From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARCDjtHnBBoEJS5p9Q@googlegroups.com Mon Nov 29 16:36:34 2010 Received: from mail-pv0-f189.google.com ([74.125.83.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNECr-0005Ep-QP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:34 -0800 Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1sf2009708pvh.16 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:24 -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=Ih5E+Dcmt5qShNF1F0RiCkrCjVbu/rJ6qHionahltS8=; b=ezcvNecFVa4ETEdwcAHMOFSoUhpLnqaGmPkHKCwIdMBzcNQfxMt9/lrROby8SsNVix w6+/HsDHUvKqM1cMzEEYry3Yo8ORNbWv7H/gCSzmdLH+WIjmkU/30HOezeTJevNnAWHQ LG1eeUdnbJNCJy9ioHeKE+tr/zKMIl3cxom1M= 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=HJ+ymQb/WfuFsU/XDfmCFzYXJTO1pW1tdnVuoM1tFHL51URcaU7d9k4OlAjAqXr1/4 wSugc2N1w95kyVgJttmYutTbc97zdUqrcDwGSJEfdPUKAddIgRNCSYvbWRDrgSibsOr5 RMlvV4MMPmV9yEiSMXovvTHLhnIeVKHLnRhMg= Received: by 10.142.152.27 with SMTP id z27mr153947wfd.66.1291077379685; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.2.41 with SMTP id 41ls9146447wfb.0.p; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.241.16 with SMTP id o16mr4300073wfh.29.1291077378428; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.241.16 with SMTP id o16mr4300072wfh.29.1291077378392; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-px0-f180.google.com (mail-px0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y8si6710496wfj.5.2010.11.29.16.36.17; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.180; Received: by pxi13 with SMTP id 13so1024219pxi.11 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.229.4 with SMTP id b4mr6326077wfh.377.1291077377222; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.86.1 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:36:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <3434c1b0-93ea-4d90-8331-5e9741606068@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:36:17 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Why does sei work the way it does? 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 209.85.212.180 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=000e0cd14fa072674104963a608f --000e0cd14fa072674104963a608f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ...Hmm. That's interesting, because {sei} has the "metalinguistic" thing built into its definition, while TO is just a parenthesis, so it would seem intuitively like they would have an underlying semantic difference. For example, it makes intuitive sense to use {sei} to say who is speaking in a passage, whereas it doesn't seem to make as much sense to use TO ... TOI to do so, because they're (ostensibly) less specific. Though I suppose there could be an attitudinal for "metalinguistic". This may help. How would you translate the following in the least awkward way (short of rearranging, of course): "I'm going", Alice said to Bob, "to the store." ? By what you're saying, it sounds like it would be: mi klama to'i la alis. cusku dei la bab. toi le zarci mu'o mi'e latros. 2010/11/29 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote= : > > {sei} is more like {to} than {lo}, lindar. > > You can always use "to" or "to'i" instead of "sei". The only reason > SEI exists separate from TO is so that the terminator can almost > always be elided. As it is, "se'u" is practically never needed. > Allowing trailing sumti would mean that "se'u" would almost always be > needed. In that case, it wouldn't have made sense to introduce sei at > all, since there was already to. Semantically, sei and to are > basically the same. > > 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. --000e0cd14fa072674104963a608f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ...Hmm. That's interesting, because {sei} has the "metalinguistic&= quot; thing built into its definition, while TO is just a parenthesis, so i= t would seem intuitively like they would have an underlying semantic differ= ence. For example, it makes intuitive sense to use {sei} to say who is spea= king in a passage, whereas it doesn't seem to make as much sense to use= TO ... TOI to do so, because they're (ostensibly) less specific. Thoug= h I suppose there could be an attitudinal for "metalinguistic".
This may help. How would you translate the following in the least awkwa= rd way (short of rearranging, of course):
"I'm going", Ali= ce said to Bob, "to the store."
?

By what you're sa= ying, it sounds like it would be:
mi klama to'i la alis. cusku dei la bab. toi le zarci

mu'o m= i'e latros.

2010/11/29 Jorge Llamb=ED= as <jjllambias= @gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> {sei} is more like {to} than {lo}, lindar.

You can always use "to" or "to'i" instead of = "sei". The only reason
SEI exists separate from TO is so that the terminator can almost
always be elided. As it is, "se'u" is practically never neede= d.
Allowing trailing sumti would mean that "se'u" would almost a= lways be
needed. In that case, it wouldn't have made sense to introduce sei at all, since there was already to. Semantically, sei and to are
basically the same.

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/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.
--000e0cd14fa072674104963a608f--