Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HetW7-00069f-0y for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:51:16 -0700 Received: from mclmx2.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.32] ident=[U2FsdGVkX1+mjIzoQAmy80FbUL6PaZtlA1vy0luKauk=]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HetVx-000690-Ih for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:51:12 -0700 Received: from 0015-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.21] [149.8.64.21]) by mclmx2.mail.saic.com id BT-MMP-68741 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:50:55 -0400 Received: from 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com ([10.43.229.18]) by 0015-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (SMSSMTP 4.0.5.66) with SMTP id M2007042009505516885 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:50:55 -0400 Received: from 0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com ([10.75.0.188]) by 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:50:55 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C78352.EAEA757F" Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Please review # 001 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:50:55 -0400 Message-Id: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7CB6@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> In-Reply-To: <398088.67026.qm@web88005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lojban-beginners] Re: Please review # 001 Thread-Index: AceDTAL6mWIY6UyGTLC5zlI9/a7EpAAASx/g From: "Turniansky, Michael" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2007 13:50:55.0803 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB1690B0:01C78352] X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 4333 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 19226 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C78352.EAEA757F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, that's why I said, "my personal preference" and YMMV ("your mileage may vary"). If you choose to think about it as having a particular meeting in mind (no other meeting will do?) and a particular trip, you can certainly use "le" in all three places. In general, I would tend to say that (unquantified) "le" can often be used where (unquantified) "lo" can, but not vice-versa, since things that are "something(s) that really is/are X" are also usually "the specific thing(s) I'm describing X, that I have in mind", but not the other way 'round. For example consider, "mi pu viska lo/le cribe sedi'o le/lo ricfoi" Four possiblities: 1) mi pu viska lo cribe in lo ricfoi <-- "I saw a bear in a forest" It really was bear, it really was a forest, but we don't know where. 2) mi pu viska le cribe in lo ricfoi <-- "I saw the bear in a forest" It may or may not be a bear, but it specifically the thing I saw, and it was in a real forest, somewhere. 3) mi pu viska lo cribe le ricfoi <-- "I saw a bear in the forest" It definitely a bear that was in a particular forest (presumably, the listener would know which one I'm talking about.. one near my home, the one we're in now, or even a "forest" at Disneyland) 4) mi pu viska le cribe le ricfoi <-- "I saw the bear in the forest" Specific bear like thing in specific forest-like thing. =20 In case one, you might be talking about an encounter you had once on a camping trip as a child. (And it's not a specific bear, because there may be others in the forest, but they all look alike to you). In case two, you saw something that you took for a bear, while you were camping. In case three, if we were in Disneyland, I would start running real fast. What's a real bear doing there? In case four, at Disneyland, I would assume you were talking about an audio-animatronic bear on a ride. =20 But the point is that sentence four could easily have been said in all four cases, for although you are narrowing down the forest and bear to specific cases, the objects in question could still be real bears and forests. But I couldn't use sentence one in case four, because it's neither a real bear, nor a real forest, and anyway, you wouldn't be sure that I was talking about anything having to do with the whatever bears and/or forests we had just been talking about/visited. =20 (Caveat: As I understand Robin's take on xorlo on the tiki page, all those "lo"'s could be referring to things that aren't actually bears, as well, a stance not everyone agrees with.) =20 --gejyspa=20 ---------- Andrew asked: =20 But if I am drinking quickly for the specific reason of going to school, aren't I just as specifically going to school in order to meet the teacher. Therefore shoudn't tezu'e be followed by [lenu]? And what about [bilga]? I am obligated not just to go generally, but ot make this specific trip. So maybe [lenu] again? =20 =20 ----- Original Message ---- From: "Turniansky, Michael" As far as lenu vs. lonu, I would say in this case "lenu" after the ki'e" and "lonu" after tezu'e (and after bilga in the first version), as my personal prefence. Why? Possibly English bias, but because you are drinking quickly it for _the specific_ reason of being obligated in _a_ going to school for _a_ meeting with the teacher. =20 YMMV --gejyspa =20 =20 ________________________________ From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of ANDREW PIEKARSKI "In the morning, I drink coffee quickly as I have to go to my kid's school in order to meet his teacher." .i ca lo cerni mi [cu] sutra pinxe lo ckafi ki'u lonu mi bilga lenu klama le ckule be fo le panzi tezu'e lenu penmi le ctuca be ri=20 or the shorter .i ca lo cerni mi [cu] sutra pinxe lo ckafi ki'u .ei mi klama le ckule be fo le panzi tezu'e lenu penmi le ctuca be ri=20 =20 That leaves only the question of lenu and lonu. From the comments, my impression is that either will do in all cases - but surely we need some consistency. Your comments on making it xorlo-compatable, please. =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C78352.EAEA757F Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  Well, that’s why I = said, “my personal preference” and YMMV (“your mileage may = vary”).  If you choose to think about it as having a particular meeting in mind = (no other meeting will do?) and a particular trip, you can certainly use = “le” in all three places.   In general, I would tend to say that = (unquantified) “le” can often be used where (unquantified) “lo” = can, but not vice-versa, since things that are “something(s) that = really is/are X” are also usually  “the specific thing(s) I’m = describing X, that I have in mind”, but not the other way ‘round.  = For example consider, “mi pu viska lo/le cribe sedi’o le/lo = ricfoi”  Four possiblities:

1)  mi pu viska lo cribe in lo ricfoi  ß ”I saw a bear in a forest”   It = really was  bear, it really was a forest, but we don’t know = where.

2) mi pu viska le cribe in lo = ricfoi ß “I saw = the bear in a forest” It may or may not be a bear, but it specifically the = thing I saw, and it was in a real forest, = somewhere.

3) mi pu viska lo cribe le ricfoi = ß “I saw a = bear in the forest”  It definitely a bear that was in a particular = forest (presumably, the listener would know which one I’m talking about.. = one near my home, the one we’re in now, or even a “forest” = at Disneyland)

4) mi pu viska le cribe  le = ricfoi ß “I saw = the bear in the forest”   Specific bear like thing in specific = forest-like thing.

 

  In case one, you might be = talking about an encounter you had once on a camping trip as a child. (And = it’s not a specific bear, because there may be others in the forest, but they = all look alike to you).

  In case two,   you = saw something that you took for a bear, while you were = camping.

  In case three, if we were in = Disneyland, I would start running real = fast.  What’s a real bear doing there?

  In case four, at Disneyland, I would assume you were talking about an audio-animatronic bear on a = ride.

 

  But the point is that = sentence four could easily have been said in all four cases, for although you are = narrowing down the forest and bear to specific cases, the objects in question = could still be real bears and forests.   But I couldn’t use sentence = one in case four, because it’s neither a real bear, nor a real forest, = and anyway, you wouldn’t be sure that I was talking about anything = having to do with the whatever bears and/or forests we had just been talking = about/visited.

 

  (Caveat:  As I = understand Robin’s take on xorlo on the tiki page, all those = “lo”’s could be referring to things that aren’t actually bears, as well, = a stance not everyone agrees with.)

 

      =             &= nbsp;   --gejyspa

----------<= /p>

Andrew asked:

 

But if I am drinking quickly for the specific reason = of going to school, aren't I just as specifically going to school in order = to meet the teacher.  Therefore shoudn't tezu'e be followed by = [lenu]?  And what about [bilga]? I am obligated not just to go generally, but ot make = this specific trip.  So maybe [lenu] again?

 

 

----- Original Message ----
From: "Turniansky, Michael" = <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com>

  As far as lenu vs. lonu, I = would say in this case “lenu” after the ki’e” and “lonu” after tezu’e (and after bilga in the first = version), as my personal prefence.  Why? Possibly English bias, but because = you are drinking quickly it for _the = specific_ reason of being obligated in _a_ going to school for _a_ = meeting with the teacher.

 

   = YMMV

      =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp; --gejyspa  

 

From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of ANDREW PIEKARSKI
"In the morning, I drink coffee quickly as I have to = go to my kid's school in order to meet his teacher."

<= font size=3D2 face=3DArial>.i ca lo cerni mi [cu] sutra pinxe lo ckafi ki'u lonu mi bilga lenu klama le = ckule be fo le panzi tezu'e lenu penmi le ctuca be ri =

or the shorter

<= font size=3D2 face=3DArial>.i ca lo cerni mi [cu] sutra pinxe lo ckafi ki'u .ei mi klama le ckule be fo le = panzi tezu'e lenu penmi le ctuca be ri =

 

That leaves only the question of lenu and lonu.  = From the comments, my impression is that either will do in all cases - but = surely we need some consistency.

Your comments on making it xorlo-compatable, = please.

 

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C78352.EAEA757F--