From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBD5qM_nBBoEqcwwGA@googlegroups.com Mon Nov 29 08:27:51 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PN6Zu-0000ge-RQ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:50 -0800 Received: by gyb11 with SMTP id 11sf4036180gyb.16 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:41 -0800 (PST) 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=7n2MipAX0i8JtJlU0XEohasoiS6NPIyIU7ZVGRkkuGE=; b=utnbbyC+yRpAeO6fgw1UXLoAR+s34Tidr3rCr4r4rsxL6L2HLNJJ2t1Uku1vekb1r7 QqdCqmVb6cuktuXHpmLNx44+50YxAcfPN5eGI55/UU6Ov0C1oq3EWYeN5POB4FBpNhTb zL3XGu+mp9jp6eKb3sD4AiA5CjSU6vSKkI2Dc= 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=gQkMeQf61jLlUFJVfmpuF9o8nMmbOx5v99vLCMl1EXVVvIsoN8u8BpimXtJrNxlhKo TrqFLbx364vxOatsRMk2gciEALoN6HrCZTHG7UPcujdaS/iwM9yM68QNCR1uoM/YGV+f k4d0yglqGNxQa2MzN8SjqfmdSUdOUA9MR3ur4= Received: by 10.151.62.39 with SMTP id p39mr653339ybk.49.1291048057301; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:37 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.56.35 with SMTP id e35ls3484085yba.5.p; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.144.12 with SMTP id r12mr1641470ybd.46.1291048056410; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.144.12 with SMTP id r12mr1641468ybd.46.1291048056350; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gw0-f45.google.com (mail-gw0-f45.google.com [74.125.83.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id p9si875990ybk.4.2010.11.29.08.27.35; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.45; Received: by gwj23 with SMTP id 23so130488gwj.4 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.167.67 with SMTP id p3mr5757747iby.20.1291048054806; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.206 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:27:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:27:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Why does sei work the way it does? From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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=001636c5a7a5b1d7330496338ce5 --001636c5a7a5b1d7330496338ce5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I've mentioned this a couple of times in the past and I agree with you. I seem to remember a few people having some pretty good arguments though. It's good good to hear that I wasn't the only one annoyed by this construct :) mu'o mi'e la .cribe. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Ian Johnson wrote: > Why is: > > mi klama sei ko'a cusku be dei bei ko'e le zarci > > different from: > > mi klama sei ko'a cusku dei ko'e se'u le zarci > > (which isn't grammatical, even, but I think you see what I'm trying to do > with it)? > > I understand wanting to elide terminators when possible, and I also > understand that a common usage of {sei} would be to simply have a selbri and > then be done with it, like in the CLL's example: > > la frank. prami sei gleki la djein. > > But this still seems unnecessarily awkward to avoid a terminator. It > doesn't...flow. You're already breaking the flow of the text by using {sei} > in the first place, but then on top of that the grammar inside the {sei} is > forced to work differently just to avoid having to use a terminator every > time. (Yes, doing it this way in a regular bridi would work too, but no one > actually talks like that in regular bridi.) > > In short, in my opinion having to say: > > mi klama sei ko'a gleki se'u le zarci > > is worth it to be able to say: > > mi klama sei ko'a cusku dei ko'e se'u le zarci > > Any thoughts on this? > > mu'o mi'e .latros. > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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. --001636c5a7a5b1d7330496338ce5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've mentioned this a couple of times in the past and I agree with you.= =A0I seem to remember a few people having some pretty good arguments thoug= h. =A0It's good good to hear that I wasn't the only one annoyed by = this construct :)

mu'o mi'e la .cribe.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>= wrote:
Why is:

mi klama sei ko'a cusku = be dei bei ko'e le zarci

different from:

mi klama sei ko&= #39;a cusku dei ko'e se'u le zarci

(which isn't grammatical, even, but I think you see what I'm tr= ying to do with it)?

I understand wanting to elide terminators when possible, and I also und= erstand that a common usage of {sei} would be to simply have a selbri and t= hen be done with it, like in the CLL's example:

la frank. prami = sei gleki la djein.

But this still seems unnecessarily awkward to avoid a terminator. It do= esn't...flow. You're already breaking the flow of the text by using= {sei} in the first place, but then on top of that the grammar inside the {= sei} is forced to work differently just to avoid having to use a terminator= every time. (Yes, doing it this way in a regular bridi would work too, but= no one actually talks like that in regular bridi.)

In short, in my opinion having to say:

mi klama sei ko'a gle= ki se'u le zarci

is worth it to be able to say:

mi klama = sei ko'a cusku dei ko'e se'u le zarci

Any thoughts on th= is?

mu'o mi'e .latros.




<= br>

--
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@googlegrou= ps.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.
--001636c5a7a5b1d7330496338ce5--