Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MtxNk-0003Fu-Iq for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:42:12 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f186.google.com ([209.85.212.186]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MtxNh-0003Ef-FQ for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:42:12 -0700 Received: by vws16 with SMTP id 16so1523352vws.2 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:42:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=6BceATyAO0VucbqPniBi81y892pGNy9jE6Uit1OOroM=; b=ohOIYWsKUThn5vyZmtc6gGMKJUVSe+jKMTxJ+8rEuEGubuQWcyXhqielAwK64hxdmY 564VclOQ1J7Z5P4dGmDvWu0xVC7hE5WspHK07wKwngOb00boZDy+hfLtB6hhEi1WFDHh Qw6TT4S1jgYyZhOWpHFccuKUwRSIcifpRojUA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=ndkVHx6MGEGyQVP56CfzK/GzxdlKDT2h3d8n2RzmChy9RQoyXX/B84fKrlom9SvXhU kUqEg2ClKug/85CnRtXvGdaQSUvpDScR02y6ShYdVPQyEKAOYm1FLUdrpzD5rzPWDBPd GVgaWBXcazuC7o/ojxngJYFh+2wVEt1k/O+u4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.79.140 with SMTP id p12mr6205292vck.57.1254548523228; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:42:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20091003033325.GA27364@sdf.lonestar.org> References: <7f1d42860910021120n1033c6a3wbef9131c23f2c9a0@mail.gmail.com> <27513e550910022003g4c4bb780s8c36f55c805feba0@mail.gmail.com> <20091003033325.GA27364@sdf.lonestar.org> From: Oren Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 13:41:43 +0800 Message-ID: <27513e550910022241h4add56e3h5fd6c76a48c2a14a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: using 'se' in conversation To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6477a10149d61047501570e X-archive-position: 2440 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: get.oren@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 3975 --0016e6477a10149d61047501570e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable .o'anai ki'esai On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:33, Minimiscience wrote= : > de'i li 03 pi'e 10 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Oren .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra. > > 'i've never seen something i haven't liked' > > (there exists no thing, such that (i have seen it) and (i do not like > it)) > > .i na kanxe du'u se pu viska be mi du'u na se nelci be mi > > > > ...I'm sure I'm off on the second one. > .skamyxatra > > Yes, you are amazingly far off. First of all, abstractions (including > those > made with "{du'u}") are {selbri}, not {sumti}, and so the first abstracti= on > is > the {tertau} to "{kanxe}"'s {seltau}, and the second abstraction is the > {tertau} to "{viske be mi}"'s {seltau}. Secondly, even if the abstractio= ns > were made into {sumti} by putting "{lo}" before each of them (and putting > "{kei}" after the first one), the sentence would mean "Something is not a > conjunction stating that something was seen by me and something [not > necessarily the same thing] was not liked by me." Also, you need to swit= ch > the > "{se}" and the "{pu}" in front of "{viska}," and the "{be}"s connecting > "{mi}" > to "{viska}" and "{nelci}" are unnecessary. > > I would recommend saying instead "{noda poi mi viska cu na se nelci mi}" = -- > "Nothing seen by me is not liked by me." > > mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. > > -- > loi jetnu ka'e bartu .ije ku'i loi jitfa cu nenri lo stedu be do > > > > --=20 =E7=99=BD=E6=9D=BE - Oren Robinson +86-15810101944 Sent from Beijing, 11, China --0016e6477a10149d61047501570e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable .o'anai ki'esai

On Sat, Oct 3, 2= 009 at 11:33, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
de'i li 03 pi'e 10 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Oren .fy. cusku zoi s= kamyxatra.
> 'i've never seen something i haven't lik= ed'
> (there exists no thing, such that (i have seen it) and (i do not like = it))
> .i na kanxe du'u se pu viska be mi du'u na se nelci be mi
>
> ...I'm sure I'm off on the second one.
.skamyxatra

Yes, you are amazingly far off. =C2=A0First of all, abstractions (including= those
made with "{du'u}") are {selbri}, not {sumti}, and so the fir= st abstraction is
the {tertau} to "{kanxe}"'s {seltau}, and the second abstract= ion is the
{tertau} to "{viske be mi}"'s {seltau}. =C2=A0Secondly, even = if the abstractions
were made into {sumti} by putting "{lo}" before each of them (and= putting
"{kei}" after the first one), the sentence would mean "Somet= hing is not a
conjunction stating that something was seen by me and something [not
necessarily the same thing] was not liked by me." =C2=A0Also, you need= to switch the
"{se}" and the "{pu}" in front of "{viska}," = and the "{be}"s connecting "{mi}"
to "{viska}" and "{nelci}" are unnecessary.

I would recommend saying instead "{noda poi mi viska cu na se nelci mi= }" --
"Nothing seen by me is not liked by me."

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
loi jetnu ka'e bartu .ije ku'i loi jitfa cu nenri lo stedu be do





--
=E7=99=BD=E6=9D= =BE - Oren Robinson
+86-15810101944
Sent from Beijing, 11, China --0016e6477a10149d61047501570e--