From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 21 01:01:07 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 21 May 2007 01:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hq2pB-0002z2-3d for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 01:01:03 -0700 Received: from mailgw6.gedas.de ([139.1.44.12]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hq2p2-0002xs-Vs for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 01:00:57 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw6.gedas.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4L80jdF026387 for ; Mon, 21 May 2007 10:00:45 +0200 Received: from blnsem08.de.gedas-grp (blnsem08.gedas.de [139.1.84.54]) by mailgw6.gedas.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4L80j4Y026380 for ; Mon, 21 May 2007 10:00:45 +0200 Received: by blnsem08.de.gedas-grp with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 21 May 2007 10:00:44 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Newton, Philip" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the space between words Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:00:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4559 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners la .gejyspa. cu cusku di'e > It's really a matter of personal preference. In fact, you could > right all consecutive cmavon in a row as a single word, since the > lojban parses unambiguously. So for example: klama fa mi fi la > .atlantas. fu le karce fe la bastn. fo le dargu (from Chapter 9 > of the CRG) could just as easily have been written klama famifila > .atlantas fule karce fele bastn. fole dargu. Or even as {klama famifila.atlantas. fulekarce felabastn.} since cmavo also break off gismu and (if the last cmavo is one of {la lai doi}) off cmevla. > "lemi" = "my" is really the same as "le mi" => "le ... pe mi" = "the....of mi" > It's just that English speakers tend to think of these constructions > as indivisible groups, so they write them together. Same thing > with .iseri'abo and others. Though this sometimes leads to confusion, as when people think that e.g. {ganai} is one word, when it isn't. mu'o mi'e .filip.