From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARDG3qzlBBoEhTbu8g@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 05 06:59:55 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P383a-0007ts-9R; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:55 -0700 Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10sf3142441qyk.16 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:44 -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; bh=0gJdQvt7B7RBpkraCql8deH9/BInzZtyiD1wDFYKAPk=; b=i8msnsEFZgkeoQL0HZvAFg/eSvc7nzwIkY1Dv5WvhW+urhnay47g0QOzdaxN+Y4J9J wrG7ULsjt7hmiCPrZQCGFUBpqrmG4WccmYPp1fugOx1niVEzxyh/Xd5s6zXzvrfiDznR /MlZjnIbzZ/hywFOjeMLSamjQQEvHXS3BO5W8= 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; b=u0oq+IYYVSF8gpzUIfsh5yOAhqv4BdsFGgFM42Z3fqzNOuWUNBW0zDJps4T2gmi0uc f+7GjhbgeGHGDYhAkv73nPhUDJ55qJK+sbDYBivI9QacfCoyOZ/z7ATzEBJlypWBo/Tz To32cHLJ/7eP7VyNxclFBG4zyHDC5Rl2dQ1N0= Received: by 10.229.8.193 with SMTP id i1mr8915qci.29.1286287174642; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:34 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.207.84 with SMTP id fx20ls2692699qcb.0.p; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.222.20 with SMTP id ie20mr3163402qcb.20.1286287173840; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.222.20 with SMTP id ie20mr3163401qcb.20.1286287173790; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com (mail-qy0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id mz6si3522961qcb.13.2010.10.05.06.59.32; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.173; Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so1424739qyk.11 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.95.204 with SMTP id e12mr8460850qcn.139.1286287165374; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.92.2 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 06:59:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201010011823.25227.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4CA76670.50601@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:59:23 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] la za'e filjvocedra (The Age of Easy Lujvo) From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364272a39242130491df1159 --0016364272a39242130491df1159 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Then why does the word {lujvo} even have an x4? mu'o mi'e latros. 2010/10/5 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: > > > > 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 b= e > > thought of as either "mutce broda" or "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 is x1 mutce lo ka broda kei. (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 where the x2 of the full expansion of the underlying tanru is (a= n > > abstraction involving) the seltau and the selbri being the tertau, we > make > > the lujvo in the order of {seltau,tertau}, as well we should, > > since the lujvo is a type of {tertau}. Ex. mrobi'o (<- morsi binxo <- > > binxo lo morsi), jungau (<- djuno gasnu <- gasnu lo nu x2 djuno), > larfi'i > > (<- larcu finti <- finti x2 noi lo larcu), etc. so 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 > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=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. --0016364272a39242130491df1159 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Then why does the word {lujvo} even have an x4?

mu'o= mi'e latros.

2010/10/5 Jorge Ll= amb=EDas <jjll= ambias@gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:= 25 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> = wrote:
>
> =A0 I happen to agree with xorxes (yeah, one o= f 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&qu= ot;

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 &= quot;tsa-rai" as
"strong-est", but there's no "strong-issimo" in Eng= lish to explain
"tsa-tce", so we are left with the tanruish "very strong&quo= t; 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<= br> in Spanish.)

> And this is the point -- with most
> lujvo=A0where the =A0x2 of the=A0full expansion=A0of the underlying ta= nru is=A0(an
> abstraction involving) the seltau and the selbri being the tertau, we = make
> 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 binxo <-
> binxo lo morsi), =A0jungau (<-=A0djuno gasnu <- gasnu lo nu x2 d= juno), larfi'i
> (<- larcu finti <- finti x2 noi lo larcu), etc. =A0so I see no r= eason to break
> that pattern with mutce.

Right.

And I see no problem at all with the tanru "mutce broda". But a l= ujvo
does not "come from a tanru".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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.
--0016364272a39242130491df1159--