From lojban+bncCJGY6cDlFhD9wtXmBBoE7ybc3w@googlegroups.com Sat Nov 06 07:09:19 2010 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PEjSD-0000Da-HU; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:09:19 -0700 Received: by fxm13 with SMTP id 13sf909028fxm.16 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:09:07 -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:received:mime-version:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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=RATkWN82sgiGCvsAtiwNCm/D0HQmSwIu9/2iiTEsNoc=; b=J96xXF0cJPGAOvjLCzpjgHcS7A4J9Mpsc3rTNBX4X1DFWSLmHZViJyxZQ4k5fiwLKq nZZRIKDOODQ1dzPGq070VKSIqv7qdHCJZ6tL0K2QUVCaJSRTFFxah71WreKlpvuTEQ5X /r9/0iD3Bu9VpGxm4WN5MG3uoJ5dV3MawQojo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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=yemy8JJcoMENtiqlpaKxjbPU94dbp3WWRDHtu6Ql/PMU5t4e9w7pPD8J4R+0QMagMX CgT1jtyVoM1CbTS4dswqNQseUTxfgOVUfyyL1wcQQZQ9/sbwicwNIpdb2gLOpQWPMFas KF7dTntYm+iHGtIpWEuYOvsPt+KmLgVIc1wvY= Received: by 10.223.123.130 with SMTP id p2mr96149far.29.1289052541034; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:09:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.49.147 with SMTP id v19ls1249720bkf.1.p; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.13.81 with SMTP id b17mr192295bka.14.1289052539459; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.13.81 with SMTP id b17mr192294bka.14.1289052539404; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com (mail-fx0-f47.google.com [209.85.161.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j16si1274569bkd.2.2010.11.06.07.08.58; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.47; Received: by fxm3 with SMTP id 3so3085052fxm.34 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.116.69 with SMTP id l5mr1976224faq.129.1289052537989; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.117.10 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <68245bdf-cca4-46a8-8216-14d44cd0e9a9@37g2000prx.googlegroups.com> From: Oren Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:08:37 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Anki and tatoeba To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: get.oren@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=get.oren@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=001636c5b2209fa981049462ee57 --001636c5b2209fa981049462ee57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Smaller Topic: Whether { .i } should be dropped Supporters say: - { .i } will confuse speakers of English, etc. who don't have it in their native tongue (Underlying suggestion: We should adopt a style that makes lojban appear friendly & familiar) - { .i } only makes sense when used in a { ni'o } topic (Underlying suggestion: We should avoid using cmavo out of any dependent context.) (Or perhaps: Using { .i } without { ni'o } may result in a poor translation.) Respective coutner-arguments might be: - According to the tatoeba style guide, these sentence are supposed to represent authentic utterances. We shouldn't have to make any cosmetic compromises in word choice that would not reflect natural lojban usage. However, it may be the case that dropping the { .i } IS more authentic and natural lojban. - According to the tatoeba style guide, they don't want you trying to submit multiple sentences (or fragments/words) as a single entry. I can only assume that they aren't afraid of certain sentences that may perfectly grammatical appearing nonsensical or incomplete due to loss of context. Particularly, if we limited lojban cmavo usage only to cases that fully specified any linked dependencies, then there would be several dozen cmavo that we could never use as they only make sense in a larger context. As for { .i }'s place in a translation, the tatoeba style guide also says to feel free to translate multiple sentences in a language for each possible additional inflection/variation that makes sense. So, if the sentence we're translating *could* be a continuation *or* the start of a new topic, perhaps we could even submit both a { ni'o } and {.i } - prepended sentence. So, my conclusion is: if we decide to drop { .i }, it would be for stylistic or lojban-evangelical reasons, and not due to any conflict with the translation guidelines in the tatoeba style guide. Reference: http://blog.tatoeba.org/2010/02/how-to-be-good-contributor-in-tatoeba.html ni'o =p { .i } bickerings specifically aside, Bigger Topic: Lojban tatoeba style guide! I still think it would be a good general rule to submit two lojban sentences for each translation sentence: one briefer (or even briefest), and one with all elidable terminators present. This way, when someone searches for all lojban sentences that use a terminator, they can see the sentence with and without that terminator, and where it falls in relation to other terminators. The reason we can't put [optional] square-bracketed words in there is because they explicitly prohibit any grammtical, linguistic or other editorial information in the sentences. They are meant to be pieces of language that can be used in or out of the context of language learning. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about { .i }. Can we hear some clamor about this proposal for recommended brief/verbose translation pairs? co'o mi'e korbi On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 06:56, Remo Dentato wrote: > 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. > > -- Oren Robinson (315) 569-2888 102 Morrison Ave Somerville, MA 02144 -- 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. --001636c5b2209fa981049462ee57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Smaller Topic: Whether { .i } should be dropped
Suppor= ters say:=A0
  • { .i } will confuse speakers of English, etc= . who don't have it in their native tongue
    (Underlying suggestion: W= e should adopt a style that makes lojban appear friendly & familiar)
  • { .i } only makes sense when used in a { ni'o } topic
    (= Underlying suggestion: We should avoid using cmavo out of any dependent con= text.)
    (Or perhaps: Using { .i } without { ni'o } may result in a po= or translation.)
Respective coutner-arguments might be:
  • According to = the tatoeba style guide, these sentence are supposed to represent authentic= utterances. We shouldn't have to make any cosmetic compromises in word= choice that would not reflect natural lojban usage. However, it may be the= case that dropping the { .i } IS more authentic and natural lojban.

