I prefer "la vonplini", because it's a name with some meaning. The cmene "vonplin" and "voplin" don't, technically, mean "vonplini". Calling Mars "The Fourth Planet" is better than calling it "Vonplin".

Other possible names are "la xunplini", "The Red Planet" (my favourite, very cross-cultural), "la jamceiplini", "The War-God Planet", or even "la marz".

Technically, a teen-ager is someone between the ages of thir-teen and nine-teen :)

I'd probably change "teenager" to "young adult", and then translate that literally. So, "citno makcu", or "citma'u".

>>1188

I see. But my idea was to be able to express a numerical range succinctly (i.e. without bi'i/bi'o). Another example are "1990s" and "a man in his fifties". I guess I can put it as "lo nanmu be fi'o nilsau li 50 bi'i 59" or "lo nanmu pe li 50 bi'i 59", but I find them wordy and too explicit.

>>1194

Hmm. Maybe "lo pavdekna'a", "a one decader"? "1990s" could be "la 199moi dekna'atei", "The 199th Decade", and "a man in his fifties" could be "lo nanmu poi mumdekna'a".

>>1190

I think "dino" is a better Lojbanization than "daino", the diphthong of which is peculiar to English.

>>1193

One of the reasons to use lujvo such as "cpirespa" is that even supposedly "international" words like the scientific names for living things get pronounced differently by different populations, so when they're converted to fu'ivla, there's a chance they'll become unrecognizable, even ignoring the fact that some people won't know the original word at all. Type-3 fu'ivla at least provide some information about the fu'ivla (since one can reasonably expect the reader/listener to know Lojban rafsi), but a nice lujvo can be both more descriptive and shorter, and doesn't rely on listeners being able to divine the word from which a fu'ivla was derived.

So, yeah, I Lojbanize "dinosaur" to "dainosaur" (or possibly "dainosor"), because that's how I'm used to hearing it pronounced. That's no worse than inserting a 'z' into the fu'ivla. (And no better. Use "cpirespa"! Or a better lujvo, if you can come up with one!)

>>1197

Of course, if they can understand the type-3 fu'ivla and its rafsi, then they can read the lujvo!

Take this argument as you will, it merely is a neutral point.

The x1 of jvinu would have to be something which defines a view (what x2 looks like from POV x3). If an abstraction described what something looked like from some perspective, then it could be used as the x1 of jvinu. E.g., "That cloud looks like an event of a face smiling.", "lo vu dilnu cu selji'u lo nu lo flira cu cisma".

The main difference between events and ordinary objects as I see it is that events generally have relatively well defined time boundaries but relatively fuzzy space boundaries, whereas ordinary objects have relatively well defined space boundaries but relatively fuzzy time boundaries. Other than that, both are objects in space-time, and usually can occupy the same gismu places. (This is in contrast with pure abstractions like numbers, sets or properties, which don't really exist in space-time, and have their own separate gismu places.)

All A logical connectives have truth table TTTF.

    TRUE a TRUE = TRUE
    TRUE a FALSE = TRUE
    FALSE a TRUE = TRUE
    FALSE a FALSE = FALSE

So {a}'s truth table is TTTF.

    TRUE a nai TRUE = TRUE
    TRUE a nai FALSE = TRUE
    FALSE a nai TRUE = FALSE
    FALSE a nai FALSE = TRUE

Thus, {a nai}'s truth table is TTFT.

    TRUE na a TRUE = TRUE

Comment is too long. Go here to view the full text.

All 16:

TTTT    (always true)
TTTF    first is true and/or second is true.
TTFT    first is true if second is true.
TTFF    first is true whether or not second is true.
TFTT    first is true only if second is true.
TFTF    whether or not first is true, second is true.
TFFT    first is true if and only if second is true.
TFFF    first is true and second is true

FTTT    first and second are not both true.
FTTF    first or second is true, but not both.
FTFT    whether or not first is true, second is false.
FTFF    first is true, but second is false.
FFTT    first is false whether or not second is true.

Comment is too long. Go here to view the full text.

>>1153
nixli ue sai zo'o i mi ba zi zgana

u'i bu'o cu'i le nixli cu xajmi cusku zo ue

i ba'a na a'o cu'i ze'a troci i xamgu ku'i i'e

ko ve skina la'o iutiub http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtEtnpdm7kI iutiub

It might be worth considering the use of comics style speech balloons for the cases when the words are being said by someone in the picture, since I assume you will need to use a lot of dialogue to teach some constructions. I think it would be better to establish that convention from the beginning with the simplest cases (like "mi").

>>1173

Good idea. I had indeed considered that speech bubbles would be needed. I'll change those images.

>>1172

> florolf and other Germans also had some trouble with {danlu}, but I'm not really clear on why. Maybe he can shed some light on that.

Possibly because they have no category which includes both humans and animals? (Many native speakers of English don't put humans in the category "animal", while biologists do; maybe German works that way too.)

>>1158

Yes and no.

It's grammatical, but they don't actually combine to form a single tag, it's two terms: "co'u [ku] de'i li 4;1". But at least in this case, the meaning would still seem to be as if they combined.

The rules for which tags can combine with which are complicated. Here I have proposed a simplification of those rules:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=internal+grammar+of+tags
so that any tag can combine with any other.

>>1160

Jbofi'e fails to parse "co'u de'i li 4.1" unless I put ku after co'u. Is that just a bug?

>>1162

Yes, jbofi'e sometimes has problems with elidable terminators.

It isn't clear to me, either. Possibly the cardinality of the infinity being discussed?

bridi = proposition
selbri = predicate

The keyword "predicate" for "bridi" is just a bad choice of keyword. Many gismu suffer from bad keywords.