xu do sisku lo lojbo tcana
  [Home] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply

Painter: Width: Height: Source:

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Subject (encouraged)
YouTube video (ALPHA)
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.


Attitudinals modify the immediately previous word. So does that mean that in [.i.au.iu. do melbi mi .i.], [.iu.] modifies [.au.]?

Also, attitudinals show how the speaker feels, correct. Ergo, [.i.ei.uinai. ko klama .i.] means that I am obligated (and unhappily so) to command you to leave. How would one make it so it is NOT how the speaker feels? How would that be translated? How would one know to whom the feeling applies?

How do sumti tcita work and could you provide examples?

By the way, what ever happened to [la .cniglic.]? I have been using it, and it is a great help, but it has not been added to recently. I do thank [la .kryltyc.] for the possessives and erasure - even though they were not, strictly speaking, emotional.

Thanks for all the anticipated help!

>> No.227  

I do not know if attitudinals left-group. I would imagine that either: a) it is not helpful/useful for them to left-group like a tanru (at least when at the beginning of a bridi), and therefore does not occur; xor b) They modify eachother, however this does not really matter because it would be something like "I desire you to be beautiful to me. The desire is with love." which is basically the same as if it did not left-group.

Empathy changes who is feeling the emotion. It is a member of selma'o UI followed by [dai]. [se'i] and [se'inai] show orientation, self & other (respectively). I have not mastered any of them, so I cannot help you there.

Your welcome about those entries in Cniglic. I haven't had much time lately so that is why I have been less active, not that I ever was too active, really. I will try to get back to it (and English Wikipedia, [pe'i .uinaisairu'e.] which by the way has a fairly miserable page about Lojban). We can still advertize it, though- the more participation, the better.

>> No.233  

There's a weird passage in CLL about how there's some ambiguity as to whether attitudinals affect the previous attitudinal or form a cluster. I totally disagree with that idea. My understanding is that attitudinals always form a cluster, and that the attitudinals-referring-to-other-attitudinals meaning, which is a bit rare and meta, should be expressed with some sort of cmavo. The hack that I've been using lately is to use to-toi parentheses (they're a very general sort of parentheses) around the attitudinal I'm trying to take to the next level, for instance: "mi .au to .au toi klama", I want to want to go! "mi viska lo speni .iu to .ui toi be mi", I see my spouse, who I love, which makes me happy. :)

Hopefully I'll remember to come back and hit up that sumti tcita question & etc. mu'o

>> No.234  


hmmm... That is even more interesting. That is some advanced [cnivlaselpli] (emotional-word-usage?), I am still on [.ui mi klama le ckule .i]. Definately something to be posted into [la .cniglic.]

By the way, I would like to offer thanks to you [doi .selkik.], your encouragement and help has been invaluable (meaning "unexpressibly important" or "opposite of floccinaucinihilipificatious", not "worthless").

Uh-uh, here comes a question that I just thought up. Sorry, I am trying to resist: in [doi .selkik.], if I wanted to say "a.k.a. Mungojelly", could I just use the [goi la'o gy...gy" construction? I ask this because isn't everything after [doi] supposed to be considered a name? (That was awkward sentence construction right there.) But then, I suppose that it (the name) only goes up to and including the pause/glottal stop... I don't know, I am confused...

>> No.240  



>> No.243  


I'm not entirely sure if you can say "doi .selkik." and then attach a further phrase to "selkik".. you could ask a parser! I'm pretty sure you can say "doi la .selkik. noi broda" or "doi la .selkik. no'u la se ckiku", but I'm not sure if that sort of thing works the same if you elide the "la" after "doi".


Sumti tcita! This is one of the basic elements of Lojban grammar. In fact there are only a few things that a cmavo can accept after it as an argument (a sumti, a bridi, or a bridi-tail.. anything else?) and accepting a sumti is by far the most common. So looking through the ma'oste here are some things that tag sumti: BAI, COI, FA, FAhA, LE and PA can sometimes, VA, VEhA, ZAhO, ZEhA, ZI. Lots of stuff!

Another way of saying it is, there's only a few different things you can put into a bridi: You can put a selbri, such as a brivla or tanru, to be the heart of the bridi. You can put unmarked sumti, in which case they're put into the next available FA place. Or you can put sumti by tagging them. You can just tag them with a FA, in which case it's the same as putting it in a slot (except that you can put it whenever you want). You can also tag them with any of the other tags in our giant tag collection, and they'll be added to the bridi as extra parts.

OK so examples. One class of words that can be used tag a sumti is tense words. For instance if we tag a sumti with "ca", then the sumti should be an event, and what we're saying is that it happened at the same time as our main bridi event. "mi pu klama le zarci ca lo nu mi xagji" -- I went to the store when I was hungry. "mi gleki ca le fasnu" -- I was happy at the same time as the event.

The BAI cmavo can be used to add an extra place to a bridi. They're used for tagging a particular kind of thing, and saying that it relates somehow to the bridi. So for instance "bau" tags a language, and says that that bridi is related to that language somehow, and "se ka'a" tags a destination, and says that the bridi is related to that destination somehow. "mi bacru bau la .lojban.", I utter (something) in Lojban. "se ka'a le panka mi cadzu", With a destination of the park, I walk.

So that's basically how sumti tcita work: You put them in a bridi somewhere, and they add the tagged sumti into that bridi with the specified role. .ua pei?

>> No.245  

http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less12voc.html says that:

>> "We've already seen how to do that in Lojban: doi, followed by the name (without the name article, la.) So "Houston, we have a problem" ends up as

doi xustyn. mi'a se nabmi

(sidestepping the slight illogicality of speaking to a single person in Houston but addressing a whole city.)"

I was citing/referencing/going off of that.

>> No.246  

Oh, and by the way, "[se ka'a le panka mi cadzu]" does not need a terminator (namely "[ku]") because "[mi]" starts a new argument (unless as part of a tanru), but then one would know that it would be part of the sumti without ambiguouity anyway.

I am not entirely sure that the above explanation was clear, so if you have any questions, concerns, etc. just reply.

>> No.248  


[.uaru'e] (how would one say "beginning to discover/understand a little"? [.uaru'ebu'o]?)

How does one know when a sumtcita is terminated? Once it starts does that end the previous sumti? How can one huess at the meaning of a sumtcita without a reference (I understand that they come from gismu, but how do I know that "[fi'e]" mean "authored by" and not some other terbri of [finti]? Are their any grammatical mistakes commonly made with them that I should know about? Could you please provide some more examples, especially using many different sumtcita?

Krilltish provided the answer "Empathy changes who is feeling the emotion. It is a member of selma'o UI followed by [dai]. [se'i] and [se'inai] show orientation, self & other (respectively). I have not mastered any of them, so I cannot help you there." Could somebody else elaborate?

[.ui ta'o doi] Krilltish, your name was wrong in the one entry.

[.ui ta'o doi kriltic lo cmene be do be'o cu gentoldrapli fi pa lo do pinka .i]

>> No.249  


".uaru'ebu'o" is perfect. I love "bu'o".

How do you know when a sumtcita is terminated.. OK well basically grammatically what happens is you have a slot there for a sumti, so as soon as you've finished saying a sumti, you're done! That doesn't explain anything, so let's look at a few cases.

The simplest case is a pro-sumti, such as "ti" or "mi" or "ko'a". One of those by itself is a whole sumti in one go. So a combination of a sumtcita and a pro-sumti, like say "fi'e mi" (with me as inventor) or "se va'u do" (for your benefit), is a complete unit in itself and doesn't need any termination. You can put it anywhere in a bridi and it will make its own home. I go, for your benefit: "fa mi se va'u do klama" or "klama se va'u do fa mi" or "se va'u do fa mi klama", etc. "seva'udo" and "fami" each tag & fill one place of the bridi on their own ("fami" the x1 place of klama, and "seva'udo" an extra "se xamgu" place that's added), so you can put them anywhere in the bridi and they do their job.

