Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:62644) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RyGEQ-0000QI-QC; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:48 -0800 Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11sf2916331vcb.16 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=W2etQzZ78u7l50GnPvLSEkHp/QY12MNmD/JGyjmK/HQ=; b=KkGx2Lx4jaZkno0u2933eWa0oyXntfbo+oIihVklZwsG4ApOF3SfuWzGdNvqArj41f X4WOGv/NaOZaS6G/CujgRfDIyE/e2WgOjDkRSCzBnd0U0QQ7mKAKlVNCmD8v649uTLOp EnQrDGtbMcAQoXuwBxNDLgNH/JHBcVdYyV0nk= Received: by 10.52.70.242 with SMTP id p18mr712805vdu.18.1329455973885; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:33 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.175.104 with SMTP id bz8ls2285445vdc.1.gmail; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.67.145 with SMTP id n17mr2627782vdt.0.1329455973361; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.67.145 with SMTP id n17mr2627781vdt.0.1329455973335; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vw0-f51.google.com (mail-vw0-f51.google.com [209.85.212.51]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y2si2598800vdt.3.2012.02.16.21.19.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.51; Received: by vbbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so3024876vbb.24 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.20.142 with SMTP id n14mr2466308vde.59.1329455973166; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.34.136 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:19:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jacob Errington Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:19:13 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] telgau To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: nictytan@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nictytan@gmail.com; dkim=pass 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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3079b8d0066fd604b92217e6 X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam_score: 1.2 X-Spam_score_int: 12 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Oh. Well, like I said, using the gasnu rafsi simply produces a lujvo, [broda]gau, with a meaning such as [gasnu lo nu broda] Now, if [broda] is a predicate meaning "unlocked", then logically, we wind up with [gasnu lo nu "unlock"]. [gasnu] *is** *vague however. Unlocking is necessarily a physical event, and thus perhaps [broda]ri'a is more appropriate, where the person unlocking the lock can be referred to with {jai [broda]ri'a}. [...] Content analysis details: (1.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (nictytan[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20 BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML obfuscation 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service --20cf3079b8d0066fd604b92217e6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Oh. Well, like I said, using the gasnu rafsi simply produces a lujvo, [broda]gau, with a meaning such as [gasnu lo nu broda] Now, if [broda] is a predicate meaning "unlocked", then logically, we wind up with [gasnu lo nu "unlock"]. [gasnu] *is** *vague however. Unlocking is necessarily a physical event, and thus perhaps [broda]ri'a is more appropriate, where the person unlocking the lock can be referred to with {jai [broda]ri'a}. You are right about my misunderstanding; I didn't think the main question was the -gau ending. I figured it was more along the lines of what constitutes a suitable selbri for "unlocked". Sorry about that. mu'o mi'e la tsani On 17 February 2012 00:11, MorphemeAddict wrote: > Jacob, > I think you missed my point. Why is gasnu (-gau) involved in words > relating to locks? > > stevo > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Jacob Errington wrote: > >> Well, in analysing the jvajvo forms of these, in Lojban: >> lo ka telga'o cu ka ce'u poi ke'a se stela ce'u ce'u cu ganlo ce'u ce'u >> or >> lo ka telga'o cu ka ce'u se stela ce'u ce'u gi'e ganlo ce'u ce'u >> g1=s2 is locked by lock s1 using mechanism s3, preventing access to g2 >> from g3 >> The jvojva make telga'o suck. IMO, ganlo also is sufficient; adding [fi'o >> stela] helps in precision. >> >> telgau: >> lo ka telgau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u stela ce'u ce'u >> g1 locks lock s1 locking s2 with locking mechanism s3 (jeez, I sound like >> noralujv on that one) >> This one is jvojva, that makes me happy. >> >> telcaugau: >> lo ka telcaugau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u goi ko'a claxu lo ka ce'u >> stela ko'a ce'u >> g1 causes c1=s2 to lack being locked by lock s1 using locking mechanism s3 >> i.e. x1=g1 releases lock x3=s1 on x2=c1=s2 using locking mechanism x4=s3 >> Also jvajvo, but less so than the next one. I personally prefer this one >> over the next one, as "lacking the property of being locked" is clearer >> than "opposite(lock)", in my opinion. >> >> toltelgau >> lo ka toltelgau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u to'e stela ce'u ce'u >> g1 causes lock s1 to not lock s2 with locking mechanism s3 >> Completely jvajvo. However, the way I see it, [to'e] is much less clear >> than [claxu]. >> >> I think that [cirko] instead of [claxu] might be better; it creates the >> implication that the lock *was* locked before being unlocked, which claxu >> doesn't quite imply. Using claxu might just mean that the x1 is simply >> causing the lock to remain locked, i.e. lack the property of being locked. >> However, cirko really does imply that the x1 is causing the lock to lose >> the property of being locked and thus that it was unlocked prior to the >> event. >> Similarly, cirko can be used for the inverse, with [to'e]: to'e stela >> cirko gasnu -> toltelcrigau. >> Using cirko has the advantage of supplying an "under circumstances" place >> that can be used to specify various details pertaining to the event (maybe >> some locks are only lockable/unlockable at certain times or maybe some >> other condition needs to be met, such as [lo nu pilno lo ckiku] ;) ). >> >> In general for asymmetrical lujvo, it is possible to "flip" the tanru >> elements into abstractions: >> rodgau -> gasnu lo nu broda >> rodclagau -> gasnu lo nu claxu lo ka broda >> rodclacrigau -> gasnu lo nu cirko lo ka claxu lo ka broda >> etc. >> >> Finally, analysing the lujvo structure in Lojban is always more helpful, >> and usually aids in creating coherent lujvo. >> >> mu'o mi'e la tsani >> >> On 14 February 2012 01:20, MorphemeAddict wrote: >> >>> Are all these definitions in {lojbo jufsisku} right? I'm >>> wondering specifically about "telgau" and related forms. >>> telga'o >>> *lujvo* g1=s2 is locked, preventing access to g2 by g3, the lock being s >>> 1 using mechanism s3. Cf. stela, ganlo, telgau, ga'orgau. >>> >>> telgau >>> *lujvo* g1 locks lock s1 on s2 by mechanism s3. >>> Cf. stela, gasnu, telga'o, ga'orgau. >>> >>> telcaugau >>> *lujvo* g1 unlocks/unseals c1=s2 using lock/seal s1 with mechnism s3. >>> Cf. stela, claxu, gasnu, toltelgau, telga'o, ga'orgau. >>> >>> toltelgau >>> *lujvo* g1 unlocks lock s1 on s2 by mechanism s3. >>> Cf. to'e, stela, gasnu, telgau, telga'o, telcaugau, kargau. >>> >>> stevo >>> >>> -- >>> 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@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> 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@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. >> > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --20cf3079b8d0066fd604b92217e6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oh.=A0
Well, like I said, using the gasnu rafsi simply produces a lujvo= , [broda]gau, with a meaning such as [gasnu lo nu broda]
Now, if = [broda] is a predicate meaning "unlocked", then logically, we win= d up with [gasnu lo nu "unlock"].
[gasnu] is=A0vague however. U= nlocking is necessarily a physical event, and thus perhaps [broda]ri'a = is more appropriate, where the person unlocking the lock can be referred to= with {jai [broda]ri'a}.

