WikiDiscuss

> > > > * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" . the first two
> > > > lo are most definately "le" if you want it to match the English.
> > > > You should probably quantify ctuca as well.
> > >
> > > How would you translate the Lojban into normal English? (The
> > > context is a set of instructions for conducting a Lesson.)
> >
> > The way I translated it (see my other post) is "Teachers
> > (un-numbered, could be one) divide those taught into five foursomes
> > of students."
>
> I mean into normal English. The Lojban sounds normal as it is.

Teachers divide those taught into five groups of four.

> > Gender-queer-positive people would have a field day with "le", I
> > suspect.
>
> Many of them would claim they are ca'a ninmu, not that they are using
> the selbri non-veridically.

Right, and then fights would break out. That would be the field day.

> > > Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE
> > > into BRIVLA?
> >
> > mumble, mumble It's up to you. I can't think of a *better* time,
> > though. If you do so, I will *immediately* call an extension to
> > voting, for obvious reasons.
>
> I won't then. We can always fix the definition of {la} later if that
> is ever changed.

I don't see what other BPFK section it could happen in, but we might
want to collect proposed grammar changes and do them all at once.

> > > > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German
> > sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl
> > called The Cup.
>
> Isn't the English version equally vague though?

In my dialect, "The Brazillians" can only mean "a group of Brazillian
people".

> > > The outer is adjusted accordingly, but {PA lo broda} retains the
> > > same meaning.
> >
> > I don't see how that's possible. Before, "pa lo broda" meant
> > *exactly* one broda. Now it means one *group* of broda, of
> > indeterminate size. That is a massive change, unless I'm missing
> > something.
>
> It's {PA lo pa broda} in most contexts. Before, it meant {PA da poi
> broda} exactly PA things that broda.

Please show me chapter and verse for it meaning that, please.

> {pa da poi broda} could also mean exactly one group of brodas, given
> the appropriate context. In most contexts, in both cases, the usual
> interpretation is that we are counting individual brodas.

OK, problems here. I suppose "pa lo girzu" always meant one group, but
it still means only one thing that matches the x1 of girzu. Same with
"pa da poi broda". Your proposal seems to be expanding that to one

• group* of things that match the x1 of girzu, i.e. on group of groups.

I don't see how the old definition could ever have meant that.

> > None of your examples use an outer quantifier by itself, by the way.
> > Might want to fix that.
>
> That's because in that case {lo} is elidable. There's {mu (lo) xagji
> sofybakni} anyway.

Oh, true.

-Robni