Posts and uploaded files are owned by the poster. jbotcan.org is not liable for the content submitted by the poster. Downloading any poster-submitted files is doing so at your own risk.
[All threads]
What does ".abu melbi" mean? Is ".abu" the beautiful letter of "a" or a beautiful non-letter?
Latter, due to http://dag.github.com/cll/17/9/If you want to say the former, you can always quote the lefru with {me'o}, as mentioned in http://dag.github.com/cll/17/10/:{me'o .abu [cu] melbi}
Latter, due to http://dag.github.com/cll/17/9/If you want to say the former, you can always quote the lefru with {me'o}, as mentioned in http://dag.github.com/cll/17/10/:
{me'o .abu [cu] melbi}
NB what {me'o} quotes {.abu} as a mex and makes it into a sumti representing that mex itself (as opposed to {li .abu}, which is a sumti representing the value of "a"), as described in http://dag.github.com/cll/18/19/So the literal meaning would be> "a" is the beautiful [mex]But http://dag.github.com/cll/17/10/ mentions that this will be interpreted as> "a" is the beautiful [letteral], as a special case.".abu", on the other hand, is not a letteral at all, but is a word. (Okay, it IS also the letteral, referenced by lerfu-string "denpa bu.abuby.ubu"). You can say ".abu is a beautiful [word]" quoting it with, for instance, {zo}.
NB what {me'o} quotes {.abu} as a mex and makes it into a sumti representing that mex itself (as opposed to {li .abu}, which is a sumti representing the value of "a"), as described in http://dag.github.com/cll/18/19/
So the literal meaning would be
> "a" is the beautiful [mex]
But http://dag.github.com/cll/17/10/ mentions that this will be interpreted as
> "a" is the beautiful [letteral]
, as a special case.
".abu", on the other hand, is not a letteral at all, but is a word. (Okay, it IS also the letteral, referenced by lerfu-string "denpa bu.abuby.ubu"). You can say ".abu is a beautiful [word]" quoting it with, for instance, {zo}.
Go onto #lojban and ask any of rlpowell Tene clsn treed jcowan Broca (in that order)
just ask and receive
but don't just post your email address on here publically. go on the IRC and give it to someone in a query, instead.
ti cmima lo'i gerkuti me lo gerkuWhat's the difference?
ti cmima lo'i gerku
ti me lo gerku
What's the difference?
I just decided to translate the writing engraved into /Harry Potter/'s Mirror of Erised into Lojban. The inscription in English reads "Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on woshi", which backwards (and rearranging the spaces) will produce "I show not your face but your heart's desire".In Lojban, I translated this sentence as "mi minra genai le gusni be le do flira be'o giku'i le do cnise'i je traji selpacna".Backwards that would be "ancaples ijart ej i'esinc od el i'ukig o'eb arilf od el eb insug el ianeg arnim im".Rearranging the spaces, one could get (among lots of possibilities):"ancaples ij arte ji'e sinco de li'u ki go'e ba rilf ode lebin sugel ianeg arn imim", or"ancaples ijar teji'e sin codel i'uk igo'eba rilf ode lebin sugeli aneg ar nimim".What would your suggestion be of these two (or others)?
I just decided to translate the writing engraved into /Harry Potter/'s Mirror of Erised into Lojban. The inscription in English reads "Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on woshi", which backwards (and rearranging the spaces) will produce "I show not your face but your heart's desire".
In Lojban, I translated this sentence as "mi minra genai le gusni be le do flira be'o giku'i le do cnise'i je traji selpacna".
Backwards that would be "ancaples ijart ej i'esinc od el i'ukig o'eb arilf od el eb insug el ianeg arnim im".
Rearranging the spaces, one could get (among lots of possibilities):"ancaples ij arte ji'e sinco de li'u ki go'e ba rilf ode lebin sugel ianeg arn imim", or"ancaples ijar teji'e sin codel i'uk igo'eba rilf ode lebin sugeli aneg ar nimim".
What would your suggestion be of these two (or others)?
