From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Jan 04 15:58:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 4 Jan 2002 23:58:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 37118 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2002 23:58:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2002 23:58:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.169) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2002 23:58:06 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g04Nw3q22427 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:58:03 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16MeDs-0000TG-00 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:58:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:58:04 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] je (was: crdlus. critique) Message-ID: <20020104235804.GI1109@twcny.rr.com> References: <20020104224611.GD1109@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:58:18PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote: > > > Person: PICK UP A BIG RED BLOCK. > > la prenu: ko lafti da poi barda ke xunre bliku > > > > {barda je xunre}. In fact, since I believe that {je} isn't used nearly > > enough, leading to the slightly malglico habit of using tanru for > > adjectives (remember, {blanu je zdani} is much more specific than > > {blanu zdani}), I'd go as far as {barda je xunre je bliku}. > > > Remember that je is symmetrical. I would agree with barda je xunre bliku, > but not barda je xunre je bliku. Of course it is symmetrical. A red block is a block-being red-thing. (The hyphenated words are necessary because there is no good adjective form of "is a block" or noun form of "red".) And in Lojban, {lo xunre je bliku du lo bliku je xunre}. What strikes you as wrong about telling the computer to look for the thing which is big and red and is a block? It is only because of English that it seems "xunre" should precede "bliku". > > Computer: THE BLUE PYRAMID AND THE BLUE BLOCK. > > la skami: .i le blanu jipkubli .e le blanu kurkubli > > > > Same here. I'd say {blanu je jipkubli}, unless the computer is > > deliberately trying to seem friendlier with informal usage. > > > It is more of a jipkubli than a blanu, pe'i. I wouldn't use a je here. > je-mania! What is there which makes this blue block less {lo blanu} than it is {lo kurkubli}? Is there something which makes you think it is not fully blue? > > The tanru-for-adjective problem is one that shows up in many people's > > Lojban, including my own. I'm sure that what I have of Flatland includes > > several instances of je-phobia. > > > But let's leave it out where it adds no meaning; it's another syllable. It adds precision and avoids malglico, at the expense of only one syllable. Would you say that people should never say {pilno le skami} because it's one syllable more than {skami pilno}? -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo je