DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type         :content-transfer-encoding;        b=QZWmtrbRPu6DPpe4kwro7sgPCA+GAF9/spLad60zycy7DRxZUWl6pTz2Eg3pBsSxZF         goaGsWV8BjbRgn9L0nBe19RvG8Xzaly37equ04panKcPgLbKmooS4/LupsdMt5kZI35S         nMnDctYHsqvN3vX1DJ3Vkq38VNqkKNZ+JLlD0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5715b9300908221250w6ee9da23r471adf911ff312df@mail.gmail.com>
References: <de2eee520908211539p57813c10mb63be4810e990af5@mail.gmail.com>	 <20090821225617.GA1082@sdf.lonestar.org>	 <5a3750120908220037l2ea17eb1ue2dc1e3d9ce2cf65@mail.gmail.com>	 <4de8c3930908220408g21752c12yd44abd703bae9cc5@mail.gmail.com>	 <5a3750120908221037u6e49bec7ra8316c82dbbf5c03@mail.gmail.com>	 <4de8c3930908221226n38e5fbf0h1554794765d48876@mail.gmail.com>	 <5715b9300908221250w6ee9da23r471adf911ff312df@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:01:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4de8c3930908221501s6026210dr2aca78077a09e715@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: "The pen is mightier than the sword."
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam_score: 0.5
X-Spam_score_int: 5
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  2009/8/22 Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>: > my lojban
	is nowhere near good enough to be able to understand discussion > about lojban
	in lojban.Ā Could someone give me a brief synopsis of what's > being said
	here:Ā I gather that it's a minor disagreement having something > to do with
	stress/emphasis of sumti? [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	3.1 SUBJECT_FUZZY_PENIS    Attempt to obfuscate words in Subject:
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
X-archive-position: 2091
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jbotijlan@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-beginners
Content-Length: 985

2009/8/22 Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>:
> my lojban is nowhere near good enough to be able to understand discussion
> about lojban in lojban.Ā  Could someone give me a brief synopsis of what's
> being said here:Ā  I gather that it's a minor disagreement having something
> to do with stress/emphasis of sumti?

Maybe {basna} was a bad choice. I meant the weight that a sumti has in
a sentence. To me, a terbri sumti seems at least syntactically
weightier than a tagged sumti. In {lo xarci cu vlipa mau lo pinsi},
{lo pinsi} is a tagged sumti, while {lo xarci} is the x1 terbri of the
main selbri, from which I tend to assume that {lo xarci} is meant to
have a more important place within the expression than {lo pinsi} is.
On the other hand, in {lo pinsi cu vlimau lo xarci}, the two sumti are
equal in that both of them relate to the selbri as a terbri. And i
think such syntactically balanced opposition of the sumti is more
effectual in translating the phrase in question.