You are right about my misunderstanding; I didn't t= hink the main question was the -gau ending. I figured it was more along the= lines of what constitutes a suitable selbri for "unlocked". Sorr= y about that.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

On 17 February 2012 00:11, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
=
Jacob,
I think you missed my point. Why is gasnu (-gau) involved in wor= ds relating to locks?=A0

stevo


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Jac= ob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, in analysing the jvajvo forms of these= , in Lojban:
lo ka telga'o cu ka ce'u poi ke'a se stela ce&= #39;u ce'u cu ganlo ce'u ce'u =A0 =A0 =A0or
lo ka telga'o cu ka ce'u se stela ce'u ce'u gi'e g= anlo ce'u ce'u
g1=3Ds2 is locked by lock s1 using mechanism s3, preventing access to = g2 from g3
The jvojva make telga'o suck. IMO, ganlo also is s= ufficient; adding [fi'o stela] helps in precision.

telgau:
lo ka telgau cu ka ce'u gasnu lo nu ce'u ste= la ce'u ce'u
g1 locks lock s1 locking s2 with locking mec= hanism s3 (jeez, I sound like noralujv on that one)
This one is j= vojva, that makes me happy.

telcaugau:
lo ka telcaugau cu ka ce'u gas= nu lo nu ce'u goi ko'a claxu lo ka ce'u stela ko'a ce'u=
g1 causes c1=3Ds2 to lack being locked by lock s1 using locking = mechanism s3
i.e. x1=3Dg1 releases lock x3=3Ds1 on x2=3Dc1=3Ds2 using locking mecha= nism x4=3Ds3
Also jvajvo, but less so than the next one. I person= ally prefer this one over the next one, as "lacking the property of be= ing locked" is clearer than "opposite(lock)", in my opinion.=

toltelgau
lo ka toltelgau cu ka ce'u gasn= u lo nu ce'u to'e stela ce'u ce'u
g1 causes lock = s1 to not lock s2 with locking mechanism s3
Completely jvajvo. Ho= wever, the way I see it, [to'e] is much less clear than [claxu].

I think that [cirko] instead of [claxu] might be better= ; it creates the implication that the lock *was* locked before being unlock= ed, which claxu doesn't quite imply. Using claxu might just mean that t= he x1 is simply causing the lock to remain locked, i.e. lack the property o= f being locked. However, cirko really does imply that the x1 is causing the= lock to lose the property of being locked and thus that it was unlocked pr= ior to the event.
Similarly, cirko can be used for the inverse, with [to'e]: to'= e stela cirko gasnu -> toltelcrigau.
Using cirko has the advan= tage of supplying an "under circumstances" place that can be used= to specify various details pertaining to the event (maybe some locks are o= nly lockable/unlockable at certain times or maybe some other condition need= s to be met, such as [lo nu pilno lo ckiku] ;) ).

In general for asymmetrical lujvo, it is possible to &q= uot;flip" the tanru elements into abstractions:
rodgau ->= gasnu lo nu broda
rodclagau -> gasnu lo nu claxu lo ka broda<= /div>
rodclacrigau -> gasnu lo nu cirko lo ka claxu lo ka broda
etc.

Finally, analysing the lujvo structure in Lo= jban is always more helpful, and usually aids in creating coherent lujvo.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

On 14 February 2012 01:20, MorphemeAddict= <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
Are=A0all= =A0these definitions in {lojbo jufsisku} right? I'm wondering=A0specifi= cally=A0about "telgau" and related forms.=A0
telga'o
lujvo=A0g1=3Ds2=A0is locked, preventing access= to g2=A0by g3, the lock being s1=A0using = mechanism s3. Cf.=A0stela,=A0ganlo,=A0telgau,=A0ga'orgau.

telgau
lujvo=A0g1=A0locks lock s1=A0on s2=A0by mechanism s3. Cf.=A0stela,=A0gasnu,=A0telga'o,=A0ga'orgau.

telcaugau
lujvo=A0g1= =A0unlocks/unseals c1=3Ds2=A0using lock/seal s<= sub>1=A0with mechnism s3. Cf.=A0stela,=A0claxu,=A0gasnu,= =A0toltelgau,=A0telga'o,=A0ga'orgau.

toltelgau
lujvo=A0g1=A0unlo= cks lock s1=A0on s2=A0by mechanism s3. Cf.= =A0to'e,=A0stela,=A0gasnu,=A0telgau,=A0telga'o,=A0telcaugau,=A0karg= au.

stevo

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
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.
--20cf3079b8d0066fd604b92217e6--