Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 66218 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2006 13:18:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Oct 2006 13:18:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 2006 13:18:26 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GYik7-0007Jb-Ux for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:35:56 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GYiiU-0007Hg-Iq; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:34:21 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GYihm-0007HQ-Cw for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:33:30 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GYihh-0007HG-VW for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:33:29 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id p46so1847988nfa for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.41.18 with SMTP id t18mr8556833nfj; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.23.10 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <492596e80610140533y1dbe6e65tb365fb48c16d40a0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:33:24 +0800 In-Reply-To: <169788160.20061014174913@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_99787_6673029.1160829204080" References: <19010437375.20061014103735@mail.ru> <492596e80610140313l2a9bf953s2453619849468094@mail.gmail.com> <169788160.20061014174913@mail.ru> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-archive-position: 12714 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: idontknw.wang@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0 X-eGroups-From: "Wang Xuerui" From: "Wang Xuerui" Reply-To: idontknw.wang@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Age X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=9AyKUOEnxSzJ_wdnx-6p75cuATaJc1n54gempN8Do8sDvMcYXQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 27151 Content-Length: 4090 Lines: 118 ------=_Part_99787_6673029.1160829204080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 2006/10/14, Yanis Batura : > > On 14.10.2006, 17:13, Wang Xuerui wrote: > > > > > > "What's your age?" > > "My age is 30" > > > A: .i ma temci lo do terjbe lo cabna > > B: cino nanca > > > Am I correct? > > > Yeah, you will be computerly correct if you put {lo terjbe be do} and {lo > nanca be li cino}. The longer, the preciser. > > > But! Is there a shorter way to express the same? Maybe invent a new lujvo > for it? > That will turn to express "living-time-interval", which is a transformation of the original meaning, may be expressed as {mivytei}. Improved conversation: A: .i ma mivytei fi'o ponse do B: lo cinomei nanca 1 syllable longer than the previous conversation provided. mi'e .ianis. > > > --------------------- > > Lojban: A Language With *Intelligent* Design > 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. > -- Anything wrong? mu'o mi'e .uang. (I don't like {.uan.}, since I'm not ten thousand and my surname isn't Wan) ------=_Part_99787_6673029.1160829204080 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

2006/10/14, Yanis Batura <ybatura@mail.ru>:

On 14.10.2006, 17:13, Wang Xuerui wrote:


>

"What's your age?"

"My age is 30" 


A: .i ma temci lo do terjbe lo cabna

B: cino nanca 


Am I correct?


Yeah, you will be computerly correct if you put {lo terjbe be do} and {lo nanca be li cino}. The longer, the preciser.


But! Is there a shorter way to express the same? Maybe invent a new lujvo for it?


That will turn to express "living-time-interval", which is a transformation of the original meaning, may be expressed as {mivytei}.

Improved conversation:

A: .i ma mivytei fi'o ponse do
B: lo cinomei nanca

1 syllable longer than the previous conversation provided.

mi'e .ianis.


---------------------

Lojban: A Language With *Intelligent* Design

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.



--
Anything wrong?

mu'o mi'e .uang. (I don't like {.uan.}, since I'm not ten thousand and my surname isn't Wan) ------=_Part_99787_6673029.1160829204080--