On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, chris kerr letsclimbhig...@gmail.com wrote:
Why was this xoxes? If pu had equaled fi'o purci it seems like
everything would have been more intuitive. Personally I find it odd
that the sumti that pu eats (when it's not in front of a selbri), is
what's in the
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM, A. PIEKARSKI to...@rogers.com wrote:
We're having one [arguement] right now, said Mama, about whether or not we
have arguements!
{.i lu mi'o ca simda'a seisa'a la mamcribe ku cusku lojei mi'o cu simda'a}.
I'm not arguing against the use of {lo du'u xukau}
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Michael Turniansky
mturnian...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/3/23 Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM, A. PIEKARSKI to...@rogers.com wrote:
{.i lu mi'o ca simda'a seisa'a la mamcribe ku cusku lojei mi'o cu simda'a}.
I'm not arguing
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, that makes sense mostly. BO takes the previous
word/construct/whatever and joins it in the shortest scope possible with the
following word/construct/whatever. And with {.ibabo} the previous sentence
implies
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been perusing the CLL looking for an answer but haven't found a very
clear one so I'll ask here. Does {broda .imu'ibo brode} mean broda
therefore (motivationally) brode or broda because of (motivationally)
brode?
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, tenses used as tcita have confused me for this reason. So, as a
followup question, {broda pu lo nu brode} means broda and then brode or
broda but first brode? Does PU when used as a tcita mark the main bridi
or
2010/3/21 Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com:
Notice that pu = fi'o purci, while mu'i = fi'o se mukti.
I meant:
Notice that pu = fi'o se purci, while mu'i = fi'o mukti.
Sorry about the confusion.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Oren get.o...@gmail.com wrote:
{ .i'e ui xamgu gunka }
i saw this posted in the lojban list today, and interpreted it like
any good anglophone would: Good work!
xamgu selgu'a would be closer to Good work!
I considered that as I wrote it, but then decided that
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Michael Turniansky
mturnian...@gmail.com wrote:
fi'i djefris. do pamoi lo'i kadno jbopre poi se sanji mi .i doi
drata jbopre do'u da xu drata kadno jbopre
pe'i la camgusmis cu kadno .i ku'i cy genai ca xabju lo kadno ginai jbena fo ky
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:22 AM, moork...@juno.com moork...@juno.com wrote:
Hi,
Just wondering ...
Why are both mluni and lunra necessary?
No single gismu is strictly necessary. There's a lot of overlap in
the concepts covered by gismu, think of them as convenient rather than
necessary.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Ian Johnson blindbrav...@gmail.com wrote:
So {jei} is exactly identical to {du'u xukau}? Or is there a semantic
difference?
There are two candidate meanings for jei. Nobody really knows which
one is the correct one. One of the meanings is du'u xukau, i.e. it
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Ian Johnson blindbrav...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, I don't quite understand why truth value shouldn't come up
in conversation once you're using a short term like {jei}, which is
considerably less cumbersome and IMO more straightforward than the
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ian Johnson blindbrav...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know, I somehow see {mi djuno lo jei lo broda cu brode}* as
considerably easier to understand than {mi djuno lo du'u xukau lo broda cu
brode}.
*I think I can say this in this way, though I might be wrong,
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Ian Johnson blindbrav...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose that makes sense. I also suppose that what I should've said would
be I know what the truth value of {bridi} is, which is in and of itself an
indirect question...gah.
Right, in that case you could use the
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
On Saturday 13 March 2010 19:07:15 Jorge Llambías wrote:
(4) la djan cu nelci lo nu jukpa
John likes cooking.
John likes to cook.
John likes being a cook.
I think la djan. cu nelci lo ka jukpa means
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:52 AM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
Officially, the most generic/nonspecific of NU is su'u; but people
seem to use nu more often for the purpose of general abstraction.
The first thing I find odd about NU's is that they are called
abstractors instead of something
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't think events are abstract? I don't think I can see the event of
running for example. I can see a man who is running, but the event itself
seems like an un-seeable thing.
So you object to:
mi viska lo nu
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
It just feels strange to me. I understand myself to be seeing a man who is
running as opposed to the event of running itself.
But there is a subtle difference, although it is not too obvious in
this particular example.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:29 PM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that sounds accurate. And it seems to me also consistent with the
gimste's description of NOI as attaching subordinate bridi, which is
quite the same as what NU takes (even ke'a in a NOI appears somewhat
analogous to ce'u
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
errr, lo'ai kukte sa'ai jukpa le'ai
I'm always mixing those up for some reason.
OK, I see. In that case lo nu jukpa would normally be lo pu'u
jukpa. I suppose that by lo za'i jukpa you mean being a cook as
opposed to just
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:51 PM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
If the name is meant to have two parts, probably zi'eful.favysejmiv
with an inbetween dot is the safest option in the parser-oriented,
formal areas of Lojbanistan. But people (including myself) often opts
to omit dots for
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Efrain Caro betse...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, if we want to be precise to the extent of being paranoid we
would state it thus:
lo ka ze'e kukte cu te dunli lo cevni ciblu lodo ciblu doi lomi melbi
cai mensi iu
If you don't want to repeat ciblu, you could also
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
But lo ka ze'e kukte does not specifically state that what is tasty
is the vamp, even though the comparison is made of do (the vamp) to
lo cevni, right? The x1 of this kukte could be lo ciblu be ce'u,
which wouldn't be
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Efrain Caro betse...@gmail.com wrote:
ci'iroi kukte cai fado du'i lo cevni doi lomi melbi cai mensi iu
(Eternally most tasty you are, like a goddess, my lovely dear sister.)
I think ze'e kukte or vitno kukte would work better than ci'iroi
for eternally. ci'iroi
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Efrain Caro betse...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, (2) is intended. Any reason why those shortcuts are dispreferred?
Just because of the potential for ambiguity. According to CLL
http://jbotcan.org/docs/cll/c9/s10.html
you would have to say kukte fa do ne du'i lo
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
and I'm
not sure if {xumymetano} is a valid fu'ivla for methanol.
No, fu'ivla can't have y, you want xumrmetano there. (What you
have will actually parse as a string of cmavo: xu my me ta no.)
Wikipedia says that
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
oops, my bad. I wondered about that, but I thought that {y} doesn't count
when looking to see if the first 5 letters contain a CC pair.
y doesn't count, but fu'ivla can't contain y anyway.
The 5 letter rule is not very
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Ian Johnson blindbrav...@gmail.com wrote:
OK. So how does go'i work, exactly, in the case of go'i lo mi zdani?
Ordinarily it repeats the previous {bridi}, yes, and if you give it an
article it can be used to refer back to a particular {sumti} in the previous
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ian Johnson blindbrav...@gmail.com wrote:
So in the previous instance you have the x1 place as zo'e (and thus taken to
be from the previous sentence) and then you fill in the x2 place as being lo
mi zdani. To make a silly but more general example, just to make
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Minimiscience minimiscie...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what exceptions xorxes was referring to, but I can't
think of any that actually break any prior rules. All of the {fu'ivla} listed
on jbovlaste have a consonant pair in the first five letters,
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still confused by what I eat
the apple an event of me sleeping ago means. It doesn't read like any
english I've ever seen.
My wording was in Jboglish rather than in idiomatic English. I should
have written ate
2010/2/27 Leonardo Molas leo_mo...@yahoo.com.ar:
How can I translate blog?
prekarni or kibyprekarni.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so, what you're describing, xorxes, is something different from the CLL
I think. I thought I always understood VA/ZI as sumtcita but I guess not.
The CLL version I understand to mean that {mi citka lo plise za lo
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Minimiscience minimiscie...@gmail.com wrote:
Really? I thought {zi ma} meant a short time from what? by analogy to
{vi
ma}.
There are two different views on that. I prefer to use ZI/VA to tag
the magnitude of displacement from the origin (they are after all
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Ian Johnson blindbrav...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting; I'm seeing a bit more merit to this when it's presented
this way. It seemed odd before, but it makes some sense now. To take
this to its logical conclusion, though, how would you say What
classes are you
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm confused, I always believed ZI/VA to express where/when the bridi is
happening in relation to the following sumti.
That's what PU/FAhA are for.
e.g. {mi pu citka vi lo
xamsi} I ate near the ocean (who cares where
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Sam Chapin not.here@gmail.com wrote:
Minimiscience's view is the one described in chapter 10 of the online
draft reference grammar. Is this other reimagining of ZI and VA widely
used?
I use it a lot, and I have seen others use it. I think it is used more
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Sam Chapin not.here@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I see. Under your scheme {va co'e} conveys the same meaning by a
different mechanism - something happens a moderate (but otherwise
unspecified) distance from the speaker, rather than something
happens a moderate
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Betsemes betse...@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen {domo} for this which is an extremely wide kind of
question. What I want to ask is Do you feel good or bad?.
do cinmo lo xamgu je'i xlali
This is the closest I have found to express that question. Is it
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Timo Paulssen
timona...@perpetuum-immobile.de wrote:
mu'o mi'e timos io ga'inai cai
za'a do sinma do gi'e cumla fa'a do doi timos io
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:15 AM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
How does one express a division remainder in MEX? (CLL seems to have
no example of it.)
30 ÷ 7 = 4 ... 2
li cino fe'i ze du li vo ___
Remainder is not really an operator. 22 ÷ 5 is also 4 with remainder
2, but 30 ÷ 7 and 22 ÷
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:32 PM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
I have another relevant question. Is the following translations of
Esperanto correct?
dudek du super kvin
rere fi'u mu
Sounds right.
kvinono de tio
fi'u mu ti
Sounds right, except tio should be ta. ti is ĉi tio.
dudek
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
(which doesn't imply it has to be a real rooster; it could
be a rooster that someone drew as a Death Metal logo...).
It's a real rooster in this case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A43JOxLa5MM
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Ian Johnson blindbrav...@gmail.com wrote:
To verify that I actually do get this, here's another sentence I wrote today:
mi nupre lonu lonu do spuda lo preti befi mi kei na'e ba nandu do kei do
The intention is I promise you the question(s) I ask will not be
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:39 AM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
What does { mi citka da semau de } mean? Is it { da zmadu de lo ka mi
ce'u citka } or { mi zmadu de lo ka ce'u da citka }?
The usual answer is none of the above, but:
lo nu mi citka da cu zmadu de
For example:
mi citka lo
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:54 AM, felix.duesenb...@googlemail.com wrote:
coi
xu roroi bilga lo du'u lo muvdu ja canlu cmavo cu lidne le selbri
.i na go'i
.i sa'e xu na se drani ro lo bridi be fa lu mi mo'ibe'a cadzu li'u .e lu mi
cadzu mo'ibe'a li'u
.i lu mi cadzu be'amo'i [ku] li'u cu
2010/2/16 Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com:
.i lu mi cadzu be'amo'i [ku] li'u cu drani .i lo farna cmavo cu lidne zo mo'i
.oi se'i mi srera .i lu mi cadzu mo'ibe'a [ku] li'u cu drani
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Felix Duesenburg
felix.duesenb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:06:01 +0100, Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com
wrote:
.i lo farna cmavo cu lidne zo mo'i
.ue xu go'i .i le cmavo liste cu jarco lo ro zo mo'izo'e
ie mi pu srera .i je'u mi na
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM, A. PIEKARSKI to...@rogers.com wrote:
No wonder everyone is confused! Exactly where are cmene and cmevla
definitively defined?
Are you asking about the meanings of the Lojban words, or the meanings
of the English words borrowed from Lojban? The definitions in
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jon Top Hat Jones eyeo...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course all {cmevla} are {cmene}, but not all {cmene} are {cmevla}.
I would rather say all cmevla can be used as cmene, but not all cmene
need be or consist of cmevla.
Comparing cmevla and cmene is like comparing
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, A. PIEKARSKI to...@rogers.com wrote:
From: Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com
At some point, after CLL and LfB were
written, we decided that using cmene in English with this specialized
meaning was a bad idea, because cmene doesn't mean and never meant
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Michael Turniansky
mturnian...@gmail.com wrote:
So that's mi klama le zdani
va'oki lo nu mi famgau lo gunka (although that means under the
conditions of you finishing off the worker, which is probably NOT what
you meant. se gunka is, I expect, what you
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Whipsnerd Lhooser
synaptic.explos...@yahoo.com wrote:
Alright. I am new to Lojban, but extremely interested in learning it. I am
confused about several issues concerning xorlo (or gadri [i'm not sure
which]).
It must be gadri. xorlo is so simple that it can't
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Whipsnerd Lhooser
synaptic.explos...@yahoo.com wrote:
Thank you xorxes. So, allow me to re-iterate:
xorlo simply refers to the idea that in an instance where a lojbanist is
unsure of the proper gadri to be utilized, the default is lo.
gadri is the lojban
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:15 AM, DataPacRat datapac...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to be played whenever a dialogue pop-up appears, such as with
the 'OK' and 'Cancel' buttons.
je'epei would work for that case.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:07 PM, DataPacRat datapac...@gmail.com wrote:
All that I'm missing, are the Lojban translations
of the various OS-sound meanings.
Not exactly translations, but what the computer might say in a given
circumstance instead of making some noise. There are many
possibilities
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:10 PM, komfo,amonan komfoamo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:07 PM, komfo,amonan komfoamo...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a discrepancy between the definitions of {krici} in jbovlaste
the gismu wordlist. In the latter, it specifically states without
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Michael Turniansky
mturnian...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Zachary Spector logicald...@gmail.com
wrote:
na'e is sometimes translated as not really.
To say something
isn't really x implies that it has x-ish qualities, or in other
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Zachary Felix zf2...@messiah.edu wrote:
What is the difference between the contradictory negation na and the scalar
negation na'e? According to the book, na is saying that the
selbri-relation is false, and na'e is saying other-than, but how are
these
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:43 PM, A. PIEKARSKI to...@rogers.com wrote:
I have been told by at least some of the powers-that-be that
we shouldn't recruit until the basics of the language are in place, and that
includes things like getting the cmavo finalized.
The basics of the language have
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Joshua Choi jos...@choi.name wrote:
Under the xorlo reform, the articles in the LA and LE selma'o are
reformed. However, two articles in LE are not mentioned at all in
either the informal or formal proposals of xorlo: lo'e and le'e. What
is the status of
point out all
the places where I disagree with it, so I end up not touching it.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
2009/12/14 Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Joshua Choi jos...@choi.name wrote:
Under the xorlo reform, the articles in the LA and LE selma'o are
reformed
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Ross Ogilvie oges...@gmail.com wrote:
Angular acceleration is in units of inverse square seconds (because radians
are dimensionless).
e.g. imagine a 3 kg mass on the end of a 5 metre arm, which has an angular
acceleration of 0.5 inverse square seconds. The
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
On Thursday 10 December 2009 20:28:26 Jorge Llambías wrote:
If li and mo'e are converse converters, I guess they must be.
Actually, just based on the spelling, it looks like mo'e is the opposite
of me'o
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Joshua Choi jos...@choi.name wrote:
From my limited knowledge of Lojban, it seems that a Lojban speaker is
able to express units only using certain selbri, such as grake and
bunda for mass. How, then, would you best express this in Lojban?
3 kilograms times 5
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
On Thursday 10 December 2009 16:49:57 Jorge Llambías wrote:
Only it's actually 3.75 newtons. :)
That depends on whether 2 seconds to the second power means 2 square seconds
or the square of 2 seconds.
You push a 3 kg
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Joshua Choi jos...@choi.name wrote:
Does it have a consistent syntactic meaning across the
grammar, or is it really case-by-case? Can it be converted into a more
standard EBNF syntax?
It's informal. The only complete formal grammar for Lojban is the PEG
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Steven Lytle lytl...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to translate (not necessarily to Lojban, but Lojban would be
helpful) the sentence People disappear all the time,
ro roi ku lo prenu cu canci
(Of course you probably don't mean literally all the time, but
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:10 AM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/2 Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com:
co'i sipna is the event as a whole. mo'u sipna is just the point
at which the event is completed.
But the dictionary defines co'i as point event.
Yes, it means the event as one
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Steven Lytle lytl...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. The present perfect in English in general means was and is
still. There is no sense of is no longer.
It may depend on the context. He has been dead 25 times already, so
he is not afraid of dying again. I agree
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
da ca co'i morsi (One dies.)
da ca ba'o morsi (One is dead.)
That would work if morsi meant dies (a change of state, goes from
being alive to being dead) rather than is dead (a state).
ba'o morsi means has been dead (i.e.,
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:26 PM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com:
co'i sipna and co'i morsi are complete
events of sleeping, or of being dead.
How is co'i sipna different from mo'u sipna, then?
co'i sipna is the event as a whole. mo'u sipna
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
On Tuesday 20 October 2009 00:46:11 Luke Bergen wrote:
see I understood yoda to be saying you either do, or do not do. 'trying'
is an illusion. As in, you either do what you intend to do, or you do
not, there is no such
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
I don't think do gasnu jonai troci is right.
I agree. That says you either 'do' or you try, but not both. So it
allows try as one of the options. But Yoda says that there is no
try, so how can try be one of the two
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should be able to add a descriptor to the pro-sumti in that case:
.i lo poi mi na nelci ku'o da [cu] pu noroi se viska
Currently grammatical options are:
.i lo poi mi na nelci ku'o su'o da [cu] pu noroi se viska
2009/10/5 Jorge Llambías jjllamb...@gmail.com:
One cmavo that has been proposed
by someone else is poi'i, in selma'o NU:
.i lo poi'i mi na nelci cu pu noroi se viska
I forgot to add that there is an alternative to that with no new
cmavo, and already grammatical:
.i lo se ka mi na nelci cu
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
va jvinu fe vi is ungrammatical,
Strictly speaking, it's grammatical: va jvinu fe [ku] vi [ku].
The fact that FA /KU/ is a valid term is a bit ridiculous, but
officially that's how it is. The jbofi'e parser has issues with
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Michael Turniansky
mturnian...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
On Thursday 17 September 2009 14:35:55 Ryan Leach wrote:
lu mi pu tirna da'e ra'i da'e goi mi pa'upatfu .ije mi pa'upatfu go'e
.ije do'i
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Michael Turniansky
mturnian...@gmail.com wrote:
We crossposted, but as I mentioned in my last note, the utterance
_as a whole_ doesn't parse, because the li'u wasn't actually, elided,
but existed at the end of the second paragraph.
Officially, there was an
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:42 AM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/19 Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu:
On Saturday 19 September 2009 07:22:51 Squark Rabinovich wrote:
Only John and Jane went to the moon
la djan. e la djein. po'o klama le lunra
Wouldn't that Lojban mean The only
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
On Friday 18 September 2009 11:04:05 Ryan Leach wrote:
ki'e .pier.
I have developed a tendency to mix up tricu and troci, and noticed it
as soon as you pointed it out.
As long as you don't try to bark up the wrong
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM, tijlan jbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
facki lo citno is not pleonastic. But facki lo cnino is.
I guess it depends on what the unfilled places are.
do facki lo cnino be mi
You discover something new to me.
do facki lo slabu be mi
You discover something already
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
Why does the x2 of {kecti} need to be a person? Can I not feel pity for a
dog?
x1 is sorry for x2 would be ambiguous, it could mean is sorry for
someone or is sorry for having done something. The (person) is
just to
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
So (object)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that used a lot in the gismu
definitions.
Hopefully some day we'll have more standardized definitions for gismu.
