From lojban+bncCK7Yk5CUCxDL6NTmBBoE84aBKQ@googlegroups.com Sat Nov 06 03:56:28 2010 Received: from mail-pv0-f189.google.com ([74.125.83.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PEgRa-0000st-UA; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:27 -0700 Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1sf980885pvh.16 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:17 -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=8Tfvfds+9caqblvYY1EEDIKIzOHu8k5wX0QXrvySvwQ=; b=DhKzoa8PizEKIVOmBbT6bOf/LPL3XFEgsWPrW33ARcg2N8aaHylcdGS2gfVZph7WJU qgjdztGTVZolUCUBNBdQroYsLjDK7kx1JEuU2cfI4XY8KreD1ygOKTDndPZAL4zzL9xX eZQvHWh5qeSUQ1ZFT/glK6d1iyyLCsxvoX4Gg= 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=k6Q+0IObCcbmi8BD7aDg9JJ8NrePF5qathneDguCg95H5Q6ZL41AY8WwP0Pn6nKpcT Tjx4G6ozYSwYdzrSb1ar5zMJZIe7ggjiZo2tx+/6CMtQ52zfRTyj4JbOBbltj+7yilS9 s+DIZj+4i2h3+8eEpahO6XpF5Iw7wO9QOWOaU= Received: by 10.142.118.15 with SMTP id q15mr147076wfc.18.1289040971280; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.2.41 with SMTP id 41ls5601100wfb.0.p; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.204.5 with SMTP id b5mr1641684wfg.12.1289040970259; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.204.5 with SMTP id b5mr1641683wfg.12.1289040970242; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com (mail-pw0-f45.google.com [209.85.160.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y8si4998568wfj.5.2010.11.06.03.56.09; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.45; Received: by pwj6 with SMTP id 6so1058987pwj.32 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.188.19 with SMTP id l19mr2707078wff.290.1289040969108; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.143.1 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 03:56:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <68245bdf-cca4-46a8-8216-14d44cd0e9a9@37g2000prx.googlegroups.com> References: <68245bdf-cca4-46a8-8216-14d44cd0e9a9@37g2000prx.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:56:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Re: Anki and tatoeba From: Remo Dentato To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" X-Original-Sender: rdentato@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rdentato@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 On Saturday, November 6, 2010, Lindar wrote: >>On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Oren wrote: >> P.S. I think I've been swayed not to prepend all my lojban sentences with { >> .i } > > That's not an option, really. > {ni'o} starts new topics, {.i} continues them. > If you don't use them, then how do you split apart sentences? Oren, my point was exactly that people not familiar with lojban would have been confused by the ".i" at the beginning. I guess you were meaning that all the lojban sentences should be considered as a single sequence and hence each should be separated by the preceding one by {.i}? I find it too convoluted as reasoning. I would prefer not put it at all and neither put {ni'o} and any other particle that is not strictly related to the translation. Anyway, I think we should decide a common way of doing it so that the sentences appear to be uniform. If you could explain better why you would prefer to have {.i} at the beginning we may discuss about it. remo -- 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=en.