[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: another tag


Le jeudi, 20 fév 2003, à 19:19 Europe/Paris, Robin Lee Powell a écrit :

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:29:08AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:02:42AM +0100, jexOm. wrote:
If I want to say something like: "Learn Lojban! You'll like it, for
sure.", I really want to repeat the previous bridi.
In fact I started from the example page 97 in the CLL. The example is
{la djan. klama le zarci .i la djan. go'i troci}.
And I realize now that {.i ko tadni la lojban .i ju'o do ba go'i nelci}
may be better, because if I use this example, it goes like:
{do tadni la lojban.}
{do go'i nelci} for {do tadni be la lojban. be'o nelci}
You are a learner (learning lojban) type of one-who-likes. 

No; you are a learner-of-lojban type-of liker.  What you like is not
actually specified.

What do you think?

I think that you want "nelci le nu go'i" 

A slob like me would find ".i ko tadni la lojban .i ju'o do ba nelci"
quite sufficient. Coming from English, we have the tendency to
overspecify when context really makes it perfectly clear what we mean.


An excellent point xod.  I'm of the opinion that dropping unnecessary
specificity in favour of context is one of lojban's major saving graces
in the face of its amazing tendency to verbosity.

I agree, and for a slogan maybe the shorter the better. Lojban allows you to be precise if you'd like to, though.
When I say "Learn/study Lojban, you'll like it", well (English is not my native tongue) it may be:
1) "Study Lojban, you'll like Lojban"
2) "Study Lojban, you'll like to study Lojban".
To me the second meaning is the default, but I may be wrong... Anyway, this is what I tried to say in my "tag", and that's why I tried to use {go'i}.
I took this opportunity to read more about abstractors (CLL p.265). Maybe 'experience' would be better than 'event'. I.e.:
{.i ko tadni la lojban .i ju'o do ba nelci leli'i go'i}
Comments on this one? Thanks,
Jérôme.