I think there are cases where (object) is used in places that admit
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Luke Bergen lukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
but even then, would a proper lojbanization of that english be something
like {mi kecti lo tricu lo nu ri farlu gi'e na seltrina}
If you feel sorry for the trees, yes. But if it's the falling you feel
sorry for, i.e. if
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Squark Rabinovichtop.squ...@gmail.com wrote:
However, consider the following example, from my mail about xorlo: lu'i ci
loi nanmu simxu lo nu damba . If I understand xorlo correctly, this
means three groups of men fight against each other, where each other
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Squark Rabinovichtop.squ...@gmail.com wrote:
Several times I have encountered the claim that lojban sets are rarely used.
Personally, I don't use them at all.
This appears strange to me, for the following reason. Certain gismu , such
as cmima , simxu and
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Luke Bergenlukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
But now I'm wondering, what would be the lojbanic version of the colloquial
phrase smile like you mean it (and please feel free to abandon the actual
words and use attitudinals etc... if it makes it easier to get at the
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Alexandre
Dezottidezotti.alexan...@gmail.com wrote:
i cannot find the translation for the metaphorical 'poor', ie in the
sense used in poor of us!.
This of course doesn't mean we are not rich, but rather something
which is a subtile mixture of unluckyness (not
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Matt Arnoldmatt.matt...@gmail.com wrote:
Please visit the following web page to fill in your own
availability:
http://www.meetomatic.com/respond.php?id=KDMAF3
Is this smart enough to tell which timezone someone is in? Also,
12-hour windows of availability seem
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Michael
Turnianskymturnian...@gmail.com wrote:
My personal preference in those situations has been ko bajra sepa'a
lo selje'i lo tirxu -- run, like one being followed by a tiger,
be lo tirxu, right?
But couldn't that mean run parallel to one pursued by a tiger
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Pierre Abbatp...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
So zo si bu zei zo si bu is processed like this:
(zo si) bu zei zo si bu
((zo si) bu) zei zo si bu
(((zo si) bu) zei zo) si bu
bu
error, because there is no preceding word.
Right?
Right.
What about zo y si? zo y bu?
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM, tijlanjbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
every time you make a mistake can be ro roi lo nu do srera.
I prefer ca ro nu do srera for every time you make a mistake.
The sumti after number-roi for me indicates the interval in which
something happens n times, as in: ci roi
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Luke Bergenlukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
ooo, that's interesting? So in {ba'e zei selma'o} does the {zei} evaluate
first and create the lujvo first or does {ba'e} evaluate first and say this
is REALLY a lujvo?
ZEI acts first, because ZEI is a magic word and
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Luke Bergenlukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
oh, I understood it to be {zo si} creates a block and then another {si} only
erases the quoted word, not the {zo} itself, thus {gerku zo si si si} would
equal {gerku} not {}. Or am I misunderstanding you?
For camxes it's
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:43 PM, tijlanjbotij...@gmail.com wrote:
Wiktionary lists tarta as a standard Spanish word for cake; a sweet
dessert, torta being from South American Spanish (it means a
sandwich on a roll in Mexico?):
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cake#Translations
My Collins
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Luke Bergenlukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
zo zei si zei bu
oh wow, that's a good one. does the {zo} quote the {zei}
For camxes, yes.
or since {zei} is
magic does it take {zo} litterally?
Since zo came first, zei has been quoted and thus neutralized.
Or does
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Luke Bergenlukeaber...@gmail.com wrote:
so, what's the official word then?
Probably this is the most official we have:
http://jbotcan.org/docs/cll/c19/s16.html
Unfortunately, it's a bit of a mess and it doesn't cover all cases.
Has the LLG/BPFK said what this
On 8/15/09, CosmicRay c...@cosmicray.co.uk wrote:
mi'e .kozmikreis.
Can someone point me to a succinct explanation and history of xorlo please?
Succint explanation:
(1) lo is the only member of selma'o LE that you need, and la the
only one from selma'o LA.
(2) Never ever use lo'e, le'e, lo'i,
On 8/15/09, Joshua Choi jos...@choi.name wrote:
Oh, I'm kind of confused now. Are these general guidelines for general
usage?
I only speak for myself, but yes, I recommend them for general usage.
Do they override the guidelines of the reference grammar?
Not officially, at least not yet. But
1 - 100 of 607 matches
Mail list logo
