Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: Lojban Beginners <lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <2eb3ba6f-3ebf-48d1-a3ab-cdfdaa64529a@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <55B15CF2.4090601@gmx.de>
References: <0e6ef83b-e998-42a2-8e36-2a7dd87348b5@googlegroups.com>
 <ab13bf07-8af7-422b-9ad2-eb60cc9088c6@googlegroups.com>
 <55B15CF2.4090601@gmx.de>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtsb2piYW4tYmVnaW5uZXJzXSBSZTogRGlmZmVyZW5lcyBiZXR3ZWVuIOKAnGth?=
	=?UTF-8?B?4oCdIGFuZCDigJxudeKAnQ==?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2667_1692246631.1440580090322"
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -
Content-Length: 6601

------=_Part_2667_1692246631.1440580090322
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2668_1981614158.1440580090323"

------=_Part_2668_1981614158.1440580090323
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 12:30:26 AM UTC+3, selpa'i wrote:
>
> la zipcpi cu cusku di'e 
> >       It is easier and 
> >     cleaner for a language like Lojban to split the two meanings into 
> two 
> >     separate brivla, one that uses {nu} and one that uses {ka}. 
> > 
> > Yes, I have seen {kaidji} and made {kaitcu} as well, 
>
> (I already use nitcu2 as a property) 
>
> > but I'm not sure 
> > this is a sustainable route; we'd then need new brivla for every brivla 
> > where a {ka} belonging to x1 is useful as a substitution of {nu}, such 
> > as {gleki}, {nelci}, etc... 
>
> Would we really, though? Is it necessary to have ka-variants of 
> everything? Would you, hypothetically, use {mi sruma lo ka ce'u bilma} 
> for "I assume [myself] to be sick"? Or what about {mi kanpe lo ka ce'u 
> ba jinga}? Would it be too much to say {mi kanpe lo nu mi ba jinga}? 
>

Yes, given that {mi} can be a long noun with nouns inside, and the clause 
with {kanpe} can be inside another clause so not {ri}, not {vo'a}. 
And {lo no'a cu}, a lengthy construct would be the only safe option 
(compare short English infinitive "to").


> The {ce'u} actually doesn't save us that much trouble compared to using 
> one of the usual back-referencing mechanisms. Logically speaking, the 
> reason why {ka} is used in places like nitcu2 or troci2 is not in order 
> to not have to repeat the x1, but because it avoids sumti raising and 
> makes the predicates much easier to interpret and define.


So that's it. We need definitions that define these relations.
For others: such definitions now exist only in one dictionary 
<https://mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu:_Lojban_Dictionary_with_Examples>. 
Up to now such usage was intuitive and/or the one users got used to.


It is 
> primarily a semantic concern, not one of convenience; convenience is 
> only a lucky by-product of it. 
>

It is also a concern of mastering the language, which this thread was 
started with.
 

>
> mi'e la selpa'i mu'o 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_2668_1981614158.1440580090323
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 12:30:26 AM UTC+3, selpa&#39;i wrote:<b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;borde=
r-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la zipcpi cu cusku di&#39;e
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 It is easier and
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 cleaner for a language like Lojban to split the two =
meanings into two
<br>&gt; =C2=A0 =C2=A0 separate brivla, one that uses {nu} and one that use=
s {ka}.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; Yes, I have seen {kaidji} and made {kaitcu} as well,
<br>
<br>(I already use nitcu2 as a property)
<br>
<br>&gt; but I&#39;m not sure
<br>&gt; this is a sustainable route; we&#39;d then need new brivla for eve=
ry brivla
<br>&gt; where a {ka} belonging to x1 is useful as a substitution of {nu}, =
such
<br>&gt; as {gleki}, {nelci}, etc...
<br>
<br>Would we really, though? Is it necessary to have ka-variants of=20
<br>everything? Would you, hypothetically, use {mi sruma lo ka ce&#39;u bil=
ma}=20
<br>for &quot;I assume [myself] to be sick&quot;? Or what about {mi kanpe l=
o ka ce&#39;u=20
<br>ba jinga}? Would it be too much to say {mi kanpe lo nu mi ba jinga}?
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, given that {mi} can be a long nou=
n with nouns inside, and the clause with {kanpe} can be inside another clau=
se so not {ri}, not {vo&#39;a}.=C2=A0</div><div>And {lo no&#39;a cu}, a len=
gthy construct would be the only safe option (compare short English infinit=
ive=C2=A0&quot;to&quot;).</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">
<br>The {ce&#39;u} actually doesn&#39;t save us that much trouble compared =
to using=20
<br>one of the usual back-referencing mechanisms. Logically speaking, the=
=20
<br>reason why {ka} is used in places like nitcu2 or troci2 is not in order=
=20
<br>to not have to repeat the x1, but because it avoids sumti raising and=
=20
<br>makes the predicates much easier to interpret and define.</blockquote><=
div><br></div><div>So that&#39;s it. We need definitions that define these =
relations.</div><div>For others: such definitions now exist only in <a href=
=3D"https://mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu:_Lojban_Dictionary_with_Examples">=
one dictionary</a>.=C2=A0</div><div>Up to now such usage was intuitive and/=
or the one users got used to.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><=
/div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8e=
x;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"> It is=20
<br>primarily a semantic concern, not one of convenience; convenience is=20
<br>only a lucky by-product of it.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is also a concern of mastering the =
language, which this thread was started with.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-lef=
t: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>mi&#39;e la selpa&#39;i mu&#39;o
<br>
<br></blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Lojban Beginners&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lo=
jban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban-beginners@goo=
glegroups.com">lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginn=
ers">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_2668_1981614158.1440580090323--
------=_Part_2667_1692246631.1440580090322--