From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Nov 23 17:48:51 1995 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id RAA00411 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 17:48:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199511232248.RAA00411@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 8CE9C5AB ; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 18:39:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 17:39:51 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: self-descriptions? To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Status: OR And: > > > {mi se xi pa nundraci kelci}. But I don't think your preferences > > ji'a I don't understand the second, either. Why sexipa? Isn't that the > > same as {mi nundraci kelci}? > I thought {se xi pa} gives the x6 place. x6 of {nundraci} is the actor. I don't know what is the official convention, but I think I prefer Goran's: {sexipa}=nothing, {sexire}={se}, {sexici}={te},...and {sexixa} to get to x6. > > > fi la pou lojbab ralju fe lei jai fau skicu be fo lo jbovla bei fe > > > maa bei fai ro da poi kea me maa bei fi da fa diu tinbe > > =The rule made by Chief lojbab about all of us describing us to others in > > lojban with these words is obeyed. > > I spent 5 to 10 minutes translating this jufra! What an obfuscation! > Well done, then. Why did you find it difficult? It's in an unfamiliar > style, but there isn't lots of deep subordination and tons of terminators > and stuff. All those FAs and be-beis count as tons of "stuff". I agree with Goran. Fi-fa-fu-Lojban is very obfuscating, especially in combination with jaifau-Lojban. {le jaifau} in your use means the same as {le nu}, but with (at least) three disadvantages: (1) It is longer, (2) the x1 of the main selbri gets kicked out to the fai-place, and worse of all (3) all the arguments have to be be-bei-linked. What possible advantage offsets these disadvantages? Jorge