Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OWZzG-0001Ln-Cb; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:57 -0700 Received: by gxk22 with SMTP id 22sf14140974gxk.16 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=qgzGOCHMuDTV9Lf01laBRWSURQcQ5v8Ke80aPo9Aah8=; b=jg0lXDw3d6qMX7pTen09WMh6LRulYtvR9euZtO7W5KuIddEwzj/Mmh0gedQeGZq80Z /q+ctSkBdBng9RlMa/4lRHYr6EBPmYqCS4jmrVGpqMgrHKMkuW96/oGJa/FFrrKs2UTe R7fVGYRhWFoVpnH5yw2Wq40OtTRcIDzXyf4yw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=CzEpO3B2p2dobRy4PSqIlLQvhWrlgNo5Vahryjhd39wUIKDv2ynAvWtCnUZrd8VYAk K/gagr/ckbyczEMv0BQRBHRdtPFb2G7nDb0nLiiJwUsic0gWUaxSlbOW90YachSE0FK3 0OpU4eV+HMgJrIknoXfg/IePrcgEwfrG4avhI= Received: by 10.101.137.11 with SMTP id p11mr701402ann.56.1278529720503; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.148.2 with SMTP id a2ls8311231ano.1.p; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.22.28 with SMTP id 28mr5487139anv.35.1278529719963; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.22.28 with SMTP id 28mr5487137anv.35.1278529719886; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f173.google.com (mail-gx0-f173.google.com [209.85.161.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m15si5094182ybn.5.2010.07.07.12.08.38; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.173; Received: by mail-gx0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 19so3573408gxk.18 for ; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.96.6 with SMTP id f6mr4227179qcn.54.1278529718360; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.217.140 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100302162057.GA14827@alice.local> <20100706004832.GL23879@digitalkingdom.org> <20100706164224.GA30521@alice.local> <20100706193633.GE1443@digitalkingdom.org> <20100706194349.GE31169@alice.local> <20100707002416.GA25062@sdf.lonestar.org> <20100707043751.GM1443@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:08:38 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: lo do ckiku ma zvati From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636832598b29b6a048ad0e59c Content-Length: 26104 --001636832598b29b6a048ad0e59c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Also, I have seen some examples against the "teach terminators" method in which people terminate {ku} at the end of a sentence. This seems excessive to me, because fundamentally I think the pro-terminators argument is about things doing what you expect them to do. Terminators do what you expect. {.i} also does what you expect, which means that if a sentence would ordinarily have terminators at the end of it, {.i} will always make them elidable (neglecting trivial cases like quotes and so on). This is also a reason why {vau} needn't be explained early on: in general {vau} just happens in the way that you would expect, and it takes considerable effort to construct an example where it doesn't. {cu} may not always do what you expect, especially if you don't understand exactly what it does; and understanding exactly what it does, IMO, requires knowledge of terminators anyway. To clarify, my last post (quoted below) was about LFB, not the CLL. On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > {cu} is in chapter 2; terminators are in chapter 6. > > mu'o mi'e latros. > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > >> One thing I'm curious about. I never went through the L4B, but is >> what you are saying here is that the concept of terminators isn't even >> _introduced_ in L4B until much later? If so, I think that is just >> wrong. I learned lojban by simply reading the CLL from beginning to >> end (and asking lots of questions, while trying to dodge the >> curmudgeons, in #lojban) That introduced terminators right at the >> very beginnning, and at every step, explaining that most times they >> could be elided, and how. So yes, I always thought of the concept of >> e.g. a LE sumti being LE broda KU, but with KU usually elidable. >> >> --gejyspa >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Robin Lee Powell >> wrote: >> > I'm still waiting for someone to come out and say "I was taught that >> > way, it took about that long, and now I can hold a conversation in >> > Lojban". >> > >> > -Robin >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:52:39PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote: >> >> So one argument I keep hearing for {cu} first and {ku} later is >> >> that it's much faster to learn "street lojban" and then learn the >> >> technicalities of elision and whatnot. But from what lindar was >> >> saying, it sounds like "the long/not-street" way of teaching (ku >> >> then cu) takes about 30-90 minutes. "It gets newbies speaking in >> >> full sentences faster" seems like a moot point when the >> >> alternative (and better IMO) way only takes about an hour to >> >> learn. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ian Johnson >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > My two cents to all of this: >> >> > I'm newish but relatively comfortable. I came into the community >> after >> >> > going through LFB (I can't guarantee I was done when I first came, >> but I was >> >> > close). I worked some of the exercises in the chapters (maybe up to >> chapter >> >> > 7 or so) but eventually I found myself trying to hack sentences >> together in >> >> > a nonlinear fashion, and so I used it as a reference basically, until >> I felt >> >> > comfortable enough and had sufficiently technical questions that I >> thought I >> >> > should join the IRC and mailing lists. >> >> > >> >> > So I learned {cu} first, terminators second. I didn't actually like >> this in >> >> > the end (obviously at the time I didn't know any better). I think >> putting >> >> > off terminators made them seem kinda intimidating. I got them, but >> they were >> >> > one of the things that gave me more hesitation. On the other hand, I >> think >> >> > that filling in every elidable terminator, and even more so using >> >> > terminators AND {cu}, in sample sentences directed at beginners, is a >> >> > horrible idea, much worse than starting with {cu}*. The sentences get >> >> > horribly complicated, and a lot of the elidable terminators are very >> very >> >> > rarely actually useful. I know a circumstance when {vau} is useful >> having to >> >> > do with a certain construction involving GIhA but it's a pretty hard >> >> > circumstance to run into, for example. And in this example, to me, >> that >> >> > means that it is silly to teach {vau} to a newbie. If there were even >> >> > remotely common circumstances when you needed it, it would be great >> to teach >> >> > it, but with {vau} you have to go to quite a bit of effort to >> construct a >> >> > relevant example, let alone incorporate a relevant example into a >> discussion >> >> > of an actual topic. >> >> > >> >> > So start with {ku}. When you get to abstractors, teach {kei}. When >> you get >> >> > to {be}, teach {be'o}. When you get to {poi}/{noi}, teach {ku'o}. >> Around the >> >> > time when you start needing two terminators (probably around the time >> that >> >> > you get to abstractors), mention that there's a faster way that is >> usually >> >> > used, and maybe teach it at that time. Or maybe wait until you run >> into >> >> > three terminators (maybe around the time you hit {be} and then >> attempt to >> >> > synthesize knowledge by putting sumti with internal sumti inside >> >> > abstractors). But in short, don't teach {cu} first, imo. It can do >> too many >> >> > things to be taught that early on, and so a person that starts with >> it will >> >> > learn the ways that it fails in a much more hackish way, I think; by >> >> > contrast, {ku}, {kei}, etc. all do pretty much one thing, and so if >> they are >> >> > the foundation and {cu} is the icing, there won't tend to be >> confusion so >> >> > much as inefficiency. (And people have already shown examples of {cu} >> >> > causing inefficiency). >> >> > >> >> > This all assumes the "learning Lojban to learn it, not to use it >> ASAP" >> >> > hypothesis stated above, of course, which I think is probably pretty >> good >> >> > here. This is also all based on conjecture, not data. >> >> > >> >> > *I think that sentence is ungrammatical but I don't know how to fix >> it, >> >> > sorry. >> >> > >> >> > mu'oi mi'e latros. >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Minimiscience < >> minimiscience@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> de'i li 06 pi'e 07 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Lindar .fy. cusku zoi >> skamyxatra. >> >> >> > ... and then you start seeing confused newbies that don't actually >> know >> >> >> how >> >> >> > to terminate that say things like {mi cu dunda zo'e zo'e} (I have >> >> >> actually >> >> >> > seen stuff like this). >> >> >> .skamyxatra >> >> >> >> >> >> "{mi cu dunda}" is actually perfectly grammatically correct. (It's >> >> >> unnecessarily verbose and arguably bad style, but if that's your >> sole >> >> >> objection >> >> >> to it, you might want to look in the mirror.) "{cu}" means "the >> {bridi}'s >> >> >> main >> >> >> {selbri} starts here," which implies the termination of anything >> before >> >> >> it, >> >> >> rather than termination being the primary concept and the main >> {selbri} >> >> >> aspect >> >> >> secondary. The only (non-obvious) grammatical restriction on "{cu}" >> is >> >> >> that it >> >> >> must be preceded by at least one term in the sentence, where a >> "term" can >> >> >> be a >> >> >> {sumti} (including descriptor {sumti} and