[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] footnotes, etc?
>Are you sure you meant {xo'e}?
>za'a It's an experimental cmavo meaning the same thing as {lo}.
Regardless of what the current "definition" is in jbovlaste, experimental cmavo aren't set in stone. Therefore, I can recycle them as I please, especially considering that I mentioned it's new "definition" for the sake of my examples. Also, vlasisku/valsi haven't had their databases updated in a long time (pre January). Since then, {xo'e} has been redefined in jbovlaste to refer to an elliptical PA, in line with zo'e, co'e, and do'e. {xo'e} also parallels {xo}. Checking jbovlaste will confirm that.
> Point? You don't use footnotes in spoken anything. In written anything, you use the standard footnote conventions. Loglan long ago (1960) had an array of typesetting cmavo which were soon discarded as totally irrelevant;why bring them back?
I didn't know Loglan had such cmavo, and I do agree, making up typesetting cmavo is extremely silly. One could potentially use some of the systems I mentioned in speech, but I honestly wouldn't expect it. I mean, we have {ni'o} and {mai} and {mo'o} which only see use in formal texts and books, as far as I can see. I don't think I've even seen {mai} used in IRC, but it's not like {mai} has been dropped from the language.
mu'o mi'e la tsani
On 9 March 2012 08:07, selpa'i
<seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
{xo'e} for some time now has been used as zo'e ze'ei pa, that is, "an unspecified number".
Am 09.03.2012 02:49, schrieb .arpis.:
Are you sure you meant {xo'e}?
za'a It's an experimental cmavo meaning the same thing as {lo}.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Jacob Errington<nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
Huh how coincidental, I was discussing footnotes and endnotes in #lojban
just a few days ago.
It seems like there are many ways to do this, some of which use only
standard lojban, and a few others which require experimental cmavo. I'd
strongly prefer to see the first variety be used, naturally.
1) Works only after a sumti. [ko'a nesa'a zo'e pe li xo'e], where xo'e is
the number of the footnote/endnote. Replacing [zo'e] with something more
precise would allow for disambiguation in that regard. For "footnote" in
particular, I'd suggest [ko'a nesa'a lo papri fanmo notci pe li xo'e]. The
use of [sa'a] is perhaps optional.
2) Works anywhere. Wrap the following in a to/to'i...toi: [e'u catlu zo'e pe
li xo'e], where zo'e and xo'e are replaced as in the previous solution. This
solution is arguably less good than #1, as when using a to...toi, I don't
think that it's good practice to refer to the surrounding text. Of course,
using to'i...toi is perhaps better.
3) Requires a new cmavo and works only after sumti. Let xi'i be a cmavo of
XI, meaning "see footnote".
4) Requires a new cmavo and works everywhere. Let mai'a be a cmavo of MAI,
meaning "see footnote".
5) Requires a new cmavo, uses nonstandard Lojban, and works everywhere. Let
xi'i be a cmavo of XI and let XI equate to a free modifier.
These are the solutions that I can think of; there are certainly more. Also,
[xi'i] and [mai'a] are completely made up, they aren't in jvovlaste or known
by any lojbanists, unless of course someone else has been using one or the
other or both for some other purpose, in which case I apologise.
As for the text of the footnotes, there are many possibilities again. Each
footnote could be individually wrapped in a TO...toi, or the full text of
the footnotes could be wrapped in a single parenthetical remark. Also, one
could also simply use [ni'o]...[no'i] for the text of the footnotes. This
would be more inline with the solutions not involving wrapping the footnote
number in a parenthetical remark, as I believe that it is bad to refer to
the contents of a parenthetical remark from within the main text. (IIRC, the
CLL says not to do so as well.) I suggest using [mai] to mark the number
being used for the following text until another [mai] is reached. If [mai]
is already being used in the main text and confusion might result from using
regular [mai], perhaps the footnotes could all be negative numbers, in order
to ensure that there's no confusion between a reference to a footnote and a
reference to another section. Also, if [mai] is being used in a situation
where the text of a footnote contains a reference to a footnote, it would
become impossible to use subscripting as suggested below. In that case, I
would suggest using a zo'u-and-tu'e..tu'u system like so: {i lo papri fanmo
notci pe li pa xi re zo'u tu'e i li'o tu'u}. Using [ni'o] for each new
footnote might be a good idea as well, but this makes wrapping the whole
footnote section in [ni'o]...[no'i] more confusing.
As for footnotes within footnotes, (footnoteception? :P ) it is possible to
use subscripting to disambiguate, using any of the solutions mentioned
above, except the solutions involving [mai], as the number preceding [mai]
cannot be subscripted. [mai] itself may not be subscripted either, unless
the author adheres to XI-as-a-free-modifier (which is nonstandard Lojban).
i ma se jinvi
mu'o mi'e la tsani
On 8 March 2012 19:34, Jonathan Jones<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey! .skaryzgik. is back! Hoorah!
Regarding your question, I'm pretty sure we have header and footer cmavo,
but I don't know what they are nor have the time currently to look them up.
Hopefully .xorxes. or Pierre or Robin can provide better information on
that.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Marjorie Scherf<skaryzgik@gmail.com>
wrote:
coi rodo
So, I've been reading a lot of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series in the
last week or so, which, those if any of you who are familiar with these
books may be aware, are full of footnotes. A little asterisk at the end, or
in the middle, of a sentence, corresponding to one at the bottom of the
page, which explains the thing immediately preceding the one above, or tells
some related story. Sometimes even the footnotes have footnotes. And, since
these books are also reminding me of several things I want to use lojban
for, the various strands of thought tangled together and I wondered how
lojban would accomplish something similar. Would we merely use
parentheticals, or would something else be more appropriate?
mu'omi'e la .jdakrat.skaryzgik.
--
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.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
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.
--
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.
--
.i lo vajrai cu nonselji'u lo kanla
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.