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 is "la .ajnctain."?
I remember seeing that recently...Here it is, at the very bottom: http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c12/s15.htmlProbably a typo, helped by the fact the IPA symbol for that sound is 'j'.
I remember seeing that recently...
Here it is, at the very bottom: http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c12/s15.html
Probably a typo, helped by the fact the IPA symbol for that sound is 'j'.
>>1128In the printed version of the book it is written correctly. I guess this is one of the typos that were corrected from the "pre-final" online version.
>>1128
In the printed version of the book it is written correctly. I guess this is one of the typos that were corrected from the "pre-final" online version.
>>1128 Oh, good. So I wasn't completely off this entire time. That's a relief!
Oh, good. So I wasn't completely off this entire time. That's a relief!
I just stumbled across the Lojban Wikipedia (http://jbo.wikipedia.org/). The first thing I noticed was the translation of "encyclopedia": vricyjuncku, "miscellaneous-knowing book". Shouldn't "encyclopedia" be facycku, "fact book", in the same way that vlacku, "word book" means "dictionary"?It's also interesting to look at the derivation of "encyclopedia". It originally came from the Greek enkuklios paideia, circular (i.e., well-rounded) education. Obviously we don't want to use a metaphor in a lujvo, but we could use mulctucku, "complete-teaching book". I like that partly because of ctucku, "teaching-book, textbook". But I digress. I still think facycku better captures the meaning of "encyclopedia".
I just stumbled across the Lojban Wikipedia (http://jbo.wikipedia.org/). The first thing I noticed was the translation of "encyclopedia": vricyjuncku, "miscellaneous-knowing book". Shouldn't "encyclopedia" be facycku, "fact book", in the same way that vlacku, "word book" means "dictionary"?
It's also interesting to look at the derivation of "encyclopedia". It originally came from the Greek enkuklios paideia, circular (i.e., well-rounded) education. Obviously we don't want to use a metaphor in a lujvo, but we could use mulctucku, "complete-teaching book". I like that partly because of ctucku, "teaching-book, textbook". But I digress. I still think facycku better captures the meaning of "encyclopedia".
>>1120Honestly I don't use undefined lujvo that much. It's usually tanru. The undefined lujvo I use are usually ones in which the places don't matter because I'm just using the x1 place for a sumti. Another is in which the places are unambiguous, like sticking {tol} on the front of things or {sel} as in {selsku}. Looking at my IRC logs, I said {lo cmaskami} before as in "small computer". But if I'm going use the places of an undefined lujvo, I do define it before-hand. Wouldn't want to leave it to interpretation.
>>1131The place structure of an undefined lujvo does matter when you're using the x1 to construct a sumti. Even a simple example like "lo cmaskami" could be "a computer that is small" or "a computer for a purpose that is small". So you can't get away with saying "I only use undefined lujvo when the place structure doesn't matter." if you use undefined lujvo to create sumti.
>>1131
The place structure of an undefined lujvo does matter when you're using the x1 to construct a sumti. Even a simple example like "lo cmaskami" could be "a computer that is small" or "a computer for a purpose that is small". So you can't get away with saying "I only use undefined lujvo when the place structure doesn't matter." if you use undefined lujvo to create sumti.
>>1134Context would tell you that it means a small computer.
This is the same file I posted on /jbo/. Is this a correct illustration of how lo/loi/lo'i works?
>>1117I liked the pictures with cusku better. A quantifier is not very meaningful without a bridi to quantify. I assume the implicit bridi is something like "pa lo re prenu cu xekri", "ro lo re prenu cu xekri". But what is the difference in each one being black or the two being black together? "lo pa re mei prenu" is "a twelvesome type of person".
>>1117
I liked the pictures with cusku better. A quantifier is not very meaningful without a bridi to quantify. I assume the implicit bridi is something like "pa lo re prenu cu xekri", "ro lo re prenu cu xekri". But what is the difference in each one being black or the two being black together?
"lo pa re mei prenu" is "a twelvesome type of person".
>>1118> "lo pa re mei prenu" is "a twelvesome type of person".Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I guess this will be solved if I just bring "prenu" before "remei", like you did in "bi prenu remei"?> But what is the difference in each one being black or the two being black together?As I understand it:When massified, individuality within the mass becomes irrelevant to the predicate. If 50% of "lo prenu remei" is black, we can assume that the 50%-blackness can come from any portion of the de-individuated bodies within the mass. There is no "each one/prenu" in "lo prenu remei" that can individually relate to the predicate. The picture in question shows a few of many possible distribution of 50%-blackness within "lo prenu remei".
>>1118
> "lo pa re mei prenu" is "a twelvesome type of person".
Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I guess this will be solved if I just bring "prenu" before "remei", like you did in "bi prenu remei"?
> But what is the difference in each one being black or the two being black together?
As I understand it:When massified, individuality within the mass becomes irrelevant to the predicate. If 50% of "lo prenu remei" is black, we can assume that the 50%-blackness can come from any portion of the de-individuated bodies within the mass. There is no "each one/prenu" in "lo prenu remei" that can individually relate to the predicate. The picture in question shows a few of many possible distribution of 50%-blackness within "lo prenu remei".