pro-{sumti}), a termset, a >> >> >> {sumti} >> >> >> tagged with a {sumti tcita}, a bare BAI KU, a NA KU, or even a FA >> KU. >> >> >> >> >> >> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> >> >> "Lojban Beginners" group. >> >> >> To post to this group, send email to >> lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> >> >> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> >> > >> >> >> . >> >> >> For more options, visit this group at >> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> >> > "Lojban Beginners" group. >> >> > To post to this group, send email to >> lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> >> > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> >> > >> >> > . >> >> > For more options, visit this group at >> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. >> >> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com >> . >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. >> > Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot >> > is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" >> > is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. >> > >> > >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Lojban Beginners" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. --001636832598b29b6a048ad0e59c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also, I have seen some examples against the "teach terminators" m= ethod in which people terminate {ku} at the end of a sentence. This seems e= xcessive to me, because fundamentally I think the pro-terminators argument = is about things doing what you expect them to do. Terminators do what you e= xpect. {.i} also does what you expect, which means that if a sentence would= ordinarily have terminators at the end of it, {.i} will always make them e= lidable (neglecting trivial cases like quotes and so on). This is also a re= ason why {vau} needn't be explained early on: in general {vau} just hap= pens in the way that you would expect, and it takes considerable effort to = construct an example where it doesn't. {cu} may not always do what you = expect, especially if you don't understand exactly what it does; and un= derstanding exactly what it does, IMO, requires knowledge of terminators an= yway.

To clarify, my last post (quoted below) was about LFB, not the CLL.
=

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Ian Joh= nson <blindb= ravado@gmail.com> wrote:
{cu} is in chapte= r 2; terminators are in chapter 6.

mu'o mi'e latros.


On Wed, Jul 7, 2= 010 at 8:04 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
=A0One thing I&#= 39;m curious about. =A0I never went through the L4B, but is
what you are saying here is that the concept of terminators isn't even<= br> _introduced_ in L4B =A0until much later? =A0If so, I think that is just
wrong. =A0 =A0I learned lojban by simply reading the CLL from beginning to<= br> end (and asking lots of questions, while trying to dodge the
curmudgeons, in #lojban) =A0That introduced terminators right at the
very beginnning, and at every step, explaining that most times they
could be elided, and how. =A0So yes, I always thought of the concept of
e.g. a LE sumti being LE broda KU, but with KU usually elidable.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--gejyspa


On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowe= ll@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> I'm still waiting for someone to come out and say "I was taug= ht that
> way, it took about that long, and now I can hold a conversation in
> Lojban".
>
> -Robin
>
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:52:39PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
>> So one argument I keep hearing for {cu} first and {ku} later is >> that it's much faster to learn "street lojban" and t= hen learn the
>> technicalities of elision and whatnot. =A0But from what lindar was=
>> saying, it sounds like "the long/not-street" way of teac= hing (ku
>> then cu) takes about 30-90 minutes. "It gets newbies speaking= in
>> full sentences faster" seems like a moot point when the
>> alternative (and better IMO) way only takes about an hour to
>> learn.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> w= rote:
>>
>> > My two cents to all of this:
>> > I'm newish but relatively comfortable. I came into the co= mmunity after
>> > going through LFB (I can't guarantee I was done when I fi= rst came, but I was
>> > close). I worked some of the exercises in the chapters (maybe= up to chapter
>> > 7 or so) but eventually I found myself trying to hack sentenc= es together in
>> > a nonlinear fashion, and so I used it as a reference basicall= y, until I felt
>> > comfortable enough and had sufficiently technical questions t= hat I thought I
>> > should join the IRC and mailing lists.