Retranslating your translation: "I reflect not the light illuminating your face, but your ["heart" and most] hoped-for-thing." Using {minra} is trouble. The translation seems like the mirror is reflecting light from some hidden source to illuminate your face. Possibly "your face" should be the source of the light {lo gusni be fi lo do flira}. Also, the translation carefully has the mirror reflecting light on one hand, but directly reflecting a desired thing (as opposed to generating an image of a desired thing) on the other hand.I suggest: {mi jarco tu'a ge nai lo do flira gi ku'i lo do cnise'i seldji}You could write {lo seldji be lo do cnise'i} and move the two {do} into {be} clauses for more precision, but I don't think that's necessary.Written backwards: ijdlesi'esincodoli'ukigarilfodolianega'utocrajimI'd try to break this into morphologically valid lojban words, using as few cmene and fu'ivla as possible. E.g., "ijdle si'e sinco do li'u ki ga rilfo do li a ne ga'u tocra jim".Using your translation: "ancaple si jarte ji'e sinco de li'u ki go'e ba rilfo de le binsu ge li a ne garni mim".
Retranslating your translation: "I reflect not the light illuminating your face, but your ["heart" and most] hoped-for-thing." Using {minra} is trouble. The translation seems like the mirror is reflecting light from some hidden source to illuminate your face. Possibly "your face" should be the source of the light {lo gusni be fi lo do flira}. Also, the translation carefully has the mirror reflecting light on one hand, but directly reflecting a desired thing (as opposed to generating an image of a desired thing) on the other hand.
I suggest: {mi jarco tu'a ge nai lo do flira gi ku'i lo do cnise'i seldji}
You could write {lo seldji be lo do cnise'i} and move the two {do} into {be} clauses for more precision, but I don't think that's necessary.
Written backwards: ijdlesi'esincodoli'ukigarilfodolianega'utocrajimI'd try to break this into morphologically valid lojban words, using as few cmene and fu'ivla as possible. E.g., "ijdle si'e sinco do li'u ki ga rilfo do li a ne ga'u tocra jim".
Using your translation: "ancaple si jarte ji'e sinco de li'u ki go'e ba rilfo de le binsu ge li a ne garni mim".
{pu crepu ba lo nu sombo} means harvesting was happening in the past, and was also happening after a planting.Similarly, {ba'o crepu pu'o lo nunso'o} means harvesting finished happening in the past, and also began happening after a planting.Therefore, {ba'o crepu ca lo nunso'o} should mean harvesting finished happening in the past, and also happened at the same time as a planting.However, according to http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Aspect , {broda ba'o lo nu brode} == {ba'o broda ca lo nu brode}. {crepu ba'o lo nu sombo} definitely means harvesting ended before a planting. I think we can all agree on that. However, unless I've made a mistake somewhere, that's definitely not equal to {ba'o crepu ca lo nu sombo}.
{pu crepu ba lo nu sombo} means harvesting was happening in the past, and was also happening after a planting.
Similarly, {ba'o crepu pu'o lo nunso'o} means harvesting finished happening in the past, and also began happening after a planting.
Therefore, {ba'o crepu ca lo nunso'o} should mean harvesting finished happening in the past, and also happened at the same time as a planting.
However, according to http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Aspect , {broda ba'o lo nu brode} == {ba'o broda ca lo nu brode}. {crepu ba'o lo nu sombo} definitely means harvesting ended before a planting. I think we can all agree on that. However, unless I've made a mistake somewhere, that's definitely not equal to {ba'o crepu ca lo nu sombo}.
>>1627>Alright! That's the main thing that was bothering me. I'm glad to see we agree they aren't equivalent statements. Will you be updating http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Aspect ?I changed the "==" to "(approximately)==". I suppose I could try to find an "approximately equals" symbol but I don't know if it will display properly in all browsers.>Incidentally, the first example on that page has a small error: either the {ze'a} should be replaced with {pu za} or the translation should be "The years-long war is over, but the pain is still with us.", since {ze'a} specifies the duration of the main event, not the length of the imaginary journey to reach the event. If you think {ze'a} can specify the duration of the aftermath when the main event is tagged with {ba'o}, then {ze'a ko'a co'a broda} would be equivalent to {ze'a ko'a broda krasi} instead of {ze'a ko'a cfari broda}. (You've already said the latter is better than the former. >>1622)I think "ze'a" specifies the duration of the aftermath stage: Comment is too long. Go here to view the full text.
>>1627
>Alright! That's the main thing that was bothering me. I'm glad to see we agree they aren't equivalent statements. Will you be updating http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Aspect ?
I changed the "==" to "(approximately)==". I suppose I could try to find an "approximately equals" symbol but I don't know if it will display properly in all browsers.
