From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 18 05:43:50 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 05:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp1o3-0006uC-BI for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:43:41 -0700 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp1nd-0006tX-7Z for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:43:31 -0700 Received: from 0015-its-ieg02.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.21] [149.8.64.21]) by mclmx.mail.saic.com id BT-MMP-777146 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 08:43:01 -0400 Received: from 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com ([10.43.229.18]) by 0015-its-ieg02.mail.saic.com (SMSSMTP 4.0.5.66) with SMTP id M2007051808430101460 for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 08:43:01 -0400 Received: from 0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com ([10.75.0.188]) by 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 18 May 2007 08:43:01 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7994A.11E46FC7" Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:43:01 -0400 Message-Id: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D36@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0705180520r6a646f0bv5fd76446c8f4ff1a@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" Thread-Index: AceZR2cNEehIbNLRSNi/wkmaZ9dI0gAAWTMg From: "Turniansky, Michael [UNK]" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2007 12:43:01.0397 (UTC) FILETIME=[121E8C50:01C7994A] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4494 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7994A.11E46FC7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't see a colon in the original text. Just a period for the pause after ranjit. In any case, I don't particularly like it, but that may be just me. As far as the letters go, yes that's a perfectly valid way to refer to a previous sumti. Without using the "goi" assignment, it's assumed to refer to the last sumti starting with the letter. For example: le gerku pu kalte le mlatu .i gy co'a tatpi =20 The dog stalked the cat. G (the dog) became tired. =20 --gejyspa ________________________________ From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:20 AM To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" =20 (To Karl Naylor...) Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. Another question of mine is how grammatical is the use of colon as a substitution of selbri like "cusku". ".i la ranjit: lu .i .e'epei zo'o do ca klama la jipci li'u" is an example again from Lojban For Beginners. Also many sentences presented on Texts in Lojban have this usage, as well as their arguments (i.e. the x1 of "cusku") being substituted by a series of upper case letters like "A" or "B" after its proper cmene have been stated:=20 "lo ninmu: [...] lo nanmu: [...] A: [...] B: [...]" Is this assignment of letters as grammatical as that of "ko'a" or "fo'a"? On 5/18/07, Karl Naylor wrote: On 18/05/07, Vid Sintef wrote: > Along the course "Lojban For Beginners" I saw sentences with the direct=20 > quotation word being followed by the sentence terminator ".i", like this:=20 > la ranjit cu cusku lu .i mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u > On the other hand, there are also sentences without ".i" after "lu": > la ranjit. pu cusku lu la djiotis. pu rinsa mi li'u=20 > What is the difference between them? Beginner myself, but perfectly confident about my answer here. Put simply, "lu .i (...) li'u" means that Ranjeet really did say ".i", and conversely. If you mean to ask why he sometimes says ".i" and sometimes not, I'd imagine he uses a sentence separator when someone (himself or otherwise) has just spoken, to be clear he's starting a new sentence=20 and not appending to the last one. However, I'm at work just now and don't have time to check. It may also just depend on Ranjeet's mood, or the authors may just have forgotten to put it in :) Does that make=20 sense? =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7994A.11E46FC7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  I don't see a colon in the = original text.  Just a period for the pause after ranjit.  In any case, = I don't particularly like it, but that may be just me.  As far as the letters go, yes that's a perfectly valid way to refer to a previous sumti.  Without using the "goi" assignment, it's assumed = to refer to the last sumti starting with the letter.  For = example:

le gerku pu kalte le mlatu .i gy = co'a tatpi

 

The dog stalked the cat.  G = (the dog) became tired.

 

      =            --gejyspa

From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org = [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef
Sent: Friday, May 18, = 2007 8:20 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: = [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu"

 

(To Karl = Naylor...) Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you.

Another question of mine is how grammatical is the use of colon as a substitution of selbri like "cusku".
".i la ranjit: lu .i .e'epei zo'o do ca klama la jipci li'u" = is an example again from Lojban For = Beginners.
Also many sentences presented on Texts in Lojban have this usage, as well as their arguments (i.e. the = x1 of "cusku") being substituted by a series of upper case letters = like "A" or "B" after its proper cmene have been stated: =
"lo ninmu: [...] lo nanmu: [...] A: [...] B: [...]"
Is this assignment of letters as grammatical as that of "ko'a" = or "fo'a"?


On 5/18/07, Karl Naylor <karl.org@gmail.com> wrote:

On 18/05/07, = Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:

> Along the course "Lojban For Beginners" I saw sentences = with the direct
> quotation word being followed by the sentence terminator = ".i", like this:
> la ranjit cu cusku lu .i mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni = nanba li'u
> On the other hand, there are also sentences without ".i" = after "lu":
> la ranjit. pu cusku lu la djiotis. pu rinsa mi li'u
> What is the difference between them?

Beginner myself, but perfectly confident about my answer = here.  Put
simply, "lu .i (...) li'u" means that Ranjeet really did say ".i", and
conversely.

If you mean to ask why he sometimes says ".i" and sometimes = not, I'd
imagine he uses a sentence separator when someone (himself or
otherwise) has just spoken, to be clear he's starting a new sentence =
and not appending to the last one.  However, I'm at work just = now and
don't have time to check.  It may also just depend on = Ranjeet's mood,
or the authors may just have forgotten to put it in :)  Does = that make
sense?


 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C7994A.11E46FC7--