Re: [lojban] Teaching methods, especially WRT terminators, and validation thereof

[Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Jameson Orndorff <jtorndorff@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jameson Orndorff <jtorndorff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What if you are laying out a thoroughly complicated x2 and then
>> realise you want to add an x3 that will require a lot of termination?
>
> What I say is: ".i go'i fi"
>
> mi'e la stela selckiku
> mu'o

Sure, obviously this is an option. Contextually it may work in some
cases. But I'm wary of it, and it's a bit of a cop-out. You're dodging
the point. There are always cases where you might say .i mi dunda lo
rupnu .i go'i fi do (obviously something more complicated) but here -
are you saying "I give money. It's to you." or "I give money (to
something unspecified). I give money to you." This point also holds if
you don't need to go all the way down to the base level, but maybe one
higher. .i mi broda lo nu do brode lo du'u lo brodi be lo brodu cu
co'e <- and now you want to fill brode3.

That problem still exists when prefering {ku} to {cu}.

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.