From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 18 08:12:33 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 08:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp488-0008BT-WF for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 08:12:33 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.237]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp485-0008BJ-Rs for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 08:12:32 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so1662134wxd for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 08:12:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Yo72zcHcPlMbYGk6WFo5ZxgdhCy9quruySL3sA37rK4wEbrxTB6vwede4zCRyMLbPvuNbt1y9p/Padxkw5kr9kOnYbymEoi9cBXScQlzpeRJB4+dhKVHNRt1nLdZFLOs0fCcsmFXVX5sCxa3sbFGDYcWA9K40ByuKk+th2aui7g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=lKjygCo7s/aukZwWLm86R0YMTvGib8g6cWvMPpfHHh5Sl5/GWiX9xPAiKq1joneDGRA9Ip1FLFp3Ys/+eaIlF2TUw32BnsX0DIMwQqEggr8sbcOjCBnAgRkZJCS6QdCqfdFnyx2AtlP4KvCCV3FIZmmiJTVQSZH7kYz/Bi5t1LA= Received: by 10.70.23.2 with SMTP id 2mr2605081wxw.1179501146212; Fri, 18 May 2007 08:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.19 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2007 08:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0705180812m48aff326x8574c27aba91a566@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 16:12:26 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" In-Reply-To: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D38@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_30866_15729204.1179501146104" References: <2f91285f0705180541p131cbc0dh5ffd737f0f8452f@mail.gmail.com> <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D38@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4509 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: picos.picos@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_30866_15729204.1179501146104 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Shouldn't Mary's quote (the one without ".i" at the beginning), then, have some connective to relate the sumti "lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa" with "lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba"? Can we say "mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba ku'i lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa" as presented in the sequence of the quotes, "la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e l= o sluni nanba li'u .i la meris cusku lu ku'i lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u"? On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] wrote= : > > No, that's not John's sentence. John's sentence (as finished by Mary) > is (putting back in the "lo" I left out): " mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .= e > lo sluni nanba ku'i lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa" Remember. This is two > people talking.. One starts the setnence, the other finishes it, exactly= as > in the English. If you and I were in a room, and you said, "Hey, we know > that girl" and I said, "From the party last night", you would not say tha= t > together we are saying "Hey, we know that girl Michael said, 'From the pa= rty > last night' " (which even in English makes no sense). You would say that > together we said, "Hey we know that girl from the party last night". > > > > I as the authoer of those sentence about John and Mary are just > reporting what THEY SAID. To the characters themselves, there is no "Joh= n > said"/"Mary said" in their lives. > > > > Understand? > > --Michael "gejyspa" Turniansky > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto: > lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] *On Behalf Of *Vid Sintef > *Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2007 8:42 AM > *To:* lojban-beginners@lojban.org > *Subject:* [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" > > > > I see. > Just to make sure, if there's no ".i" and the sentence of John > continues... > > la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u la > meris cusku lu ku'i pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u > > ... that doesn't bear any logical meaning, right? > Or can the second "cusku" be the second selbri of "la djan" ("la meris" > being the x2 of the first "cusku"), even though there's no connective lik= e > "gi'e" between the two bridi? > > > > On 5/18/07, *Turniansky, Michael [UNK]* > wrote: > > Remember that ".i" is not so much a sentence _*terminator*_ as a > sentence _*separator*_. It's often found at the beginning of utterances > to show that what you say has no connection to the previous utterance (by > you or another person) (and NOT usually at the end). So the first senten= ce > says: > > Ranjit says, "I want beef curry and onion bread" > > The second says: > > Ranjit said, "Jhoti greeted me" Either could have used or not used the .= i > at the beginning. It just makes it clear in the course of conversation t= hat > you are not piling onto the previous utterance. For example, consider th= is > valid excahnge: > > > > la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u > > .i la meris cusku lu ku'i pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u > > > > John says, "I want beefy curre and onion bread" > > Mary says, "=85.but not cooked spicily". > > > > Without the ".i" in Mary's quote it continues the sentence of John. > > > > --gejyspa > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounc= e@lojban.org] > *On Behalf Of *Vid Sintef > *Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2007 7:18 AM > *To:* lojban-beginners@lojban.org > *Subject:* [lojban-beginners] the ".i" after "lu" > > > > 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? > > > ------=_Part_30866_15729204.1179501146104 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Shouldn= 't Mary's quote (the one without ".i" at the beginning), = then, have some connective to relate the sumti "lo pu'e na'e c= pina jukpa" with "lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba"? Can= we say " mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba ku'i lo pu'= e na'e cpina jukpa" as presented in the sequence of the quotes,= "la djan cusku &nbs= p;lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u .i la meris cusku lu ku'i lo pu= 'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u"?


On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:

  No, that's not John'= ;s sentence.  John's sentence (as finished by Mary) is (putting back in the "lo" I lef= t out): " mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba ku'i lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa"  &nb= sp;Remember.  This is two people talking..  One starts the setnence, the other finishes it, exac= tly as in the English.  If you and I were in a room, and you said, "Hey, we= know that girl" and I said, "From the party last night", you woul= d not say that together we are saying "Hey, we know that girl Michael sa= id, 'From the party last night' " (which even in English makes no sense).&nb= sp; You would say that together we said, "Hey we know that girl from the party last night".

 

  I as the authoer of those s= entence about John and Mary are just reporting what THEY SAID.  To the characters th= emselves, there is no "John said"/"Mary said"  in their live= s.

 

     &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Understand?

     &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            --Mich= ael "gejyspa" Turniansky

 

 

From: lojban-beginners-boun= ce@lojban.org [mailto: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007= 8:42 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
 Subject: [lojban-beginners= ] Re: the ".i" after "lu"

 

I see.
Just to make sure, if there's no ".i" and the sentence of Joh= n continues...

la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u la = meris cusku lu ku'i pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u

...  that doesn't bear any logical meaning, right?
Or can the second "cusku" be the second selbri of "la djan&q= uot; ("la meris" being the x2 of the first "cusku"), even th= ough there's no connective like "gi'e" between the two bridi? =



On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:

  Remember that ".i"= ; is not so much a sentence _terminator_ as a sentenc= e _separator_.  It&#= 39;s often found at the beginning of utterances to show that what you say has no connection to the previous utterance (by you or another person) (and NOT usually at the end).  So the first sentence says:

Ranjit says, "I want beef cur= ry and  onion bread" 

The second says:

Ranjit said, "Jhoti greeted m= e"  Either could have used or not used the .i at the beginning.  It just makes it clear= in the course of conversation that you are not piling onto the previous utterance.  For example, consider this valid excahnge:

 

la djan cusku  lu mi djica lo= bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u

.i la meris cusku lu ku'i pu&#= 39;e na'e cpina jukpa li'u

 

John says, "I want beefy curr= e and onion bread"

Mary says, "=85.but not cooke= d spicily".

 

 Without the ".i" i= n Mary's quote it continues the sentence of John.

 

     &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;     --gejyspa

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007= 7:18 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners= ] the ".i" after "lu"

 

Along the course "Lojban For Beginners" I saw sentences with the direct quotation word being followed by the sentence terminator ".i", li= ke 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?

 


------=_Part_30866_15729204.1179501146104--