The complexities of termination come from more complex structures that you can build to use as sumti. For instance there's the structure "(gadri) (selbri) [ku]", such as "lo xunre plise ku" (red apples). Here's the first thing to understand: If you always use the "ku", this structure is just as simple as pro-sumti!! "se va'u lo prenu ku", for the benefit of a person, creates a sumti place and fills it and finishes off solidly; you can safely put that anywhere in a bridi and it will do its job. For instance, I utter with a good language: "fa mi bacru bau lo xamgu ku" or "bau lo xamgu ku bacru fa mi" or "bacru bau lo xamgu ku fa mi". The only confusion comes when you want to save yourself a precious moment of your life and leave out the "ku", in which case you can't just say "bau lo xamgu bacru fa mi"**, which accidentally makes the tanru "xamgu bacru" (a good type of utterer).

As far as the meaning of BAI, they are primarily based upon the gismu (and in one case lujvo) that they're drawn from. So something tagged with "fi'e" is "lo finti", an inventor. The relationship between the new place and the existing structure is vague (one reason for some people's virulent hate of BAI), but there are some conventions and habits, such as that a "gau" place is understood as causing the bridi to have happened (as opposed to being a causer of something else otherwise related).

GTG, I'll try to get back sometime with some more examples and a little about "dai". :)

>> No.250  


So one can have a gadri after a sumtcita. That was a major problem for comprehension.

Can I say "[bau lo xamgu <b>cu</b> bacru fa mi] ji "[bau lo xamgu mi/le prenu cu bacru] (because "[le]" starts a new sumti (unless if nested, is it?) and "[mi]" is not part of the previous sumti (correct?)). What about [mi bau lo xamgu cu bacru]?


>> No.251  


.i do mulno drani
You're completely correct.

A gadri terminates a selbri. I sort of feel like it's more accurate to say that any sumti ends a selbri; a gadri phrase ends a selbri simply because it's a sumti. This can be seen in the phrase "citka lo plise" (eat an apple) as well as in "lo prenu lo plise cu citka" (a person eats an apple). The termination of the "citka" selbri in the first case and the gadri-internal "prenu" selbri in the second case are similar. Other kinds of sumti also terminate selbri, such as "lo plise mi se citka" (I eat apples), where the "plise" selbri is terminated by the intrusion of "mi".

I remember when Lojban seemed to me like an intimidating soup of terminators. Let me try to give more of a quick overall summary, to give you the sense that there's an end to it!

A lot of the terminators I don't even think of as terminators, because they're never or rarely elidable, for instance "li'u" (ends a "lu" quote) and "toi" (ends a "to" parenthesis). Those parenthesis-like words should just be learned in pairs: to/toi, lu/li'u, lo'u/le'u, fu'e/fu'o, ke/ke'e, etc.

Every bridi ends with an almost-always-elidable "vau". A "cu" can be used to separate the selbri from what precedes it (& only if something does precede it). Sumti phrases made with gadri can end in "ku". There are a few ways of opening up nested bridi: The bridi inside of an abstraction is terminated with "kei" ("nu klama kei", x1 is an event of going), and the bridi attached with a noi/poi/voi is terminated with a "ku'o". A be/bei phrase attached to a brivla to get at its hidden places can be terminated with a "be'o". COI can be terminated with "do'u" (coirododo'u!). A string of lerfu can be terminated with "boi", necessary rarely for clarifying the difference between "xy zy citka" (XZ eats) and "xy boi zy citka" (X eats Z).

And that's it! It comes to an end! There's a few more on the list, having to do for instance with the mathematical expressions system nobody uses and some other obscure ones, like some terminator for "sei" i think?, but those aren't as important. If you know what I listed in the previous paragraph, you can read the vast majority of Lojban text. The main hurdles (besides accustoming your mind to a properly terminated language, fundamentally) seem usually to be first the mild quirkiness of "cu", followed by remembering "kei" and "ku'o" and keeping them apart. That's the fundamentals. Just learn that and you'll do fine. Eventually at some point you'll pick up be'o & do'u & such, which are much more occasional, and then all that's left really is a few odds & ends like the gi'e-vau trick.

So there's the ma'oste (cmavo zei liste, cmavo list) which has all these crazy terminators, and the CLL which demonstrates the wackiest uses of all of them, but I'm here to tell you that that's all details. ku, cu, kei, ku'o, that's all you need to know to have the basic structure of the language and to understand most conversation. You're not as far from the end as it may seem. :)

>> No.253  



I have always wondered about abstraction termination. How does one understand the difference between //lo nu le prenu cu klama\\ and //lo nu leprenu kei cu klama\\, whatever that may mean. Is //lo nu le prenu cu klama cu fenki\\ correct?

What do //voi\\ and //sei\\ mean? How does one which one to use when translating an English text: //noi\\, //poi\\?

What is the difference between "XZ eats" and "X eats Z"? I can understand it as "XZ" is a name for something (different from both "X" and "Z"), but does the difference exist in Lojban.


>> No.254  


"lo nu le prenu cu klama" is just a sumti. Here it is with the elided bits put back in: "lo nu le prenu ku cu klama vau kei ku". The "cu" before "klama" says "ok now I want to say a selbri", but all we've given so far for the internal bridi of the "nu" is one sumti, "le prenu", so the "cu" still leaves us inside of the internal bridi.

"lo nu le prenu kei cu klama" is nonsense. The bridi inside of the nu/kei only has a sumti, "le prenu", and no selbri. (It could perhaps be interpreted as "le prenu cu co'e", a person does something, but it's not the usual way to say that.) Then that event is described as going, which events don't do.

"lo nu le prenu cu klama cu fenki" is a whole bridi that makes sense. Here it is with all the terminators: "lo nu le prenu ku cu klama vau kei ku cu fenki vau". The first "cu" says that we're ready to say a selbri, and we're still short a selbri on the internal bridi, so that's where we get taken to. Now the internal bridi says "the person goes", and it already has a selbri, so when we say "cu" again we're taken out to a higher level, automatically terminating the bridi ("vau") and the abstraction ("kei") and the sumti ("ku") on a hunt for some higher level where we're still waiting for a selbri, which in this case is the main level of the bridi. It then describes the whole automatically-terminated event as "fenki".

"voi" is a lesser known third relative of "noi" and "poi". Which to use in translating an English text is a difficult stylistic decision; translating into Lojban is hard! It's better if you don't try to relate something like noi/poi/voi to your English understanding at first, because it's very different. I'll give you more of a Lojbanic perspective instead.

Syntactically what you can do with a NOI clause is to wrap two sentences which share a common referent up together. For instance suppose we have two sentences about the same apple, "lo plise cu xunre" (the apple is red) and "lo plise cu kukte mi" (the apple is delicious to me). So let's take the most basic member of NOI, which is "noi", and we can tie the two sentences together in two different ways (either one can be the main bridi): "lo plise noi xunre cu kukte mi" (the apple which is red is delicious to me) or "lo plise noi kukte mi cu xunre" (the apple which is delicious to me is red). If we hook up two sentences with "noi" like this, the result is very simple: The sentence says that both things are true, that they're true about the same thing (it's not two different apples we're talking about), and doesn't imply much otherwise.

There's a subtly different color to "poi". It's more about the process of communication than about meaning, so it can be difficult to grok at first. When you use "poi", you are using the clause that you attach to show your listener which referent you mean. For instance, suppose there are two apples that we can both see, one red and one green, and I say to you: "le plise poi crino cu kukte mi" (the apple which is green is delicious to me). Which one of the apples I mean is distinguished by the "poi" phrase. If I said to you "mi pu prami lo gerku noi xekri" (I loved a dog that was black) then I'm saying that I loved a dog, and incidentally saying to you that the dog was black, but if I said "mi pu prami lo gerku poi xekri" then the blackness of the dog points out which dog it is, more like saying "the black dog is the one I loved".

"voi" is much less used. With a "voi" phrase, a bridi is attached to describe something, but it's not necessarily literally true, just a suggestive description. So you could say: "le verba cu mutce nelci le ri kelci dacti voi cribe" (the child very much likes their play object which is a "bear").

"sei" is an advanced and flexible mechanism for putting metalinguistic commentary. It doesn't say something IN the sentence, it says something ABOUT the sentence. For instance: "mi sei la .alis. cusku cu nixli" (I, said Alice, am a girl.) The sentence itself is described as being said by Alice. "mi mitre li pa mu sei jitfa" (I measure in meters 15, is false.) The sentence itself, which says that I am 15 meters long, is described as being false. "sei" is somewhat rarely used, so I wouldn't worry if you don't understand it right away, but once you get the hang of it you'll find that it's tremendously general.

"XZ" can indeed be a symbol for a particular thing in Lojban, and in fact often is. One way that you'll often see such variable names used is in referring to either people with two names (we often call Stephen Pollei "sypy" for instance) and in referring back to two-part tanru (for instance there's a beautiful sentence in Timo's story "lo melbi plini" where something recently described as a "kensa marce" (space vehicle) is referred to as "ky my"). This is very powerful and useful, with the mild cost of having to say "boi" occasionally to keep things clear.

mu'o mi'e se ckiku

>> No.255  

how to use "dai" and its relatives (meaning orientation).

Thank y'all.

>> No.256  

Reviewing the other comments, I noticed a comment pertaining to the word ;;nenri,, (is it not interesting how we all denote jbovla used in Lojbanic context in different manners?). The question arises, what as seen in what dimension is it "contained"?

I was wondering, if I used ;;ne'i,, but wanted to specify by what standard, how would I unambiguously apply ;;ja'i,, in that sentence in order for it to pertain to ;;ne'i,,? Could I make some sort of tanru? Or would I say ;;ne'i zo'e ja'i zo'e,,? If so, how would I know that ;;ja'i,, applies to ;;ne'i,, and not the whole bridi?


>> No.258  


What "dai" does is quite simple, so simple in fact that there's some (as yet unpopular) proposals to make it more complicated, which I support in principle. In order to understand what "dai" does, I guess you have to understand what an attitudinal does in the first place. Here's one way I think of attitudinals:

Imagine the words of a bridi are all hanging along on a line. "mi klama ti", I go there, each word is hanging in a row on this string, first "mi" is hanging, and then next to it is hanging "klama", and then there's a "ti" hanging. Attitudinals are like hooks that hook onto somewhere in the bridi, and pull the rope itself that they're all hanging on into a different shape. It changes the orientation of the whole thing, so that it's the same considered within itself, still just three things in a line, but it's a totally different and more interesting shape in relation to the outside world.

In the ordinary unadorned usage of an attitudinal, its effect on the sentence is to express a relationship between what's described in the sentence and the person speaking it. So we can put a hook after "klama" (for instance) in our sentence, "mi klama ge'e ti" (I go (some emotion) there), and so pull the selbri "klama" and with it the whole relation in any of various directions. Just like in English you can say "I GO there" and put all sorts of inflections and tones and gestures and mannerisms and subtle sounds in that "GO" to imply different feelings, in Lojban we can create all sorts of pictures from our going: "mi klama .ui ti", I'm happy to go there, "mi klama .au ti", I want to go there, "mi klama .ia ti", I believe I will go there.

So there are several levels of relationship being expressed: "mi" and "ti" are the two sumti, and the bridi describes them as being in this relationship "klama", where the first one is a goer and the second is a destination. Then just by putting in one word, ".ia", we create another level of relationship: We say that what we're actually trying to say is a level up from that bridi, not just that "mi" is "klama" to "ti", but that the way that I relate to that relationship of "klama" is that I believe that it is a true relationship between "mi" and "ti". (Since "sei" was mentioned here recently, I'll say that I think these are very similar: "mi ti klama .ia" = "mi ti klama sei mi krici")

So once you understand basically that that's what an attitudinal does, it's easy to see what "dai" does slightly differently: It hooks the sentence not to you (that is, to "mi") but to some unspecified other party. "mi ti klama .ia dai", I will go there, someone believes. "mi ti klama .ui dai", I will go there, which makes someone happy. "mi ti klama .au dai", someone wants me to go there. It doesn't say who, except that it's someone other than the default person ("mi").

So logically that's very simple, yes? It says something about the sorry state of our Lojbanic educational system, that so many people have trouble with such a simple word. They're always scratching their heads over the sketchy things it says about "dai" in the ma'oste (empathy? "shows another's feelings"? huh?). Well this is all there is to it, really: Usually an attitudinal shows how you feel about the thing it's hooked to, but if you say "dai", then you're relating the sentence to someone else's attitude or experience instead of your own.

mu'o mi'e se ckiku

>> No.259  


>> "to you (that is, to "mi")"


>> No.263  


Thank you. That is very interesting. Is there any way to describe who's emotion it is? What does [se'i] do?

>> No.265  

se'i orients the attitude towards the speaker

e'u se'i: suggestion to myself
e'o se'i: request to myself
e'a se'i: permission to myself
oi se'i: self directed complaint


>> No.266  


Nonetheless, I see your point about how it might not make sense (I misread your comment/reply). Sorry.

So now I have to find a parser. [pe'a .ui zo'o]

>> No.267  


[.uidai mi'a morji] = "We die we die!" or actually "someone is happy [.uinaisai] that we are dead [.uinaisai]".

>> No.268  


That was posted by me, I forgot to put in my name sheepish grin.

>> No.272  


I too have wondered about this. [tautcita]

>> No.274  


Sorry it is not supposed to be in italics, but I did not know that asterisks started/ended italics instead of just being there.

>> No.281  

There are still at least wo questions remaining unanswered. I do not want to sound pushy, but...

Is there any way to describe who's emotion it is when using the word [zo dai]?

What does [se'inai] do? (kind of answered)

The "tautcita" thing found in bulleti/post 256.

Thank you all.

>> No.288  


The answer to whether there's a way to show who "dai" applies to is, unfortunately, no. There is not. There really ought to be, oughtn't there?! The closest we've had to a proposal as far as I know is the experimental cmavo "dai'o", which from what I understand is a version of "dai" which specifies that the experiencer is "ko". We should come up with something which takes a sumti (or perhaps even a name/sumti like COI) and specifies whose attitude.

What I would do in the meantime is indicate with somesort of metalinguistic (sei) or parenthetical (to/toi) comment after the "dai". I think I'd be inclined to something brief but unfortunately vague, like putting the experiencer in to/toi quotes right after the "dai". "mi klama .ui dai to le xagji toi le zarci" (I go (happiness! (the hungerers)) to the market.) You could throw in a few more words to clarify it lots of different ways, for instance: "mi klama .ui dai to le xagji cu cinmo toi" (I go, happiness (the hungerers are the emotion-feelers)).

There are unambiguous ways to say such things with metalinguistic bridi, they're just slightly longer (and perhaps drier). "mi klama sei le xagji lo ka gleki cu cinmo le zarci", I go, the hungerers feel an emotion of happiness about, to the market. One way of looking at attitudinals is that they're shortcuts saving us from such rational elaboration, allowing us to elide into vaguer emotive blurps, just: "iidai"!! scary!!

The se'i/se'inai is another way that you can direct attitudinals. With "dai" you can show whether the attitude is felt by you (unadorned) or by someone else (with "dai"). Using se'i/se'inai, you can show whether the beneficiary of the emotion, who it's directed at, is you ("se'i") or someone else ("se'inai").

