Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NCOpY-0002pW-QB for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:39:09 -0800 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.145]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NCOpU-0002pB-51 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:39:08 -0800 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 3so1479827eyh.36 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:39:02 -0800 (PST) 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 :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ej1jDCICcQWuRtfvaLDN6o67Ukhca3HoMyxDnoi2lZ4=; b=wAXonPEx5ZlNfdeUefxqHJWwjbOYqXKpWd6HrpKJDELE4GcGKy1KbNgryMAcDoMBUp 5/zrLlfQohzPDfIQ36YwsYIkMZq95YI1XOJfrikumkgsGgDkS8ZG6vh5L/+bZ/qPnCU7 XhWPK0YfyqDV5VQzVn0ZFDLpENK4v/nRp6JMQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=XWqKpzm3ztBjXGO9FT4Yiuql5obZqIEyWOcXDiEKDzXBi8/sthFRbfJxNlgXoAAFjj uPCAny+STEsrEdd2qCvozCjoADr769JnPEk/T5HEyHYTI6WroUXyk/vhBosrabVz4kkU dkZ9fdh6mjWZyytG9sSPH5eljQbOc6cdCC6E8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.0.132 with SMTP id 4mr3025747ebb.8.1258943942006; Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:39:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5715b9300911221432y2f9724a4nb2d5156cfc2050ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <200911221105.31626.phma@phma.optus.nu> <36F41326-A754-44CD-BAB7-D998075C54CE@choi.name> <12d58c160911221005xc2e53d3q24f9d0d09ba2024@mail.gmail.com> <7D2D5FD9-4849-45F3-8540-EC57C0B9C026@choi.name> <5715b9300911221432y2f9724a4nb2d5156cfc2050ac@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:39:01 -0500 Message-ID: <249d5b950911221839p792181a5rf7a3ad83a7836cfb@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: sel- vs se From: Steven Lytle To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd1f8527496ab047900ba79 X-archive-position: 2573 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lytlesw@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 8635 --000e0cd1f8527496ab047900ba79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The question wasn't about lujvo vs. tanru. It was about the difference between SE GISMU and lujvo based on SE GISMU (SELGIhU?). I think they're identical in meaning, and I prefer SE GISMU because they're just GISMU with places. I suppose it's possible to have a lujvo that looks like SELGIhU but isn't b= y leaving out parts of the underlying tanru, but I would consider that very bad form. It's also possible that the SELGIhU, being a lujvo, has a specific meaning not identical to the SE GISMU it seems to be based on, but again, I would consider that very bad form. It's possible that what I consider bad form is irrelevant, too. stevo On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > Yes. lujvo have explicit definitions. They have exactly the same > precision as a gismu does. Tanru, however, are vague and can mean many > things based on context. > > So for instance, {retsku} means "x1 asks/puts question x2 (sedu'u/text/lu= 'e > concept) of/to x3 via expressive medium x4 about subject x5". > > While, on the other hand, {preti cusku} is more vague, like "question typ= e > of sayer". > > Another difference is that sometimes when constructing lujvo, people will > leave out bits for the sake of brevity. I can't think of any examples of= f > the top of my head. Maybe someone else can chime in with a good example > where the {sel} bit is chopped out to make it shorter. > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Joshua Choi wrote: > >> Oops, I didn't mean the difference between two lujvo. I meant "selbo'e" >> and "se brode", one being the lowest-scoring lujvo using "sel", and the >> other being the cmavo followed by the gismu. Is there any difference in >> usage between using the lujvo and using the cmavo+gismu? >> >> >> On 22 November 2009, at 11:05 AM, komfo,amonan wrote: >> >> >>> On 22 November 2009, at 9:05 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday 21 November 2009 14:44:45 Joshua Choi wrote: >>> Got a couple of usages question on the difference between the se cmavo >>> and the sel rafsi. Is there any difference between "ti se citka mi" >>> and "ti selcti mi"? Or "ta se klani" and "ta selklani"? One forms >>> phrases=97don't know if you'd call them "tanru"=97and the other forms w= ords >>> =97which probably count as lujvo. And don't lujvo have "specified" >>> meanings that are more specific than their corresponding tanru? Does >>> that affect words like selcti? >>> >>> Generally there's no difference, as "se citka" is not a tanru. If >>> "seltci" >>> (or "selbo'e") is used in a lujvo, though, then there is a >>> difference. "selcajlanci" means "flag that symbolizes something traded"= , >>> i.e. "trademark", whereas "se canja lanci" could mean that, and could >>> also >>> mean "flag that is traded". >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Joshua Choi wrote: >>> Thanks for the reply; I see now. So when it comes to the difference >>> between pairs like "selbrode" and "selbo'e", there's no difference at a= ll, >>> right? They're semantically equivalent, and in this case they even have= the >>> same amount of syllables. >>> >>> So which one do people tend to use? Is there a rule of pragmatics, or >>> does one not have to care at all about it? >>> >>> Those two are semantically identical lujvo, differing only in form. The >>> canonical form of any lujvo is the one with the lowest score among the >>> possible rafsi combinations according to the lujvo scoring algorithm (C= LL >>> 4:12). >>> >>> mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan >>> >> >> >> >> >> > --000e0cd1f8527496ab047900ba79 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The question wasn't about lujvo vs. tanru.
It was about the difference between SE GISMU and lujvo based on SE GIS= MU (SELGIhU?). I think they're identical in meaning, and I prefer SE GI= SMU because they're just GISMU with places.
I suppose it's possible to have a lujvo that looks like SELGIhU bu= t isn't by leaving out parts of the underlying tanru, but I would consi= der that very bad form.
It's also possible that the SELGIhU, being a lujvo, has a specific= meaning not identical to the SE GISMU it seems to be based on, but again, = I would consider that very bad form.
It's possible that what I consider bad form is irrelevant, too.
stevo
=A0
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gma= il.com> wrote:
Yes.=A0 lujvo have explicit defi= nitions.=A0 They have exactly the same precision as a gismu does.=A0 Tanru,= however, are vague and can mean many things based on context.