  • According to the tatoeba style guide, they don't want you = trying to submit multiple sentences (or fragments/words) as a single entry.= I can only assume that they aren't afraid of certain sentences that ma= y perfectly grammatical appearing nonsensical or incomplete due to loss of = context.

    Particularly, if we limited lojban cmavo usage only to cases that fully= specified any linked dependencies, then there would be several dozen cmavo= that we could never use as they only make sense in a larger context.

    As for { .i }'s place in a translation, the tatoeba style guide als= o says to feel free to translate multiple sentences in a language for each = possible additional inflection/variation that makes sense. So, if the sente= nce we're translating *could* be a continuation *or* the start of a new= topic, perhaps we could even submit both a { ni'o } and =A0{.i } - pre= pended sentence.
So, my conclusion is: if we decide to drop { .i }, it would be fo= r stylistic or lojban-evangelical reasons, and not due to any conflict with= the translation guidelines in the tatoeba style guide. Reference:=A0http://blog.tatoeba.org/2010/02/how-to-be-good-contributor-in-tatoeba= .html

ni'o =3Dp

{ .i } bickerings = specifically aside,=A0

Bigger Topic: Lojban tatoeb= a style guide!

I still think it would be a good general rule to submit= two lojban sentences for each translation sentence: one briefer (or even b= riefest), and one with all elidable terminators present. This way, when som= eone searches for all lojban sentences that use a terminator, they can see = the sentence with and without that terminator, and where it falls in relati= on to other terminators.

The reason we can't put [optional] square-bracketed= words in there is because they explicitly prohibit any grammtical, linguis= tic or other editorial information in the sentences. They are meant to be p= ieces of language that can be used in or out of the context of language lea= rning.

I don't have any strong feelings one way or the oth= er about { .i }. Can we hear some clamor about this proposal for recommende= d brief/verbose translation pairs?

co'o mi'= ;e korbi

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 06:56, Rem= o Dentato <rdent= ato@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 6, 2010, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Oren <get.oren@gmail.com> wrote:
>> P.S. I think I've been swayed not to prepend all my lojban sen= tences 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. =A0I would prefer not put it at
all and neither put {ni'o} and any other particle that is not strictly<= br> 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 &= 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.




--
Oren Robinson
(315) 569-2888
102 Morrison Ave
Somerville, MA 02144

--
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.
--001636c5b2209fa981049462ee57--