Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:33:46 -0500
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Introduction, and zutse/se sutse
Message-ID: <20011112133346.A8718@cc96364-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>
Reply-To: jspickes@etrademail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i
From: jspickes@etrademail.com
Content-Length: 2743
Lines: 61

           
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


coi rodo .i mi cnino ke lojbo tavla .i mi gleki lenu mi ca cmima le lojbo
liste

Hi everyone, I'm a newbie to lojban, and I'm glad to be taking part in your
list.  I've been fiddling with lojban in small doses for quite some time,
and I think it's really interesting and challenging.  For those who are
interested, I'm a 26-year-old electrical engineer, and I've been interested
in conlangs for a number of years.  I first learned a bit of Klingon, then
Esperanto to a pretty good level of fluency (which I recently used during a
3-week trip to Brazil where I spoke Esperanto pretty much exclusively) and
now lojban.  I especially like how lojban makes me really think about what
I'm saying, and gives me the ability to be completely unambiguous.  Anyway,
enough about me.

Since I'm a newbie, I have what may be a newbie question.  :)  The other da=
y
I was chatting with some folks on us.opirc.org#lojban, (I apologize, but I
don't remember the names of those involved.  Most certainly they were all
much more experienced in lojban than I.) and someone said
something to the effect of:  .ia ro lo stizu cu se zutse

I interpreted this to mean that all stizu's (chairs) are also (se zutse)'s
(things sat upon).  Not so sure I agreed with this, I asked whether stizu's
were se zutse's even if nobody was sitting in them.  "Sure they are," was
the answer, with the subsequent discussion basically saying that stizu's ar=
e
se zutse's because someone can sit in/on them.  If this is really the case,
I think something in my understanding of lojban needs to be adjusted.

If I say "da se zutse [zo'e]", it's the same thing as "[zo'e] zutse da",
right? That is "someone/something is/was/will be sitting in/on X".  If
that's right, then it seems to me that "[zo'e] na zutse da" equates to "da
na se zutse [zo'e]".  "It is not true that someone/something is/was/will be
sitting in/on X." equates to "X is not a (se zutse)."

Returning to the question of whether all sitzu's are se zutse's, based upon
the above paragraph, it seems to me that if nobody ever has, and never will
sit in a particular chair, then that chair is not a se zutse.  I'm not even
quite sure whether my friends in IRC were disagreeing with this fact, thoug=
h
it certainly seemed like people were arguing that a chair is a (se zutse)
because it is something that one normally sits in.  Where am I getting
confused?  :)

Thanks in advance,=20

co'o mi'e djan.
           
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO 
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

[Attachment content not displayed.]           
--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO--