From araizen@newmail.net Fri Aug 16 08:58:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 16 Aug 2002 15:58:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 88174 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 15:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2002 15:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.tapuz.co.il) (212.150.54.158) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 15:58:20 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.134.153]) by out.tapuz.co.il ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:03:26 +0200 Message-ID: <009601c24546$3607bfe0$3cb6003e@oemcomputer> To: , "Newton, Philip" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Phrases for language learners Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:57:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la filip. niutyn. cusku di'e > > > Also, how would one answer such questions? Simply with the > > > information queried? (Example: "ma valsi zo dog la lojban" - > > > "gerku") > > > > I would interpret that as follows: "What's a word for 'dog' in > > lojban? -- It [probably the word itself] is a dog." In general, a > > question asked with 'ma' requires a sumti for an answer, > > Oh, right -- {gerku} is a selbri, not a sumti. I hadn't thought of that. > (Probably a result of thinking "noun=sumti, verb=selbri", which is, of > course, wrong as a general rule.) > > > i.e. something like 'zo gerku'. > > Or {le gerku}? 'le gerku' acts as a sumti, and so is a syntactically valid response, but you don't want to say that the dog is a word for dog. The dog is a dog, not a word. You need a one-word quote here, hence 'zo gerku'. > > > Commment: I'm not sure how to quote the "___", though -- should it > > > be "zo" for single words and "zoi ly. ___ .ly." for multiple words? > > > Or always "lo'u ___ le'u"? For example, which of the following would > > > be correct? > > > > If the text is lojban, you should use lojban quotes. First use > > 'lu-li'u' if the text is grammatical, and use 'zo' if the text is only > > one word morphologically (since that is significantly easier). Most of > > the things you probably want to say in this spot should be grammatical > > lojban, so you probably won't need 'lo'u-le'u'. (For example, a single > > sumti or selbri is grammatical). > > OK, but {lo'u...le'u} doesn't force you to make errors. I seem to recall > reading a page on the Wiki where someone said it might make more sense to > use lo'u...le'u as the "default" quotes to use, because then you don't have > to think ahead in case you do quote a bit that can't stand on its own, or > contains some error or other. Right, I seem to recall having read that wiki page at some point. 'lu-li'u' is certainly the most common way to quote, and that is why I say it's "recommended". I also think that I will continue to use it, since 'lo'u-le'u' to me implies that you shouldn't bother parsing the quote. However, in language and language learning contexts, I can see how 'lo'u-le'u' could have an advantage as a default. > > > (A phrase, not grammatical on its own) > > > zoi ly. bau la lojban .ly. se smuni ma > > > lo'u bau la lojban le'u se smuni ma > > > > 'bau la lojban' is in fact grammatical on its own, so it's best to use > > 'lu-li'u' here. > > Is it? OK, bad example. How about {lo'u ganai le'u se smuni ma}? In that case you need to use 'lo'u-le'u'. > > Once again, 'lu-li'u' is recommended. > > Is there a consensus on this? As implied on the wiki, usage hitherto is pretty clear, but that doesn't mean that it's best. > Does the "would be better" mean that you would write the matrix sentence as > {cusku zoi gy. ___ .gy. fo la lojban sepi'o ma}? Yes, I would say something like that if I were trying to stick to that basic sentence and not come up with something completely new. Even there though, there could be room for misunderstanding (for example, 'cusku sepi'o ma' -- 'le moklu') > > You could also use 'fanva' in the obvious way. > > {fanva zoi gy. ... .gy. la lojban le glibau ma} ? Or how would you put it? Yes, exactly. Omitting any unnecessary places, and maybe sticking 'do' onto the front. > (One counterexample to your statement "Most of the things you probably want > to say in this spot should be grammatical lojban, so you probably won't need > 'lo'u-le'u'" is asking about the difference between "le" and "lo", which are > not grammatical on their own... but then, you said one should use {zo} if > you're asking about single words, so the counterexample collapses. But > asking about the difference between {leka}, {ledu'u}, and {lesi'o} would > require {lo'u...le'u}.) Yes, you're right. When talking about or asking for translations of grammatical terminology you will need 'lo'u-le'u' a lot. I was thinking of translating and talking about "content words" when I wrote that. mu'o mi'e .adam.