On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:40 PM, la gleki
<gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 10:22:54 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:On 25 December 2012 09:01, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 5:39:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.
I'll wait until tsani replies. I'm not a legislative power in Lojbanistan.
Haha, I'm glad to see people actually thinking that I have some voice around here. Regardless, I don't really, given the dictatorial nature of Lojbanistan.
It doesn't matter. Any dictator will lose their power in Lojbanistan.
How many years has .camgusmis. AKA Robin been the BDFL? Also, I think the "For Life" part of his title kind of disproves your statement.
It's not that "controlled development" described by camgusmis in "Lojban you are doing it wrong" essay. Fluent speakers + logical thinking decide and I will ignore any dictators unless there are many of them.
In that you're about half-wrong. Lojban is a proscribed language, meaning that the meanings of words, the grammar, etc. are decided by an official body. Only this official body, known, by the way, as the BPFK, and the BDFL, who is the head of the BPFK, are able to make changes of any kind to the language. While it is certainly hoped that these people are logical in their thinking and have a more than passing knowledge of Lojban, such is not guaranteed. For example, when Robin assumed the title of BDFL, he was not, at that time, fluent. Self-admittedly. Since the birth of his daughters, he had become very proficient in Lojban and may consider himself fluent /now/, but that fluency or its lack was never a hindrance to the performance of his job on the BPFK or as the BDFL, because though his /vocabulary/ was lacking such that he was nowhere near fluent, his understanding of how Lojban /works/ was and still is excellent- and that's the important part when it comes to decisions about Lojban.
To return to the main question, using sei to split quotes has some inherent ambiguity; using sa'a merely diminishes it, I think. That being said, I don't like the idea of split quotes at all. they seem unlojbanic, especially considering that the resulting sentence is not a bridi. It's just a free-floating sumti between two {.i}. I don't have any objections to using FAlu, but I think that it's stylistically poor.
Your reply appeared to be much easier than i could expect.
I also think it's a poor style. Nevetheless, if we apply {ju'e} then won't it be
xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)
gleki's second solution: {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables, splitting sumti implies {ju'e})
?
If so there are no extra syllables compared to the previous solution.
pei?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.