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

Re: [lojban] Re: "ge ... gi ..." question



On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
Personally I disagree with xorxes' crusade against connectives and
termsets. I think, if a bit redundant, it avoids the "Red men and
women" problem that English so often faces, and it's just one more
thing to push us away from English (and almost anything that'll do
that is okay in my book).


ge xunre namnu gi ninmu
xunre ge lo nanmu gi lo ninmu
 
ga/ge/gi/go/gu is bridi-only.
Just like je is jufra or tanru internal only.
Just like .e is sumti only.

I like this distinction.
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

It provides one more layer of avoiding confusion for me, and that's
one of the big reasons I like Lojban; I'm rarely confused by what
somebody says as long as it's grammatical.

--
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.




--
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.