>Incidentally, the first example on that page has a small error: either the {ze'a} should be replaced with {pu za} or the translation should be "The years-long war is over, but the pain is still with us.", since {ze'a} specifies the duration of the main event, not the length of the imaginary journey to reach the event. If you think {ze'a} can specify the duration of the aftermath when the main event is tagged with {ba'o}, then {ze'a ko'a co'a broda} would be equivalent to {ze'a ko'a broda krasi} instead of {ze'a ko'a cfari broda}. (You've already said the latter is better than the former. >>1622)
I think "ze'a" specifies the duration of the aftermath stage:
>>1628Right. This is some of the stuff I didn't want to argue about because it was distracting from the main point... but now that's sorted out, I guess we might as well have at it.I'm fairly certain {ze'a co'a broda} means that broda is beginning now (i.e., the reference point, whatever that is, is coincident with the beginning of broda) and broda has a medium (or unspecified, whichever interpretation you use) duration. Note that I think the ZEhA specifies the duration of the whole event, not the duration of its beginning. In short, I believe when a ZEhA and a ZAhO appear in the same tag, the combined meaning is the intersection of the meanings of the solitary ZEhA and the solitary ZAhO, not "select the ZAhO part of the event, then use the ZEhA to describe the duration of that part of the event."Statements like "Aspects are not about temporal relationships." seem utterly nonsensical to me (assuming you mean ZAhO where you wrote "Aspects"). Of course ZAhO are about temporal relationships. They specify where the imaginary journey ends relative to the event being discussed (in the aftermath, at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, etc.). They very much resemble English tenses, unlike PU. http://dag.github.com/cll/10/6/
>>1628
Right. This is some of the stuff I didn't want to argue about because it was distracting from the main point... but now that's sorted out, I guess we might as well have at it.
I'm fairly certain {ze'a co'a broda} means that broda is beginning now (i.e., the reference point, whatever that is, is coincident with the beginning of broda) and broda has a medium (or unspecified, whichever interpretation you use) duration. Note that I think the ZEhA specifies the duration of the whole event, not the duration of its beginning. In short, I believe when a ZEhA and a ZAhO appear in the same tag, the combined meaning is the intersection of the meanings of the solitary ZEhA and the solitary ZAhO, not "select the ZAhO part of the event, then use the ZEhA to describe the duration of that part of the event."
Statements like "Aspects are not about temporal relationships." seem utterly nonsensical to me (assuming you mean ZAhO where you wrote "Aspects"). Of course ZAhO are about temporal relationships. They specify where the imaginary journey ends relative to the event being discussed (in the aftermath, at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, etc.). They very much resemble English tenses, unlike PU. http://dag.github.com/cll/10/6/
>>1629>I'm fairly certain {ze'a co'a broda} means that broda is beginning now (i.e., the reference point, whatever that is, is coincident with the beginning of broda) I don't think "co'a broda" really says anything about time. It only says that broda is beginning, but not when. It may be that "now" is usually the most obvious time, but that's not part of what is being stated. "co'a broda" also doesn't say that the beginning is coincident with the reference point. "ca co'a broda" says that, but "pu co'a broda" says the beginning is before the reference point, and "ba co'a broda" says the beginning is after the reference point. "co'a broda" does nothing to respond "when?", only PU does that.> and broda has a medium (or unspecified, whichever interpretation you use) duration. "co'a ze'a broda" is the beginning of medium/unspecified duration broda. "ze'a co'a broda" is a medium/unspecified duration beginning of broda. Comment is too long. Go here to view the full text.
>>1629
>I'm fairly certain {ze'a co'a broda} means that broda is beginning now (i.e., the reference point, whatever that is, is coincident with the beginning of broda)
I don't think "co'a broda" really says anything about time. It only says that broda is beginning, but not when. It may be that "now" is usually the most obvious time, but that's not part of what is being stated. "co'a broda" also doesn't say that the beginning is coincident with the reference point. "ca co'a broda" says that, but "pu co'a broda" says the beginning is before the reference point, and "ba co'a broda" says the beginning is after the reference point. "co'a broda" does nothing to respond "when?", only PU does that.
> and broda has a medium (or unspecified, whichever interpretation you use) duration.
"co'a ze'a broda" is the beginning of medium/unspecified duration broda. "ze'a co'a broda" is a medium/unspecified duration beginning of broda.
