Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Let's do something like this for Lojban!

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>]

On 3 March 2012 17:44, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2012/3/3 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
>>
>> On 3 March 2012 15:30, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2012/3/3 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> >> I suggest starting with
>> >>
>> >> 2. mi me la .clalis.
>> >
>> > Why not simply {mi'e la .clalis} ?
>> > BTW, {clalis} doesn't have the same sound of the orginal that is (if I
>> > understood correctly) roughly equivalent to the Chinese "Chen Li" I'd
>> > prefer {tcenlis}
>> >
>>
>> The straightforward and realistic sentence would be {mi'e .clalis.},
>> I just considered that paralleling 2 and 3 helps understanding the
>> sentence structure in 3 (as 2 and 4 in the original).
>>
>> This is the burden of translating an introduction to a different language.
>>
>> >> 3. ta me la .djan.
>> > This seems a good place to assign {ko'a} -> 3. ta goi ko'a me la .djan.
>> >
>>
>> Just consider how hard it is to figure out the sentence structure at
>> first sight.
>> Firstly, it is too long and too dissimilar from nearby sentences.
>> Secondly, the
>> concept of assignment is highly unexpected. To introduce it via
>> illustrated
>> examples, I would dedicate a whole sequence of examples to that single
>> concept and employ at least one reassignment.
>>
>> Furthermore, when do you expect to use {ko'a} again? The girl is pointing
>> all the time. And, in particular, in 16, she is talking to a guy who was
>> absent
>> in 3.
>>
>> >> 4. zo .djan. cmene ta
>> > I would use the lujvo {selme'e} -> 4. ko'a selme'e zo .djan.
>> > This would avoid using {se}, I agree it's too early, the nintandi
>> > would not know about the relationship between {selme'e} and {cmene},
>> > they would just guess it means "is named".
>> >
>>
>> That is fine. But why are you avoiding the gismu?
>>
>> >> Also, I recommend using the ti-series in place of the ko'a-series.
>> > Not sure. I would prefer introducing {ko'a} and friends.
>> >
>>
>> It is nice to introduce {ko'a}, but, as I said, that is infeasible without
>> a dedicated story, or at such an early point of this one.
>>
>> >> Using the latter while pointing can cause so much confusion...
>> >>
>> >> In 12 we may do
>> >> 12. lo prenu cu zvati tu
>> >
>> > My preference would be {vuku ko'e goi tu zvati}
>> >
>> > Using {tu} as zvati2 seems too prone to ambiguity. At least it should
>> > be {lovu} so that it is clear you're talking about "there yonder".
>> >
>>
>> Wouldn't the roles of zvati1 and zvati2 be clear from 10 and 11?
>> Similarly, isn't it clear from the green circles that they are talking
>> about
>> position?
>>
>> To me, once you know {mi} or {do} you can figure out the sentence
>> structure right away, which in this case would show the reader the
>> flexibility of lojban demonstratives.
>
>
> Showing flexibility at this early stage seems like showing off, i.e., a bad
> thing. Once the learner becomes comfortable with a single way to express an
> idea, then you can add new ways, one at a time. This seems far too early in
> that process to me for demonstrating the capabilities of the language.
> Repetition is much more important (and tedious).
>

But it is precisely for repetition that I am arguing, i.e., using {ta}
all the time.
I just pointed that these examples can eliminate possible assumptions that
{ta} is person-specific, which makes things simpler, not more complex.

mu'a si'a {barda} is flexible in that it can be used unchanged regardless of
whether the x1 is singular or plural, person or non-person, etc.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

-- 
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.