>>1117"pimu lo re prenu" means "0.5 of 2 people", not "half of each of two people". If "papimu lo re prenu" were on your diagram, 3 halves would be black and 1 half would be white. The same error exists in the picture for "pimu lo re loi re prenu".
"pimu lo re prenu" means "0.5 of 2 people", not "half of each of two people". If "papimu lo re prenu" were on your diagram, 3 halves would be black and 1 half would be white. The same error exists in the picture for "pimu lo re loi re prenu".
Can "mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka ma kau" be paraphrased as "za'a ko'a citka ma kau"? Does it at least make some sense to you?
> I guess you meant "what she eats"?Yes. I mixed it up with another example I was thinking of.> ... in which "observe" is the verb. But "za'a" is not a selbri. And "ko'a citka ma kau" is a bridi, while "the identity of the one she eats" is not a predicate.First, evidentials like za'a turn the modified bridi into a claim about how the speaker came to know the information. English doesn't have evidentials, so I had to use "I observe X" to translate za'a.Second, I could have written it "I observe what she eats.", but I was afraid people would read that "I observe the thing, which she eats.", so I chose to make the meaning of my translation more explicit while sacrificing structural similarity to the Lojban.> Maybe more like "She eats something (aha)." Comment is too long. Go here to view the full text.
> I guess you meant "what she eats"?
Yes. I mixed it up with another example I was thinking of.
> ... in which "observe" is the verb. But "za'a" is not a selbri. And "ko'a citka ma kau" is a bridi, while "the identity of the one she eats" is not a predicate.
First, evidentials like za'a turn the modified bridi into a claim about how the speaker came to know the information. English doesn't have evidentials, so I had to use "I observe X" to translate za'a.
Second, I could have written it "I observe what she eats.", but I was afraid people would read that "I observe the thing, which she eats.", so I chose to make the meaning of my translation more explicit while sacrificing structural similarity to the Lojban.
> Maybe more like "She eats something (aha)."
>>1095>> Maybe more like "She eats something (aha)."> "(aha)" doesn't mean anything to me. Another translation might be "I observe something eaten/being eaten by her.", where the change in order of the arguments in English changes the focus.It's not only the order of the arguments that you are changing; you are changing the predicate itself too. I understand that "za'a" as an evidential modifies the sense of the bridi in a certain way, but not to the point where the significance of the original main selbri diminishes. I think there still are better ways to translate the Lojban evidentials into English than completely altering the original predicate/selbri. How about simply "She eats something, I observe"? It has more reversibility to the original "ko'a citka zo'e za'a" than "I observe the one she eats." or "I observe something eaten/being eaten by her.".
>>1095
>> Maybe more like "She eats something (aha)."> "(aha)" doesn't mean anything to me. Another translation might be "I observe something eaten/being eaten by her.", where the change in order of the arguments in English changes the focus.
It's not only the order of the arguments that you are changing; you are changing the predicate itself too. I understand that "za'a" as an evidential modifies the sense of the bridi in a certain way, but not to the point where the significance of the original main selbri diminishes. I think there still are better ways to translate the Lojban evidentials into English than completely altering the original predicate/selbri. How about simply "She eats something, I observe"? It has more reversibility to the original "ko'a citka zo'e za'a" than "I observe the one she eats." or "I observe something eaten/being eaten by her.".
>>1105> I understand that "za'a" as an evidential modifies the sense of the bridi in a certain way, but not to the point where the significance of the original main selbri diminishes.I disagree. I think using an evidential effectively puts the main bridi into an abstraction, so that the claim is now about the evidential, rather than the bridi. See the paragraph beginning "A bridi with an evidential in it becomes ``indisputable''" in http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s11.html
>>1105
> I understand that "za'a" as an evidential modifies the sense of the bridi in a certain way, but not to the point where the significance of the original main selbri diminishes.
I disagree. I think using an evidential effectively puts the main bridi into an abstraction, so that the claim is now about the evidential, rather than the bridi. See the paragraph beginning "A bridi with an evidential in it becomes ``indisputable''" in http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s11.html
... why are they separate?
mupli fa lo'u na kakne co viska le ricfoi ki'u tu'a tricu le'u xu
lu na kakne co viska le ricfoi ki'u tu'a le tricu li'u ja'a mupliIt's an example of something :-)
lu na kakne co viska le ricfoi ki'u tu'a le tricu li'u ja'a mupli
It's an example of something :-)
>>1122Oops. Can't be forgettin' my {le}s!
Can there be a bridi before "zo'u", like:.i badri zo'u lo mi mlatu cu mrobi'o
Can there be a bridi before "zo'u", like:
.i badri zo'u lo mi mlatu cu mrobi'o
Only one or more sumti, he means.
>>1094 "Terms" in the sense "term" is used in the Lojban grammar. A sumti is one kind of term, other kind of terms are "tag sumti", "NA KU", and "tag KU".
>>1094
"Terms" in the sense "term" is used in the Lojban grammar. A sumti is one kind of term, other kind of terms are "tag sumti", "NA KU", and "tag KU".
>>1096I stand corrected. I didn't realize that's what you meant by "term".
>>1096
I stand corrected. I didn't realize that's what you meant by "term".