>If I understand you correctly, you're reading {ba'o broda ca ko'a} as {broda ca ba'o ko'a}, and just ignoring the {ba'o zo'e} part, or assuming (harmfully) that the zo'e is ko'a. Why "harmfully"? There is an important difference between ZAhO and PU. The reference point is crucial for PU, PU is meaningless without a reference point. But the tagged sumti is practically irrelevant for ZAhO. All the information that ZAhO provides is contained in the ZAhO word itself, and it is only because "ZAhO sumti" is grammatical that we must assign some meaning to that added sumti. If we don't have a sumti with ZAhO, we don't really need to come up with one. OTOH, you always need some reference point for PU, even if it's simply the time of the utterance, else PU is meaningless.>I've already mentioned that I read {ba'o crepu pu'o lo nunso'o} as meaning "harvested after planting", i.e., the zo'e is in the aftermath of the harvesting, and the planting is in the "beforemath" of the harvesting.I would read it as "it has been harvested, it was about to be harvested at the time of planting". (I don't really think the time of planting is really the proper "pu'o" stage of harvesting, planting comes long before "pu'o crepu", but that's beside the point.) If I had to translate "harvested after planting" I would say "pu crepu ba lo nu sombo". No aspects involved beyond an assumed "co'i". Comment is too long. Go here to view the full text.
>If I understand you correctly, you're reading {ba'o broda ca ko'a} as {broda ca ba'o ko'a}, and just ignoring the {ba'o zo'e} part, or assuming (harmfully) that the zo'e is ko'a.
Why "harmfully"? There is an important difference between ZAhO and PU. The reference point is crucial for PU, PU is meaningless without a reference point. But the tagged sumti is practically irrelevant for ZAhO. All the information that ZAhO provides is contained in the ZAhO word itself, and it is only because "ZAhO sumti" is grammatical that we must assign some meaning to that added sumti. If we don't have a sumti with ZAhO, we don't really need to come up with one. OTOH, you always need some reference point for PU, even if it's simply the time of the utterance, else PU is meaningless.
>I've already mentioned that I read {ba'o crepu pu'o lo nunso'o} as meaning "harvested after planting", i.e., the zo'e is in the aftermath of the harvesting, and the planting is in the "beforemath" of the harvesting.
I would read it as "it has been harvested, it was about to be harvested at the time of planting". (I don't really think the time of planting is really the proper "pu'o" stage of harvesting, planting comes long before "pu'o crepu", but that's beside the point.) If I had to translate "harvested after planting" I would say "pu crepu ba lo nu sombo". No aspects involved beyond an assumed "co'i".
Are these different sound-wise?la .burXIR. ma cu klamala burXIRma cu klama
Are these different sound-wise?
la .burXIR. ma cu klama
la burXIRma cu klama
yes. the period after the XIR means that you must pause before starting on the {ma} bit. I would read your second sentence as though "ma" were part of the name and he/she/it klama'ed
Yes. Also, names must end in a constonant.
I've just started learning lojban, and much of my current focus is using the Anki flash card program to learn gismu.Using flash cards I feel inclined to use 2 approaches.The first is to think long and hard about each card, and take my time trying to commit answers to my memory. This seems good because it lets me take the time to come up with mental cues for each word that I can use to recall them later.The second approach is to try to go through the cards very fast, only spending a few seconds on each one. This seems good because after a ton of wrong answers you are cycling through them fast enough to remember the ones you got wrong, and the answers seem to come with less effort. But it doesn't feel as "solid" to me. Like I may forget things easier from this way. I have no idea if that's a valid concern.How do you guys do flash cards? Slow and deliberate? Or quick and dirty? Or maybe a mix of both methods?
I've just started learning lojban, and much of my current focus is using the Anki flash card program to learn gismu.
Using flash cards I feel inclined to use 2 approaches.
The first is to think long and hard about each card, and take my time trying to commit answers to my memory. This seems good because it lets me take the time to come up with mental cues for each word that I can use to recall them later.
The second approach is to try to go through the cards very fast, only spending a few seconds on each one. This seems good because after a ton of wrong answers you are cycling through them fast enough to remember the ones you got wrong, and the answers seem to come with less effort. But it doesn't feel as "solid" to me. Like I may forget things easier from this way. I have no idea if that's a valid concern.
How do you guys do flash cards? Slow and deliberate? Or quick and dirty? Or maybe a mix of both methods?
About the BNF definition of ek:What is the syntactical constraint behind NAI not being NA in this expression? What would be the problem of "mi na.ena do klama", for example?
About the BNF definition of ek:
What is the syntactical constraint behind NAI not being NA in this expression? What would be the problem of "mi na.ena do klama", for example?
I believe that na attaches to the following word only, so it could not be used in that way.I do know that your example birdi will not parse, I believe the reason is because na cannot modify do.
I believe that na attaches to the following word only, so it could not be used in that way.
I do know that your example birdi will not parse, I believe the reason is because na cannot modify do.