>> >
>> > So I learned {cu} first, terminators second. I didn't act= ually like this in
>> > the end (obviously at the time I didn't know any better).= I think putting
>> > off terminators made them seem kinda intimidating. I got them= , but they were
>> > one of the things that gave me more hesitation. On the other = hand, I think
>> > that filling in every elidable terminator, and even more so u= sing
>> > terminators AND {cu}, in sample sentences directed at beginne= rs, is a
>> > horrible idea, much worse than starting with {cu}*. The sente= nces get
>> > horribly complicated, and a lot of the elidable terminators a= re very very
>> > rarely actually useful. I know a circumstance when {vau} is u= seful having to
>> > do with a certain construction involving GIhA but it's a = pretty hard
>> > circumstance to run into, for example. And in this example, t= o me, that
>> > means that it is silly to teach {vau} to a newbie. If there w= ere even
>> > remotely common circumstances when you needed it, it would be= great to teach
>> > it, but with {vau} you have to go to quite a bit of effort to= construct a
>> > relevant example, let alone incorporate a relevant example in= to a discussion
>> > of an actual topic.
>> >
>> > So start with {ku}. When you get to abstractors, teach {kei}.= When you get
>> > to {be}, teach {be'o}. When you get to {poi}/{noi}, teach= {ku'o}. Around the
>> > time when you start needing two terminators (probably around = the time that
>> > you get to abstractors), mention that there's a faster wa= y that is usually
>> > used, and maybe teach it at that time. Or maybe wait until yo= u run into
>> > three terminators (maybe around the time you hit {be} and the= n attempt to
>> > synthesize knowledge by putting sumti with internal sumti ins= ide
>> > abstractors). But in short, don't teach {cu} first, imo. = It can do too many
>> > things to be taught that early on, and so a person that start= s with it will
>> > learn the ways that it fails in a much more hackish way, I th= ink; by
>> > contrast, {ku}, {kei}, etc. all do pretty much one thing, and= so if they are
>> > the foundation and {cu} is the icing, there won't tend to= be confusion so
>> > much as inefficiency. (And people have already shown examples= of {cu}
>> > causing inefficiency).
>> >
>> > This all assumes the "learning Lojban to learn it, not t= o use it ASAP"
>> > hypothesis stated above, of course, which I think is probably= pretty good
>> > here. This is also all based on conjecture, not data.
>> >
>> > *I think that sentence is ungrammatical but I don't know = how to fix it,
>> > sorry.
>> >
>> > mu'oi mi'e latros.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> de'i li 06 pi'e 07 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Lin= dar .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
>> >> > ... and then you start seeing confused newbies that = don't actually know
>> >> how
>> >> > to terminate that say things like {mi cu dunda zo= 9;e zo'e} (I have
>> >> actually
>> >> > seen stuff like this).
>> >> .skamyxatra
>> >>
>> >> "{mi cu dunda}" is actually perfectly grammatic= ally correct. =A0(It's
>> >> unnecessarily verbose and arguably bad style, but if that= 's your sole
>> >> objection
>> >> to it, you might want to look in the mirror.) =A0"{c= u}" means "the {bridi}'s
>> >> main
>> >> {selbri} starts here," which implies the termination= of anything before
>> >> it,
>> >> rather than termination being the primary concept and the= main {selbri}
>> >> aspect
>> >> secondary. =A0The only (non-obvious) grammatical restrict= ion on "{cu}" is
>> >> that it
>> >> must be preceded by at least one term in the sentence, wh= ere a "term" can
>> >> be a
>> >> {sumti} (including descriptor {sumti} and pro-{sumti}), a= termset, a
>> >> {sumti}
>> >> tagged with a {sumti tcita}, a bare BAI KU, a NA KU, or e= ven a FA KU.
>> >>
>> >> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to t= he Google Groups
>> >> "Lojban Beginners" group.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googleg= roups.com.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<lojban-beginners%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> >> >> .
>> >> For more options, visit this group at
>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginner= s?hl=3Den.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > =A0--
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle Groups
>> > "Lojban Beginners" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroup= s.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com&l= t;lojban-beginners%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>> > .
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl= =3Den.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google= Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com= .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beg= inners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.goo= gle.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.
>>
>
> --
> http://singinst.org= / : =A0Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
> Lojban (http://ww= w.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
> is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this s= entence is false"
> is "na nei". =A0 My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/<= /a>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com= .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne= rs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.= com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--001636832598b29b6a048ad0e59c--