Lojban In General

Posted by lagejyspa on Sat 28 of Nov, 2009 11:51 GMT posts: 350

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:35 AM, tijlan<jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> xatra va'o lo nu le zgikrpopu raitru cu morsi
> .i finti fo lo sanga pemci po la'o gy. Human Nature .gy
>
> tu'e
>
> .i ganai xai cusku lu ki'u ma li'u
> (If they say why)

Using ganai/gi for if A happens then B happens is not a good idea.
ganai/gi refers to relationships of truth values only (A -> B. If A
is true then B is true). Also "xai" doesn't mean "they" in the sense
you are using it. It's an experimental way of repeating more than one
previous sumti, akin to "ri"

Try this:

fau lo nu da cusku lu mu'i ma li'u kei (In the event of someone
saying "for what motivation?")

> gi .e'u spusku lo sedu'u remna kampu
> (tell 'em that is human nature)

ko jungau da lo du'u remna rarna (YOU inform that someone of the
fact (it's) human nature)

> .i ganai lu ki'u ma ko'a mi tai co'e li'u xai se cusku
> (Why does he do me that way, if they say)

.i fau lo nu lu mu'i ma de gasnu ri'i mi tai li'u da cusku da'i (in
the event of "What motivation does someone cause something to happen
(experienced by me) in some form" someone says, hypothetically,

> gi .e'u spusku lo sedu'u remna kampu
> (tell 'em that is human nature)

ko jungau da lo du'u remna rarna

> .i mi nu tai jmive kei nelci
> (I like livin' this way)

That one is fine
--gejyspa

>

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by totus on Sat 28 of Nov, 2009 11:51 GMT posts: 65

>
> > .i mi nu tai jmive kei nelci
> > (I like livin' this way)
>
>
>   That one is fine

Why not: .i mi lo nu tai jmive kei nelci

What's the rule for dropping {lo}?

mu'o mi'e andrus

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by lagejyspa on Sat 28 of Nov, 2009 11:51 GMT posts: 350

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:33 PM, A. PIEKARSKI<totus@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > .i mi nu tai jmive kei nelci
>> > (I like livin' this way)
>>
>>
>> That one is fine
>
>
> Why not: .i mi lo nu tai jmive kei nelci
>
> What's the rule for dropping {lo}?
>

His is a tanru, "I in-unspecified-form living-type like"
Yours is a two sumti utterance — "I like an unspecifed form of living"

--gejyspa

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by totus on Sat 28 of Nov, 2009 11:51 GMT posts: 65

> >
> >
> >>
> >> > .i mi nu tai jmive kei nelci
> >> > (I like livin' this way)
> >>
> >>
> >>  That one is fine
> >
> >
> > Why not: .i mi lo nu tai jmive kei nelci
> >
> > What's the rule for dropping {lo}?
> >
>
>   His is a tanru, "I in-unspecified-form living-type like"
>   Yours is a two sumti utterance — "I like an unspecifed form of living"
>
I guess I should have used {le} in my question, not {lo}.
Is there any difference in meaning?  If not, it's interesting that leaving out
or keeping {le} has no effect on the meaning.  That musty be unsual.

mu'o mi'e andrus

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by lagejyspa on Sat 28 of Nov, 2009 11:51 GMT posts: 350

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:32 AM, A. PIEKARSKI<totus@rogers.com> wrote:
>

>> >>
>> >> > .i mi nu tai jmive kei nelci
>> >> > (I like livin' this way)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  That one is fine
>> >
>> >
>> > Why not: .i mi lo nu tai jmive kei nelci
>> >
>> > What's the rule for dropping {lo}?
>> >
>>
>>   His is a tanru, "I in-unspecified-form living-type like"
>>   Yours is a two sumti utterance — "I like an unspecifed form of living"
>>
> I guess I should have used {le} in my question, not {lo}.
> Is there any difference in meaning?  If not, it's interesting that leaving out
> or keeping {le} has no effect on the meaning.  That musty be unsual.
>

Yeah, you're right, "le" would have been better, since it's
particularly that type of living that you have been describing that
you like, not just any living.
--gejyspa

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.