From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Dec 05 16:54:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 00:54:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 26656 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 00:54:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 00:54:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 00:54:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18K6lT-00042I-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:54:47 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K6kv-00041o-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:54:13 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:54:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18K6kk-00041X-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:54:02 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:54:02 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: lo'edu'u Message-ID: <20021206005402.GX22111@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <6710D870-084C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6710D870-084C-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 3099 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:23:47PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: [snip] > Is this tinkering? Is this casuistry? Is this pedantry? No, > lojbanists. This is Lojban. The minute you let {lo'e} into the > language alongside {le}, and {du'u} alongside {nu}, you create a > distinction. If you ignore that distinction, you are misusing Lojban, > as surely as if you say {re} instead of {pa}. English uses 'that' for > {lenu}, {lo'enu}, {lo'edu'u}, {loisu'u}, and any number of other > possibilities. Lojban requires a distinction. {le} presupposes you can > count the referents. {nu} presupposes the referent is an event. If you > always say {lenu} where you should be saying {lo'edu'u} instead, > you're just calquing 'that'. You're not thinking Lojbanically. And if > you wanted English... [snip] Dude, that *ROCKED*[1]. I can't wait to see Lojban For Intermediates if it's going to contain clear, precise, easy-to-understand stuff like that post. -Robin [1]: .i'ecai -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi