Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:35807) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RNBaS-0005Bd-54; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:20 -0800 Received: by ggnr4 with SMTP id r4sf6129899ggn.16 for ; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=9Zxj00WbE3HLeOZ8egHv/IAZvUJkXSUp+L/GxFSw1J0=; b=BfNVV0NqtWmv4aiZuwXCQCUTUwVTQkgYZqFbAcy4FY6FiIoPZvHjxs7xK3peqhttaJ KVU8xJX1y8O0NGespDhwYFXlYCJ8Ei7MRWaMQimkulCS3/jQhbe3bxqIyjyYzVayOvPX EZXVitECfye6l6RQT1rSVKpwppdjmm+Jdazec= Received: by 10.236.129.171 with SMTP id h31mr6089298yhi.20.1320619983013; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:03 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.114.13 with SMTP id m13ls8094292ybc.3.gmail; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.175.225 with SMTP id z61mr34597065yhl.9.1320619982381; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.175.225 with SMTP id z61mr34597063yhl.9.1320619982364; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f177.google.com (mail-gy0-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a27si3996122yhi.2.2011.11.06.14.53.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.177; Received: by gyf1 with SMTP id 1so5309026gyf.36 for ; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.207.42 with SMTP id lt10mr6333265obc.52.1320619982137; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:53:02 -0800 (PST) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.43.104 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 14:53:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <15929484.1788.1320611879127.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbl36> References: <12594199.557.1320597895175.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqni5> <4EB6BD58.8000105@gmail.com> <4875586.1227.1320601686280.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhd1> <201111061439.49262.phma@phma.optus.nu> <15929484.1788.1320611879127.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbl36> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 17:53:02 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] And now for something completely different From: ".arpis." To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f6428c8eb29d904b118cc95 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --e89a8f6428c8eb29d904b118cc95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You might find use for {zo'ei}: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/zo%27ei On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 3:37 PM, djandus wrote: > That was what I had tried before {da pe do fenki}, but I thought that it > might be clearer the other way... Tell me if I'm thinking through any of > the following wrong. > > I've been thinking of {tu'a do} as "There's a specific abstraction > involving you that I have in mind, but it's really not worth the effort = to > express it." So, I would translate {tu'a do fenki} as > "some-abstraction-involving you is-crazy" > > On the other hand . . . > > I've been thinking of {da pe do} as "There is something that is associate= d > with you, and it's not necessarily like ownership." So then, if the x=E2= =82=81 > place of {fenki} is for actions/events, then it {da pe do} automatically > does what {tu'a do} does (says there's an abstraction involving you) as > well as saying the relationship is a loose association not necessarily li= ke > ownership. (as oppose to the space of any possible abstraction, which > usually are nothing like possession) So I figured you can get more quickl= y > to the sorts of things I need to say, like "Your thoughts/actions are > crazy." which feels more like a loose possessive... > > mu'o mi'e djos > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/4HUTYUK6DW0J. > > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > --=20 mu'o mi'e .arpis. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --e89a8f6428c8eb29d904b118cc95 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You might find use for {zo'ei}: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/zo%27ei

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 3:37 PM, djandus <jandew@gmail.com> wrote:
That was what I had tried before {da pe do = fenki}, but I thought that it might be clearer the other way... Tell me if = I'm thinking through any of the following wrong.

I've been thinking of {tu'a do} as "There's= a specific abstraction involving you that I have in mind, but it's rea= lly not worth =C2=A0the effort to express it." So, I would translate {= tu'a do fenki} as "some-abstraction-involving you is-crazy"

On the other hand . . .

I'= ve been thinking of {da pe do} as "There is something that is associat= ed with you, and it's not necessarily like ownership." So then, if= the x=E2=82=81 place of {fenki} is for actions/events, then it {da pe do} = automatically does what {tu'a do} does (says there's an abstraction= involving you) as well as saying the relationship is a loose association n= ot necessarily like ownership. (as oppose to the space of any possible abst= raction, which usually are nothing like possession) So I figured you can ge= t more quickly to the sorts of things I need to say, like "Your though= ts/actions are crazy." which feels more like a loose possessive...

mu'o mi'e djos

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com= /d/msg/lojban/-/4HUTYUK6DW0J.

=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.



--
mu'o mi= 'e .arpis.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--e89a8f6428c8eb29d904b118cc95--