From lytlesw@gmail.com Sun Feb 07 14:28:33 2010 Received: from mail-bw0-f221.google.com ([209.85.218.221]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NeFcC-0000Cc-K3 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:28:33 -0800 Received: by bwz21 with SMTP id 21so4675248bwz.4 for ; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:28:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Df4ZmcrhDLbL6mzc+Hj1NxJuLvYcXccGw8UbmucpoXk=; b=f4069S6ZyA5h2MoWrX4kQ6muy3baEnwU1ltXZL8hN4pYRHL+Y60W1bPcYKSiC/8fHK +8iQL5dZm8Xx9MmLmQSCl1/XyYP8gmzBFsctyZAoJVmVb/VLgYHA3kZgmQmFDE6l/qGe a6wKt7lrZZ6vf0R/i5E9MHz9pKB/DVTO+6sYI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=acC0NDXIYsjBNwL6iSoBRJ0Sw6Qtpnli+weRIYl1jaLoG105Tra7nNBSY9QgVACdxu kds0YeAertF7WzeFR8FafCKYuV6nrZSl94y3oWJt895DC+jq/tNTiU7BCB6HkVT0bYvK PQjR2qIlHg+2wP7bq+lKuG47rVvlGQnUNhShg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.5.70 with SMTP id 6mr1662900bku.90.1265581700310; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:28:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1f1080831002071421r629a292agb165e25e81e226f3@mail.gmail.com> References: <1f1080831002071208v7f7c3f11v956c0c669b146948@mail.gmail.com> <20100207202319.GA6434@sdf.lonestar.org> <1f1080831002071322q4618a850x93f36dcabf4a29e0@mail.gmail.com> <20100207215510.GA27254@sdf.lonestar.org> <1f1080831002071421r629a292agb165e25e81e226f3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:28:20 -0500 Message-ID: <249d5b951002071428t69ea814kef995f4b31446e0a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Introduction From: MorphemeAddict To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151758b050ae68c6047f0a334d --00151758b050ae68c6047f0a334d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think you're missing the fact that it's not happening by itself, the way schools close at the end of the day or end of the school year, but that it's being done as a result of human decision, and that's it's permanent. stevo On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Minimiscience wrote: > >> I just used it because it's the default {gadri}. If you're learning >> Lojban via >> either *Lojban for Beginners* or *{la lojban. mo}/What is Lojban?*, both >> of >> these (last time I checked) describe the {gadri} ("{lo}," "{le}," "{la}," >> and >> some other uncommon ones) as they were specified in *The Complete Lojban >> Language* in 1997. However, in 2004, the definition of "{lo}" was changed >> from >> "a thing which truly is..." to "a thing associated with...". Along with >> the >> other minor changes made to the {gadri} at the same time, you can find >> more >> information on this at >> . As a >> result, "{lo}" is now the preferred {gadri} to use whenever in doubt, and >> it is >> always acceptable to use "{lo}" wherever "{le}" can be used. >> > > This is interesting. I've been learning out of Lojban for Beginners (with > some supplements, mostly dictionaries), and I found "le" to be a bit more > vague than it could have been there. From what I see there, now I see that > lo is evidently quite a bit more vague even than le was before...just at a > glance I don't think I like it quite as much this way as the other way. The > main problem with lo that I had before was the "lo ..." > meaning "one or more of the in the universe...", which > seems to be gone. > > Thank you for that anyway (although I have actually seen that already in > fishing around on the mailing list). > > >> The definition of {fanmo} is "x1 is an end/finish/termination of >> thing/process >> x2", i.e., its x2 can be either a process or a thing, which is what {lo >> ckule} >> is. >> > > I suppose then the idea that "a thing ends" is being a problem in my head. > Even trying to strip the layers of English it seems odd. > > However, I do see that with the changes to lo, lo ... se fanmo makes sense. > It still doesn't get to everything in "is closed", but I don't know if > anything really will without way too much detail. > > mu'omi'e latros. > > --00151758b050ae68c6047f0a334d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think you're missing the fact that it's not happening by its= elf, the way schools close at the end of the day or end of the school year,= but that it's being done as a result of human decision, and that's= it's permanent.
=A0
stevo

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gm= ail.com> wrote:


On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Minimiscience <m= inimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
I just used it becau= se it's the default {gadri}. =A0If you're learning Lojban via
ei= ther *Lojban for Beginners* or *{la lojban. mo}/What is Lojban?*, both of these (last time I checked) describe the {gadri} ("{lo}," "{= le}," "{la}," and
some other uncommon ones) as they were = specified in *The Complete Lojban
Language* in 1997. =A0However, in 2004= , the definition of "{lo}" was changed from
"a thing which truly is..." to "a thing associated with...&q= uot;. =A0Along with the
other minor changes made to the {gadri} at the s= ame time, you can find more
information on this at
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3DHow+to+use+xorlo>. =A0As a
result, "{lo}" is now the preferred {gadri} to use whenever in do= ubt, and it is
always acceptable to use "{lo}" wherever "= {le}" can be used.

This is interesting. I've been learning out of Lojban for Begi= nners (with some supplements, mostly dictionaries), and I found "le&qu= ot; to be a bit more vague than it could have been there. From what I see t= here, now I see that lo is evidently quite a bit more vague even than le wa= s before...just at a glance I don't think I like it quite as much this = way as the other way. The main problem with lo that I had before was the &q= uot;lo <number> <sumti>..." meaning "one or more of t= he <number> <sumti> in the universe...", which seems to be= gone.

Thank you for that anyway (although I have actually seen that already i= n fishing around on the mailing list).
=A0
The definition of {fanmo} is "x1 is an end/finish/termination of = thing/process
x2", i.e., its x2 can be either a process or a = thing, which is what {lo ckule}
is.

I suppose then the idea that "a thing ends" is being a p= roblem in my head. Even trying to strip the layers of English it seems odd.=

However, I do see that with the changes to lo, lo ... se fanmo make= s sense. It still doesn't get to everything in "is closed", b= ut I don't know if anything really will without way too much detail.
mu'omi'e latros.


--00151758b050ae68c6047f0a334d--