sumtcita is "near to". > Apart from that, I think I have found some minor mistakes is > "Lojban for Beginners", but I'm not sure wheter they really are > mistakes: > > 6th chapter/Time with sumti, file less6sumtime.html, first > Lojban sentence should be {la jan. cliva le barja ti'u la daucac.} The only difference appears to be the spelling of the name 'daucac', is that correct? In which case, why do you feel the name was spelt wrongly? > 6th chapter/Space, file less6space.html, introduction of word > {ri'u}: the {.i} is missing in {la bil. sanli ri'u vi ku .i > la bil. ri'u vi sanli} Probably should be on two lines, actually. Please post a note at http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/lessons -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi