From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCX1qzlBBoEvtDw1Q@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 05 06:42:06 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P37mJ-00071z-08; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:42:06 -0700 Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40sf1680753wyb.16 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:41:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ecnx3h8Gh676C9TLGBG2K/rxpIfuoN7t/jSvNBPRnm8=; b=eCOoqMc6Fovy5Tn2YuzTUxaualOrz4r+GOGM+BSwyoxFLoe8tL01K8h+OCSu/tBhcA T76QERPloWZImuZmUYqd0w5tej8lU6Yib+XHYrgg2W9mBLAuzeGFmYpMu50CPGEbr1tM srv+n6ZEBLKl/PLKyR2FldYbHMJ3ePHxz3yaE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=u0hqLbsKfz1i4m1AT79W0m5PuSBcEFmCSUsrxTMdEk0kdp7u03qjCLcswvwKMdP4pD wkJIoT3CGSj/bLcTD2GQL99mKRvirWY7TQa2GoGpA8QPBEDUqd+WYAGOr7wXNXjUBTTi z4TdHLcmjfDknjjeUCOpQ7aI80PNAy+1p+ATw= Received: by 10.216.144.196 with SMTP id n46mr2020908wej.6.1286286103838; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:41:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.92.203 with SMTP id s11ls2065031wbm.1.p; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.147.73 with SMTP id k9mr442049wbv.18.1286286102802; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.147.73 with SMTP id k9mr442048wbv.18.1286286102767; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f179.google.com (mail-wy0-f179.google.com [74.125.82.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a37si2689690wba.7.2010.10.05.06.41.41; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.179; Received: by wyb42 with SMTP id 42so6050127wyb.38 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:41:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.208.73 with SMTP id gb9mr9754314wbb.13.1286286101566; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 06:41:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201010011823.25227.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4CA76670.50601@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:41:41 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] la za'e filjvocedra (The Age of Easy Lujvo) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > =A0 I happen to agree with xorxes (yeah, one of those rare times :-) ) Hey, it's not _that_ rare. The problem is that if you say ".i mi klama lo zarci ba'o lo nu mi cavlu'i" I will not say: I agree with your use of ".i". I agree with your first use of "mi". I agree with your use of "klama". I agree with your first use of "lo". I agree with your use of "zarci". I agree with your second use of "lo". I agree with your use of "nu". I agree with your second use of "mi". I agree with your use of "cavlu'i". I will only say: I disagree with your use of "ba'o". So the 90% agreement goes by unnoticed, and only the 10% disagreement receives all the attention. And that's in a sentence where there is any disagreement at all. For most sentences there will be 100% agreement. If I say "mi klama lo zarci ca lo nu mi ba'o cavlu'i", I'm sure we will not have any disagreement at all. And most sentences are like that. :) > that > brodytce is preferable to tcebroda and while the underlying tanru can be > thought of as either "mutce broda"=A0or "broda mutce" I think this is something of a problem when thinking about lujvo. There is no "underlying tanru" in lujvo. I know that the official literature talks that way sometimes, but that only makes sense when considering the meaning of the x1 of a lujvo. It doesn't help much with the full meaning of a lujvo. > it cannot be denied that expanded out, >what is really being said=A0is x1 mutce lo ka broda kei.=A0 (So > really, broda mutce is really more proper, but I admit as an English > speaker, I'm more likely to invert it). I think we should blame the French. It's easy to explain "tsa-mau" as "strong-er" and "tsa-rai" as "strong-est", but there's no "strong-issimo" in English to explain "tsa-tce", so we are left with the tanruish "very strong" instead of a proper English lujvo. If the French had kept the Latin -issimus suffix like the other Romance languages did, then they could have passed it on to English and we wouldn't need to be having this discussion. (I think in Latin it was actually a superlative, but it's an augmentative in Spanish.) > And this is the point -- with most > lujvo=A0where the =A0x2 of the=A0full expansion=A0of the underlying tanru= is=A0(an > abstraction involving) the seltau and the selbri being the tertau, we mak= e > the lujvo in the order of=A0{seltau,tertau}, as well we should, > since=A0the=A0lujvo is =A0a type of {tertau}.=A0 Ex. mrobi'o (<- morsi bi= nxo <- > binxo lo morsi), jungau (<-=A0djuno gasnu <- gasnu lo nu x2 djuno), larf= i'i > (<- larcu finti <- finti x2 noi lo larcu), etc. =A0so I see no reason to = break > that pattern with mutce. Right. And I see no problem at all with the tanru "mutce broda". But a lujvo does not "come from a tanru". mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.