Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 07:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp36K-0001Kk-Hm for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 07:06:38 -0700 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp363-0001KK-VG for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 07:06:32 -0700 Received: from 0015-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.21] [149.8.64.21]) by mclmx.mail.saic.com id BT-MMP-792678 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 10:06:08 -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 M2007051810060731608 for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 10:06:07 -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, 18 May 2007 10:06:08 -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_01C79955.AE484DBF" Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:06:07 -0400 Message-Id: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7D39@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0705180657v62c66fe3q55e7b16540c5281a@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" Thread-Index: AceZVUXTYFyVBKKGSJuCbjgYcfBC+gAABZtw From: "Turniansky, Michael [UNK]" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2007 14:06:08.0274 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE879720:01C79955] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4499 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: 8984 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C79955.AE484DBF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, in casual conversation, it's not necessary to add an .i every time a speaker switches. It's more formal (and grammatically correct) to do so, but in conversation amongst people (and not say, computers), people will understand that you generally are starting new sentences, and not continuing others. =20 --gejyspa =20 ________________________________ From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:58 AM To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" =20 I understand Michael's point. However, some collections of text on www.lojban.org show sentences without being separated by ".i". The following is from "terpa lo tirxu":=20 A: doi patfu do terpa xu lo tirxu=20 B: na go'i=20 A: xu go'i lo cinfo=20 B: si'a na go'i=20 A: je'e .ija'o do terpa le mamta po'o Is this omission of ".i" a permissive, casual application for an aesthetic reason? Or should it be avoided as is the case in Elmo's example? On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] wrote: Actually, Elmo, your sentences came to me without any line breaks (due to my mailer, no doubt), and demonstrated quite clearely that YOU needed to add .i before the second and third instances of "la ranjit" in order=20 to break them up, rgeardless of what ranjit is sying ;-) --gejyspa -----Original Message----- From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org=20 [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Elmo Todurov Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:05 AM To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu" Very little. Theoretically one might talk in several short sentence-parts, like la.ranjit.cusku lu mi crino li'u=20 la ranjit cisma la ranjit cusku lu je cmalu gi'e xabju la.mars li'u In this case the .i should be inserted there in the beginning of a new sentence. On the other hand, common sense would suggest citing whole=20 sentences at once. In short, stay on the safe side and use .i. =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C79955.AE484DBF Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  Yes, in casual = conversation, it's not necessary to add an .i every time a speaker switches.  It's more formal (and = grammatically correct) to do so, but in conversation amongst people (and not say, = computers), people will understand that you generally are starting new sentences, = and not continuing others.

 

      =             &= nbsp;  --gejyspa

 

From: = lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef
Sent: Friday, May 18, = 2007 9:58 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: = [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu"

 

I understand = Michael's point.
However, some collections of text on www.lojban.org show sentences without being separated by ".i".
The following is from "terpa lo tirxu":

A: doi patfu do terpa xu lo tirxu
B: na go'i
A: xu go'i lo cinfo
B: si'a na go'i
A: je'e .ija'o do terpa le mamta po'o

Is this omission of ".i" a permissive, casual application for = an aesthetic reason?
Or should it be avoided as is the case in Elmo's example?


On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.c= om> wrote:

  Actually, Elmo, your sentences came to me without any line breaks (due
to my mailer, no doubt), and demonstrated quite clearely that YOU = needed
to add .i before the second and third instances of "la ranjit" = in order
to break them up, rgeardless of what ranjit is sying   ;-)

            &= nbsp;   --gejyspa


-----Original Message-----
From: lojban-beginners-bounc= e@lojban.org
[mailto:lojban-beginners-bounc= e@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Elmo Todurov
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:05 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after = "lu"

Very little. Theoretically one might talk in several short
sentence-parts,
like
la.ranjit.cusku lu mi crino li'u
la ranjit cisma
la ranjit cusku lu je cmalu gi'e xabju la.mars li'u
In this case the .i should be inserted there in the beginning of a = new
sentence. On the other hand, common sense would suggest citing whole =
sentences at once.

In short, stay on the safe side and use .i.


 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C79955.AE484DBF--