[lojban-beginners] Re: Another Newbie Intro

[Scott <scottr@synthiotics.com>]

> > coi la nei,omis .e coi rodo .i mi'e la skat.
> >
> > And I have no doubt made an error or more even in those short
> > sentences!  lol.
>
> Yes - .e connects sumti, so you could say {coi la nei,omis .e rodo} but not
> {coi la nei,omis .e coi rodo} since {coi rodo} is not a sumti.

I actually paused while I was writing ".e", and thought to myself "this is 
probably incorrect".  I had read about conjunctions two days ago and not 
since, and the ".e" stuck in my head.  But rather than look it up, I just 
plowed ahead with it anyway.

> I would've left out {la} after COI and would've said {coi .nei,omis. .e
> rodo .i mi'e .skat.}, but leaving in the {la} is not wrong.

I think I prefer it with "la", purely from the standpoint of my own aesthetic 
sense of vocal flow (which may or may not be shared by anyone else, of 
course).  I wonder whether or not more fluent speakers would consider the 
additional "la" to make a difference between a formal and more informal way 
of speaking (i.e., the "la" making it more "stilted" somehow)?  Or whether 
either alternative has the same feel to it and it's just a personal choice as 
to which to use?

> (Random minor point: note that it's {mi'e .skat.} with mandatory pauses at
> either end of {.skat.} but {mi'e la skat.} with a mandatory pause only at
> the end, but not the beginning, of {skat.}, due to the "no la/lai/doi in
> names" rule -- though neither pause needs to be written if you use spaces,
> as I understand it. I try to write mandatory pauses anyway.)

The constant use of stops throughout lojban still feels quite unnatural to me, 
and I think may give me trouble for a while.  Where to use them, where not to 
use them.  The fact that even in my own name they get used both ways is going 
to trip me up now and again.

> > co'o
> > la skat.
>
> BTW that means "Goodbye, Scott!" -- COI is followed by the person you're
> addressing (except for {mi'e}).
>
> You probably meant
>
>   co'o
>   mi'e .skat.
>
> or, if you prefer,
>
>   co'o
>   mi'e la skat.

Yep, that's what I meant.  Obviously I was just doing a word-for-word 
translation of how I'd sign off in English.  I didn't think that "co'o" and 
"la skat." would be read as affecting one another, though, since I figured 
the carriage-return/linefeed would make it plain that they were separate 
phrases.  Which typographically it does I guess, but wouldn't if spoken aloud 
without other intonation clues.

> As for me, I tend to use {mu'o} in email exchanges since I'm not parting or
> saying good-bye, as such; rather, I expect people to respond to my message
> and so I say the equivalent of "I'm finished talking now; you can respond
> now if you wish". Personal preference, I suppose.

I like that reasoning, and will adopt the convention myself.

mu'o mi'e la skat.