From fracture@allusion.net Thu Nov 13 16:51:42 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.40] helo=ms-smtp-01-eri0.texas.rr.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AKSBT-0008Tl-Lz for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:51:35 -0800 Received: from fracture (cs24349-133.austin.rr.com [24.243.49.133]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.texas.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id hAE0pk5X019430 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:51:55 -0600 (CST) Received: by fracture (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:04:05 -0600 From: "Jordan DeLong" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:04:05 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: cfari Message-ID: <20031114010405.GA43646@allusion.net> References: <20031112230539.GJ4805@digitalkingdom.org> <20031113150545.26970.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> <20031113194942.GL1086@digitalkingdom.org> <20031113202513.GF15777@skunk.reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031113202513.GF15777@skunk.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-archive-position: 6660 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:25:13PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: >=20 > > Those of you without time/ability to read the Lojban might might the > > topic interesting: xorxes was pointing out four places where I used > > a COI cmavo as though it was UI (i.e., without following it with a > > name). xorxes expressed his desire for COI cmavo to actually > > grammatically be like UI cmavo (which I'm inclined to agree with). >=20 > Well, UI binds to the previous word. Is that what you were doing? > It's certainly grammatical to have COI by itself now, although you > need an explicit "do'u" if the next thing is a name or sumti. As cowan says, you need a do'u. This is neccesary because otherwise you wouldn't be able to say things like the (extreemly frequent on irc) "coi rodo". An alternative in the design could have been to add a cmavo in the cases where you want to give a COI an argument; so you would say "coi be rodo" or something and the default would be argumentless. Personally I favor the way it was done, because the most common COI (namely "coi") usually is said with an argument. It's worth the trouble it causes, which is only caused because none of us (even those of us who like to claim to be in the top 5 ;) ) are speaking above perhaps toddler level---certainly nowhere near fluency. And 99.99% of us misuse fundamental language features (namely gadri---perhaps xorxes might have a consistent (though incorrect by the book) usage; I don't understand it, so I decided not to say 100% to be on the safe side). So things like coi+do'u and BY+BOI are easy to not have internalized. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/tCoFDrrilS51AZ8RAh2hAJ9H8ZyxzKCMCt09VI0HAgqGhQAuXQCglrQd /VmlnMsfOhb3IFrkPSYI1zM= =UYxO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q--