[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: Not needing terminators
To verify that I actually do get this, here's another sentence I wrote today:
mi nupre lonu lonu do spuda lo preti befi mi kei na'e ba nandu do kei do
The intention is "I promise you the question(s) I ask will not be
difficult for you to answer". (This is intentionally somewhat clunky
so I could make sure I knew what I was doing). I'm pretty sure it
actually does it right this time.
This seems to also be what jbofi'e says:
[1(2[nupre1 (promise-r(s)) :] mi I, me)2 [is, does] «3nupre
promis-ing»3 (4[nupre2 (promised thing(s)) :] lo any/some <5nu
event(s) of [6(7[nandu1 (difficulty thing(s)) :] lo any/some <8nu
event(s) of [9(10[spuda1 (answer-er(s)) :] do you)10 [is, does]
«11spuda answer-ing»11 (12[spuda2 (stimulus(es)) :] lo any/some
{13preti question(s) be (14[preti3 (questioner(s)) :] fi mi I,
me)14}13)12]9 kei >8)7 [is, does] «15na'e not ba will be nandu being
difficulty»15 (16[nandu2 (thing(s) hav-ing difficulty) :] do you)16]6
kei >5)4 (17[nupre3 (thing(s) receiving promise) :] do you)17]1
Am I reading it correctly this time?
mu'omi'e latros.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see now, thank you. Written that way I can read jbofi'e's output much more easily than in the format I saw it before. {se nandu} really does turn out rather cumbersome when you have to write it out like that, doesn't it?
>
> Also, {lojbo tavla}, that's a nice way to do that.
>
> mu'omi'e latros.
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:21:23PM -0500, Ian Johnson wrote:
>> > I'm trying to work out when you need and don't need terminators. For
>> > example, here's a sentence I wrote today:
>> >
>> > xu do se nandu lonu do tavla mi fo la lojban. lonu do tatpi
>> >
>> > In idiomatic English, what I'm intending here is: "Do you find it
>> > difficult to talk with me in Lojban when you are tired?"
>> >
>> > I put this sentence into jbofi'e and it appears to have parsed it the way
>> > I intended.
>>
>> Then you're reading jbofi'e's output incorrectly. le'o ru'e ("no
>> offense").
>>
>> (0[xu {do <(1se nandu)1 (1lo [nu {do <tavla (2[mi {fo <la lojban>}] [lo {nu <do tatpi>}])2>}])1>}])0
>>
>> See the (1...)1 section? That's grabbing the entire sentence after
>> "se nandu". This means that everyhting to the right of "se nandu"
>> is ending up in the second place of "se nandu". Not what you wante.
>>
>> In particular, note that (2...)2, which is the stuff that fills the
>> places of tavla, includes the second "lo nu".
>>
>> > However, when writing it, I was not sure if I needed to have a
>> > {kei} after {la lojban.}. I know {cu} makes it so you don't need
>> > terminators in situations like these, but what exactly makes it so
>> > that {lonu do tatpi} does not run into the {tavla} clause here?
>>
>> A terminator on the first "lo nu" clause.
>>
>> The way that xorxes and I handle this in long-form writing is to
>> move "lo nu" clauses in front of the selbri. I also find "se nandu"
>> cumbersome in this case, so I'd just do:
>>
>> xu lo nu lojbo tavla cu nandu do lo nu do tatpi
>>
>> If you wanted to keep your original structure:
>>
>> xu do lo nu do tavla mi fo la lojban. cu se nandu lo nu do tatpi
>>
>> > Also, just subjectively, is it somewhat..."polite" to include a
>> > {kei} here even though it's not grammatically needed?
>>
>> The only time I included un-needed terminators is when *I* am
>> confused. :)
>>
>> -Robin
>>
>> --
>> They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
>> And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
>> other than the default outcome?" See http://shrunklink.com/cdiz
>> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
>>
>>
>>
>