From selckiku@gmail.com Mon Feb 08 19:57:25 2010 Received: from mail-iw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NehDz-0003Ud-1i for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:57:25 -0800 Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so4435176iwn.23 for ; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:57:12 -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 :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=cPFpuzYOLKBkO/6l/1xi/9qCPj3h/fxY4lxUeZSt+1E=; b=GkA05Zb7Rn7gN2wZ8MsxWx/u3Iu0Wxtx/+b9hyBwQmsW+jcXQpFCCu9hZGxTVXY3he 3jnWBY93GXGCdWoYq3fu/NmYDM9vCtZU4O2p5+ZY2SvJ4DSSvy7wyiGumh8HDvS8Uvg8 +1ax1bD380Es1aK2aItaGJi4g1PtPdwcjRuR4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=UJ5PZ/sazjBpmAPBJ3mGvu+hj/j71rC65AGlu5/BvoCvFEnMDXy82XZz5vhap7eQ8T cjZUCytII+WeUn7AhH52RbHPoCY204fMInozeP+HaFcshEAuMEp/XDK/yUhmFY0Aha9O 5dSSYP+UsWNU+GHsNTcFlY9AQOMwrWGe/h1UQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.167.4 with SMTP id o4mr578700iby.66.1265687832313; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:57:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <218950.62113.qm@web46104.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <218950.62113.qm@web46104.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> From: Stela Selckiku Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 22:56:52 -0500 Message-ID: <425e4ac21002081956jb0e0de5n98a1a5446c4f7609@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Help! The Xorlo are attacking! To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Whipsnerd Lhooser wrote: > Alright. I am new to Lojban, but extremely interested in learning it. I am > confused about several issues concerning xorlo (or gadri [i'm not sure > which]). You're not the only one. It's a confusing aspect of Lojban's history, which we are just recently starting to be able to think rationally about. Pardon the dust! > Could someone please define the following (and give an example of its usage > if appropriate): OK I'll try. > xorlo: This, in spite of its appearance, is not a gismu. It is a strange English portmanteau of "xorxes" and "lo". I will use it in a sentence: "It is way waaaaaay easier to use Lojban since xorlo." > gadri: This is a word in Lojban, which you'll often see used in Lojbanistani-accented English. It just means "article". Lojban's articles are lo/le/la/loi/lei/lai/lo'i/le'i/la'i/lo'e/le'e... did I get all of them? We have too many. :) So I'll use it in a Lojban sentence: "du'e da cu gadri fi la .lojban." (Too many things are articles in Lojban. Lojban has too many articles.) Here's how I'd use it in an English sentence: "Honestly, is there any use at all for this gadri?" > lei: It's best to think of the -i on the end separately from the e/o/a, when it comes to this trio lei/loi/lai. In all three cases you have the same semantics as le/lo/la, with the difference that you're talking about a mass acting together instead of each of the things described doing the action separately. lo ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno The three men each carried the piano. Each one of them carried the whole piano! Perhaps they took turns. Probably not what you meant to say! loi ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno The mass of three men carried the piano, Still a hard job, but perhaps manageable. > lai: I have almost never seen this article seriously used. A mass of those named? So, like, the Smith family all carry a piano together, "lai .smit. cu bevri lo pipno"?? It doesn't seem to come up! > In addition to this I will now post my understood definition/gloss of la, > le, lo, and loi. I ask that someone please tell me if these are correct or > fix them if they are not. > > la: Used only for cmene; Is the article which immediately proceeds a cmene > and designates it as specific. (i.e. la bil. equates to a specific > thing/person whose name is Bill.) Yes. No one ever seems to get confused about that. > le: Used to denote a specific thing/instance in the mind of the speaker. For > example: le gerku refers to a specific dog which I have in mind. This could > be my dog, the dog down the street, or the dog which bit me four years ago > which I am currently thinking about. > > lo: Utilized to introduce a non-specific thing/instance. lo gerku refers to > some dog in general As has been noted, there's nothing saying that something marked with "lo" has to be non-specific. For instance if you say "lo bi'u nai gerku", the previously mentioned dog, that can refer quite specifically to the particular dog that you mentioned earlier. You can refer to anything with "lo", and so "lo" is now generally considered the general purpose gadri, so just bravely go forward using "lo" and you need consider the matter no further. We still have "le" essentially because we are quite conservative and we never throw away anything. It's here and there's no way to get rid of it so there's a tendency to try to have it mean something. Here is how I like to think about it: I like the formulation in the gadri proposal which you can find here: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri It says this about the distinction between "lo" and "le": lo [PA] broda zo'e noi ke'a broda [gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda] le [PA] broda zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda [gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda] Now that's quite clear, because it's written in Lojban. ;) It says that the difference is that when you use "le", you are describing something, you are "skicu"! Of course when you use "lo" with a description of something you're describing it, too, anyway. But, um, anyway, there you go!? > loi: Shows that a number of nonspecific things act/exist as a group. loi ci > gerku, for instance, are three dogs of an unimportant > description/origin/etc. which function as a group. "loi" works the same as "lo", so they can be perfectly specific. Their acting as a group also isn't a property of them, it's just a matter of how they relate to the predicate they're in. Three dogs can be "lo" and "loi" even in different descriptions of the same action. Suppose you have three dogs who go to drink some water from the edge of a pond. Each of the dogs drinks water, so you can say that "lo ci gerku cu pinxe lo djacu", the three dogs (each) drink water. The whole amount of water that they all drank together, though (let's call that "ko'a") was only drunk by all of them together, not by any of them separately, so you have to say: "loi ci gerku cu pinxe ko'a no'u lo bi'u nai djacu poi barda", the three dogs (together) drink ko'a, the aforementioned water which is large. > Thank you for your time and assistance, je'e (I hear you!) .i do tadni .i'e (I support your studying!) > koltr. mykarti, (Is this the correctly lojbanized form of my name, Colter > McCarty?) You'll need a consonant at the end, or just ".mykart." Another good way to name yourself in Lojban is with a bridi name. For instance I'm named the tanru "stela se ckiku", both parts of which mean "lock", more or less. I can also just be called "se ckiku", or "selckiku" which is the lujvo version. There are a lot of people who are named lujvo, like myself and la gejyspa, and lots of people who are named gismu, like la donri and la cizra. So adopting a Lojban word or phrase as a name is another option that's available. One reason I like when people are named Lojban words is that it's a good way for new people to learn vocabulary, by learning the meanings of the names of the Lojbanists they meet. :) mi'e la stela selckiku mu'o