From blindbravado@gmail.com Thu Feb 18 17:21:36 2010 Received: from mail-ew0-f224.google.com ([209.85.219.224]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NiHYg-0003mA-6f for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:21:36 -0800 Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so2970430ewy.26 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:21:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=5qg5CtE8FjShjmnVPSWHUuEMZHFUbAWboVGTxgwE2d8=; b=aPu4TiGUJdkKVYQuDFwo6xiXLXrVVwLOmxjTEqhmq0xn6isl9vyHiz5wnMHjNJ8Ylz rAzstR96DueyTlzA26jQIc8wy1d3hjULqjyZbKF2PyzjI2eLkHOiDdyP/qMPIEETrBja Q/TmjSW5l2VfDI8Jw4rHmNaSncZtmafJktAyY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=WpqgEhUqzhV5GXGERa5nBzMP42FBJCm5zx0Eyk6Ol21DdvPWGLX/97nzQUzYQJ5o57 y71RfLQlmmNrI9CjdLJeweuaufLlCbUjNP3Kp8G69Tqt6zWw47xB0X8zVyVHZbdzKr+O ll6NW4RSrgN+xtQgExVXMDsrvKYPD2dMSqkZI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.0.212 with SMTP id 20mr276433ebc.41.1266542483319; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:21:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:21:23 -0500 Message-ID: <1f1080831002181721w425a462dpd6cdae84a97b4d0f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Not needing terminators From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce04002cfab41047fe9e68c --000e0ce04002cfab41047fe9e68c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm trying to work out when you need and don't need terminators. For example, here's a sentence I wrote today: xu do se nandu lonu do tavla mi fo la lojban. lonu do tatpi In idiomatic English, what I'm intending here is: "Do you find it difficult to talk with me in Lojban when you are tired?" I put this sentence into jbofi'e and it appears to have parsed it the way I intended. However, when writing it, I was not sure if I needed to have a {kei} after {la lojban.}. I know {cu} makes it so you don't need terminators in situations like these, but what exactly makes it so that {lonu do tatpi} does not run into the {tavla} clause here? Is it that the place structure of {tavla} has now been exhausted (since I just filled the x4 place and there is no x5 place)? jbofi'e makes me seem to think this; changing {fo} to {fi} without adding a {kei} creates (according to jbofi'e) a rather nonsensical sentence in which {lonu do tatpi} is the x4 of {tavla}. Also, just subjectively, is it somewhat..."polite" to include a {kei} here even though it's not grammatically needed? Certainly including every last terminator would not be, but where is the line where grammatically redundant terminators also became practically redundant? mu'omi'e latros. --000e0ce04002cfab41047fe9e68c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm trying to work out when you need and don't need terminators. Fo= r example, here's a sentence I wrote today:
xu do se nandu lonu do t= avla mi fo la lojban. lonu do tatpi
In idiomatic English, what I'm i= ntending here is: "Do you find it difficult to talk with me in Lojban = when you are tired?"
I put this sentence into jbofi'e and it appears to have parsed it the w= ay I intended. However, when writing it, I was not sure if I needed to have= a {kei} after {la lojban.}. I know {cu} makes it so you don't need ter= minators in situations like these, but what exactly makes it so that {lonu = do tatpi} does not run into the {tavla} clause here? Is it that the place s= tructure of {tavla} has now been exhausted (since I just filled the x4 plac= e and there is no x5 place)? jbofi'e makes me seem to think this; chang= ing {fo} to {fi} without adding a {kei} creates (according to jbofi'e) = a rather nonsensical sentence in which {lonu do tatpi} is the x4 of {tavla}= .

Also, just subjectively, is it somewhat..."polite" to include= a {kei} here even though it's not grammatically needed? Certainly incl= uding every last terminator would not be, but where is the line where gramm= atically redundant terminators also became practically redundant?

mu'omi'e latros.
--000e0ce04002cfab41047fe9e68c--