From philip.newton@gmail.com Sat Jan 15 03:20:41 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.205])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1Cplyi-00020D-KX
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:20:24 -0800
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id c51so63093rne
        for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:20:20 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
        b=j9DimL52t24MIQNt/Kny/nzd3kPvnD1tE9h5DMNyb7cy9VJ7ZAP05S+F0GRSBXslfZmzUeDkPHZll5oUZa04n7OM0c8sSa+bkUsrisW1oqTzXSFkT+tA7gz+My+HH2zeAAYICZ6Npyol7ath/b3PI/BrGaqBABu7yrPBGQ10DXA=
Received: by 10.38.11.22 with SMTP id 22mr308554rnk;
        Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.38.208.61 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <537d06d0050115032029bd6ac1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:20:20 +0100
From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org, llg-members@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: Opinions, please: SA by structure
In-Reply-To: <20050114195516.GW22838@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
References: <20050114195516.GW22838@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 9267
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: philip.newton@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:55:16 -0800, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> Does this make sense to you?

Yes.

> Does it seem like it would be easier to use?
> 
> Does it seem like it would be easier to learn?

I can imagine so.

I'd also say that not being able to continue a quote is a fairly small
price to pay.

> Any other comments?

My Lojban isn't good enough to determine the full repercussions of
either method, so I can't say whether either one will make certain
things too difficult. But the proposed new method seems, on the
surface, to be conceptually simple to learners.

One question -- what would {mi vecnu do lo cukta sa lo cukta do} mean?
The same as {mi vecnu lo cukta do} ("I'm selling you to the books, uh,
the books to you") or as {mi vecnu do lu cukta do} ("I'm selling you
to the books, uh, to the books for the cost of yourself")?

If the latter, how to get the result of the former? Would I have to
erase back to the brivla and go {mi vecnu do lo cukta sa vecnu lo
cukta do}? (Which would currently mean, apparently, {mi vecnu do lo
vecnu lo cukta do} or "I'm selling you to the books, uh, salesman for
the price of books" with a leftover "do" for x5 of vecnu.)

mu'o mi'e .filip.
-- 
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>