From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 21 14:03:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 21 Aug 2002 21:03:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 6872 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 21:03:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2002 21:03:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 21:03:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.14d.12bfe273 (2612) for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:03:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14d.12bfe273.2a955a0f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:03:11 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14d.12bfe273.2a955a0f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_14d.12bfe273.2a955a0f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/21/2002 1:39:15 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes: << > pe'i le ralju be lo'i selstidi zo'u lu mi nelci le li'i mi citka lo/loi > cakla li'u >> Yeah, grammar aside, I agree that it is an important suggestion, maybe even a right one. We probably need to do more with {li'i}, since it is often not the event but our subjective participation in it that we deal with (see the stuff about remembering around here somewhere). << .i pamai le selfri poi na cuntu do cu smuni tu'a zo zu'o >> The activity abstractor marks events that are cyclic (repetition of similar events indefinitely), that go on for a time but do not take time, and [damn, I can't remember the other bit]. I don't see how the experienced event that is none of you business is a meaning for it. I suppose you mean the internal, personal, subjective experience of the event, but am not sure about even that, nor of a better way to say it (except it seems to require {lifri}). << .i remai lo broda zo'u dunli lu lo broda li'u lu loi broda li'u le ka smuni ce'u .i lo cakla po'onai cu broda >> Yes, the two expressions are equally meaningful, though they don't mean the same thing (though what that has to do with some broda, I am not sure). And, yes, this is true of other things than chocolate. << .i romai .o'unai frili jimpe fi le do jufra >> I am not sure why this is stressful, it sems pretty non-threatening. I assume that what is easy to understand about the sentence is what it means -- and maybe how it is put together? << Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation? -- Howard Zinn >> Presumably by providing a cover that those who wanted to attack Iraq already (and save Daddy's reputation) could use as justification -- if played right. So far it seems to have had mixed results, but this is an election year. --part1_14d.12bfe273.2a955a0f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/21/2002 1:39:15 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes:

<<

pe'i le ralju be lo'i selstidi zo'u lu mi nelci le li'i mi citka lo/loi
cakla li'u

>>

Yeah, grammar aside, I agree that it is an important suggestion, maybe even a right one. We probably need to do more with {li'i}, since it is often not the event but our subjective participation in it that we deal with (see the stuff about remembering around here somewhere).

<<
.i pamai le selfri poi na cuntu do cu smuni tu'a zo zu'o
>>
The activity abstractor marks events that are cyclic (repetition of similar events indefinitely), that go on for a time but do not take time, and [damn, I can't remember the other bit]. I don't see how the experienced event that is none of you business is a meaning for it. I suppose you mean the internal, personal, subjective experience of the event, but am not sure about even that, nor of a better way to say it (except it seems to require {lifri}).

<<
.i remai lo broda zo'u dunli lu lo broda li'u lu loi broda li'u le ka
smuni ce'u .i lo cakla po'onai cu broda
>>
Yes, the two expressions are equally meaningful, though they don't mean the same thing (though what that has to do with some broda, I am not sure). And, yes, this is true of other things than chocolate.

<<
.i romai .o'unai frili jimpe fi le do jufra
>>
I am not sure why this is stressful, it sems pretty non-threatening. I assume that what is easy to understand about the sentence is what it means -- and maybe how it is put together?

<<
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act
of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation?
-- Howard Zinn
>>
Presumably by providing a cover that those who wanted to attack Iraq already (and save Daddy's reputation) could use as justification -- if played right. So far it seems to have had mixed results, but this is an election year.

--part1_14d.12bfe273.2a955a0f_boundary--