So for instance, {retsku} means "x1 asks/puts question x2 (sedu= 9;u/text/lu'e concept) of/to x3 via expressive medium x4 about subject = x5".

While, on the other hand, {preti cusku} is more vague, lik= e "question type of sayer".

Another difference is that sometimes when constructing lujvo, people wi= ll leave out bits for the sake of brevity.=A0 I can't think of any exam= ples off the top of my head.=A0 Maybe someone else can chime in with a good= example where the {sel} bit is chopped out to make it shorter.=20


On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Joshua Choi <jo= shua@choi.name> wrote:
Oops, I didn't m= ean the difference between two lujvo. I meant "selbo'e" and &= quot;se brode", one being the lowest-scoring lujvo using "sel&quo= t;, and the other being the cmavo followed by the gismu. Is there any diffe= rence in usage between using the lujvo and using the cmavo+gismu?=20


On 22 November 2009, at 11:05 AM, komfo,amonan wrote:


On 22 November 2= 009, at 9:05 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote:

On Saturday 21 November 2009 14= :44:45 Joshua Choi wrote:
Got a couple of usages question on the difference between the se cmavo
a= nd the sel rafsi. Is there any difference between "ti se citka mi"= ;
and "ti selcti mi"? Or "ta se klani" and "ta = selklani"? One forms
phrases=97don't know if you'd call them "tanru"=97and the= other forms words
=97which probably count as lujvo. And don't lujvo= have "specified"
meanings that are more specific than their c= orresponding tanru? Does
that affect words like selcti?

Generally there's no difference, = as "se citka" is not a tanru. If "seltci"
(or "= selbo'e") is used in a lujvo, though, then there is a
differenc= e. "selcajlanci" means "flag that symbolizes something trade= d",
i.e. "trademark", whereas "se canja lanci" could mean t= hat, and could also
mean "flag that is traded".


On = Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Joshua Choi <joshua@choi.name> wrote:
Thanks for the reply; I see now. So when it comes to the difference between= pairs like "selbrode" and "selbo'e", there's n= o difference at all, right? They're semantically equivalent, and in thi= s case they even have the same amount of syllables.

So which one do people tend to use? Is there a rule of pragmatics, or d= oes one not have to care at all about it?

Those two are semantically= identical lujvo, differing only in form. The canonical form of any lujvo i= s the one with the lowest score among the possible rafsi combinations accor= ding to the lujvo scoring algorithm (CLL 4:12).

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan






--000e0cd1f8527496ab047900ba79--