Re: [lojban] Re: The New Method

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Jameson Orndorff <jtorndorff@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also a side note - I've heard that Wave works better in
> (surprise surprise) Google Chrome, if you can try that.

I am using Chrome actually, and I didn't notice any problems with
response times that others talk about for other browsers, but the way
the arrows work is the same ugly in Chrome.


>  In
> practice, this has pretty much been a non issue - negation and tags
> are taught later, and they are described as being on the outside of
> the "whole selbri" if you can kinda catch my drift. I wasn't able to
> completely describe my style in the original post. I assure you I'm
> doing the best to address the issue.

OK.  Arguments can be made both ways as to what is better. Since you
can say things like "lo ca klama", if "ca" is not part of the selbri
you have to specify that it's not just a selbri that can be converted
into a sumti with "lo", but a selbri plus its tag.

I don't expect this to be much of a problem in informal teaching, but
when you write it down more formally you have to consider that it may
end up being used as a reference work in the future, so it's better to
keep things as consistent as possible.


> I really haven't had a problem justifying its existence - though I do
> admit I have to rely on the tried and true "Just accept that it's
> there" argument to get it into people's heads.

In the wave there is a comment:

<Suprano> I don’t see why we need the {be} yet

which is unanswered. When I tried to think of an answer, I realized
that in fact we *don't* need it, except to make "ku" more elidable.

mu'o mi'e xorxes