From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 04 23:45:19 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KQGIJ-0007KO-Qm for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:45:19 -0700 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.168]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KQGIF-0007K6-0C for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:45:19 -0700 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so2320958wfg.25 for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:45:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=k4c3CCHoBlk+q9HyTvNZ52gLTR3EnFltP+K+ZsKh7oE=; b=eoBztj80QPr5ZA6tA3GJbo3ixy/B8ZE7R9oWDwGZzRdKf2oZv5InJHUd5JJ+HapIE5 nyHOAvN41TZUAyeWMUg+F/5hkOCKtPSLR25NzZ6pXJjeO1WfNeeAZAL+xPJlaai4lUYa PEP03728CdIG2FwacQtIMCWBBdymBmQBTIIbs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=IuaK1+o2AWXfk11dxuM3K/+ZQwwc2pi0QszpsrKEoHMQrO3xDe5HuIKf2VAawBfh3k 2Ov/U4PJvo6Nds7MnyiIDFYWvCbzV3ILqigeYL31fbcMxTDI9fzImi4WMkKDluvwlvcC wAbjct6h1AXbuZGUz9oL41RFe6H6qOjSPmYJs= Received: by 10.142.82.6 with SMTP id f6mr5291890wfb.43.1217918713266; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.51.12 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 02:45:13 -0400 From: "Brett Williams" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: trying poe poetry translation In-Reply-To: <925d17560808041215y7e1f498cjcb72303621660acf@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_859_22390688.1217918713261" References: <489718EF.5010308@gmail.com> <925d17560808041215y7e1f498cjcb72303621660acf@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14628 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mungojelly@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_859_22390688.1217918713261 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 8/4/08, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > > > While I agree with all of your other comments, I disagree with this > one. I think CLL does say something about a hidden "ge'e", but > at least I ignore that, and use "sai" as a free intensifier, intensifying > whatever word it follows, not any hidden "ge'e", similar to the way > "nai" works. (And of course the same goes for the other CAIs.) > > For example I use "ji'asai" for "even", "nasai" for something like > "absolutely not", "naru'e" for "almost", "ja'aru'e" for "barely", etc. > So I have no problem with the use of "so'i sai" for "very many". > "so'i so'i" is also quite fine. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > OK well this idea does seem potentially more useful than what I was taught. I like it, but I also definitely think it represents a mild breaking of those texts with the other understanding. I thought I'd bring it over here & maybe we could air it out a little more. What other opinions does anyone have about this? (This is my idea for how we should use these two lists, presenting somethin= g approaching a united front to the ninpre while airing our complications and developments slightly more privately. I thought I'd try following my own advice!) mu'e mi'e se ckiku ------=_Part_859_22390688.1217918713261 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/4/08, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjl= lambias@gmail.com> wrote:


While I agree with all of your other comments, I disagree with this=
one. I think CLL does say something about a hidden "ge'e"= ;, but
at least I ignore that, and use "sai" as a free intens= ifier, intensifying
whatever word it follows, not any hidden "ge'e", similar to = the way
"nai" works. (And of course the same goes for the oth= er CAIs.)

For example I use "ji'asai" for "even&= quot;, "nasai" for something like
"absolutely not", "naru'e" for "almost",= "ja'aru'e" for "barely", etc.
So I have no= problem with the use of "so'i sai" for "very many"= .
"so'i so'i" is also quite fine.

mu'o mi'= e xorxes


OK well this idea does seem pot= entially more useful than what I was taught.  I li= ke it, but I also definitely think it represents a= mild breaking of those texts with the o= ther understanding.  I thought I'd bring it over here & m= aybe we could air it out a little more.  What other opinions = ;does anyone have about this?

(This is my idea for how we should use these two lists, presenting some= thing approaching a united front to the ninpre while airing our = complications and developments slightly more privately. = ; I thought I'd try following my own advi= ce!) 

mu'e mi'e se ckiku
------=_Part_859_22390688.1217918713261-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.