DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=beta;        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;        b=InydSdJngSvu7aV/ojjb9+ejjKm6btcXeTH9KIW7Fp8Kl40TWCUISOSqJRGj+MSLMYalwcf/VOpB1fBk+TfILxvRqEYMWD2NtflZS1feFODUt8J3aOWsKqDAgyXk1RhYH9Ws89exqtT8ZuhYz2z8G5DbFbupaq0lKRWCazfisAU=
Message-ID: <23dc8c770703190452x453a53bcy41c34e42353ba3dc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:52:28 +0000
From: "Karl Naylor" <karl.org@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Debug my propaganda?
In-Reply-To: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7C2C@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <23dc8c770703181044x6bfd7f92j47c328163974e17a@mail.gmail.com>	 <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7C2C@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2586

On 19/03/07, Turniansky, Michael <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:

I've deleted a lot of your comments that I agree with, so the ones
that are left are the ones I'm less sure on...

> > pavo jeftu cu temci lenu mi co'a tadni la lojban.
> pavo jeftu means 14 one-week periods.  Also, since jeftu already talks
> about an event in the x1 place, you might like this:

I think what I was actually after was "pavo se jeftu cu temci ...";
"something that is 14 weeks in duration is the time period..."

> >.ije mi ca ka'e  casnu so'o sampu bau ly.
> Also, while the rest is fine as is, since tavla already has a language
> and subject component, you might consider .ijebo mi ca ka'e tavla fi
> so'o sampu ly

Possibly I was more swayed by the English gloss "discuss" than I
should have been.  Yes, I think I prefer {tavla}.

> >.i .au da'i su'o pendo be mi cu bazi co'a tadni
>    I think it's okay, but I'm not sure if the da'i adds much to it.

I wanted something like "I wish you would" rather than "I hope you
will" (since they're not actually likely to learn; I'm just having a
bit of fun really).  Is that the effect of {da'i}?

> >.i seri'abo da'i mi'a ka'e tavla bau la lojban. vau  .ui
>   Yes, you want mu'i ot seri'a here, because you are talking about why
> _you want_ them to learn it.  Here, you probably do want to use casnu,

Well, not quite.  This sentence is meant to be a consequence of my
friends learning Lojban, not of my desire for them to do so -- I was
thinking that the {ri'a} would not care about the {.au} in the last
sentence.  Does it or doesn't it?

> language piece in it). The vau is not needed in either case.

I think it is.  I'm happy about the hypothetical event that I speak
Lojban with my friends, not about Lojban itself (in this case,
anyway).  Without the {vau}, {.ui} would attach only to "la lojban.",
no?

> > .i zo'o mi dapma le rodo ka tolcando
>   Ungrammatical.  You want either .i zo'o mi dapma le le rodo ka
> tolcando (you damn the property being busy of all of your audience) or
> .i zo'o mi dapma ro le do ka tolcando (you damn the entire quantity of
> being busy of your audience).  Not sure which you are going for here...

My reasoning was that {do} does not take an article, as it is a
pro-sumti.  However, I'm unclear on whether {ro} when used with a
pro-sumti tries to add an implicit {lo} as it would with a selbri.  I
wanted "I damn the (property of being busy) which is associated with
all of you".  "le rodo" looks very strange to me, are you sure?

Alternatively, what about "le ka tolcando pe rodo"?

mu'o mi'e .karl.