For instance, ".au" is desire. If you say ".au", it means that you're the one who wants the bridi to be true or to happen. If you say ".au dai", it means that someone else is the one who wants it to happen. If you say ".au se'i", then you want the bridi to happen for your own benefit. If you say ".au se'i nai", then you want it to happen for someone else's benefit. "do gleki .au se'i", I want you to be happy because it will benefit me (perhaps it will make me happy also), vs "do gleki .au se'i nai", I want selflessly for you to be happy, I want you to be happy for someone else's benefit, perhaps your own.

Let's take another one, ".uu" means pity, sympathy, compassion. If you say ".uu", you're the one feeling compassionate. If you say ".uu dai", it's someone else who's feeling compassionate. If you say ".uu se'i", then you're feeling pity for yourself, you're the one who's hurt, also. If you say ".uu se'i nai", then you are the one who's compassionate, but it's someone else who's hurt that you're concerned about.

One more, ".o'o" means you are feeling patient, tolerant. If you say ".o'o" it means that you're tolerating something. If you say ".o'o dai", that means that someone else is tolerating something. If you say ".o'o se'i", it means that you're feeling patient and tolerant about something you're doing yourself. If you say ".o'o se'i nai", it means that you're feeling patient about something that someone else is doing.

Specifically about how to give a standard with "ne'i", I don't know. "ne'i" is a FAhA, is it not? It's basically a tense word. That's another situation where I'd personally be inclined just to put something in to/toi nearby to explain. Maybe there's some better way I don't know. :)

Probably in practice if that's what I was trying to be clear about, I would shape the sentence a different way. Once you have "nenri" somewhere as a brivla in the sentence, you can always attach places to it to clarify it (attaching them with "be" if necessary). "ti nenri ta fi'o terji'u mi", this is inside of that, from my viewpoint (literally, "with viewpoint: me"). "mi viska lo nenri be fi'o terji'u mi", I see something which is inside of something, from my viewpoint.

Be as pushy as you like! But I think people might find it easier to know what questions were unanswered if we tried to split different subjects more into different threads. Answering these questions is good practice for writing an introductory textbook! But in the meantime there's going to be beginners browsing these forums trying to learn this stuff, since a lot of it isn't explained very many times or very well anywhere else. I think the more organized we make these conversations the more useful they'll be.

mu'o mi'e se ckiku

>> No.292  


[.a'u .iosairu'e .i'o .uasai .u'esai] That is one hell of a comment. Wow. Thank you a lot, for both myself and others. You guys cleared up a lot of issues.

How should we go about splitting up these questions? Should we take excerpts from this (copy and paste both the question and the answers) with some of the developments, then make multiple posts here? Or should someone set up a glossary or something?

>> No.293  


I don't think we need to do any special work to organize things. I guess my suggestion would be just to start a new thread whenever a question comes up from something but it's not really the same topic. That's just my preference, though; if a lot of different questions all in the same thread is helpful to you then by all means continue with that.

Hopefully we'll have enough questions & answers here that it'll get to the point where we've seen the same questions a dozen times, you know? Then we can start organizing something like a FAQ. But at this point there's so little information out there that we're not even repeating ourselves really! A lot of these things have only been discussed in CLL and maybe obscure old mailing list posts so far. So the most important thing in my opinion is to keep talking, until these things become more familiar.

I was thinking of maybe starting some threads myself with summaries of some basic aspects of Lojban. I thought of doing basic bridi structure, tanru, abstractions, simple topics like that. Then if people ask questions around those topics, maybe we can build together more of a concept of how to divide things up and how to present them.

mu'o mi'e se ckiku

>> No.295  


Those are some pretty good suggestions. I think that we/one/you/someone else should add [zo be], [zo bei], and [zo be'o]. I think that a lot of people seem to have problems with that- it is not a concept found frequently in any natural (or even artificial) languages I have seen. I do not even want to think back upon the time I did not understand it, and it is still one of my most important/favourite comprehension-beginnings yet. That explanation that you used in the other post (featuring Homer Simpson) was amazing. I think some diagrams may help, though.

Thanks, your contributions have been invaluable!

Delete Post []