Lojban In General

Lojban In General

Forum List Topic List

Forums > Lojban In General > zo xi
 
Thread actions
Print this page
  • Print all pages

    • zo xi

    Posted by Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com> on Thu 03 of Dec, 2009 12:56 GMT

    On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM, stevo <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
    >
    > Is "daxipa" distinct from "da"? I would think so, but you started with
    > "daxire", and I don't know why.


    Hmm, well here is how I think of it: There are an infinite number of
    da/de/di/ko'a/fo'a/etc available, because you can use anything as a
    subscript. You don't have to start anywhere in particular; it would
    be fine to start with da xi ci ze mu. While I would agree with you
    that plain "da" is not necessarily identical to any particular
    subscripted "da", it's also not necessarily unidentical to them! So
    while I believe that our practice of starting with a subscripted two
    is more of a habit than a rule, the reason for the habit is just to
    make it abundantly clear that you are making a second distinct
    reference.

    Now that you mention it, I think it's possible that making daxipa
    conventionally identical to da could be helpful or at least
    aesthetically pleasing-- "daxipa" vs "daxire" being more balanced than
    "da" vs "daxire"-- but we so rarely get up to that many references in
    nonhypothetical situations that it's hard to actually test things out.

    mi'e la stela selckiku mu'o


    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.

    Reads: 14614
    Link
    Posted by PierreAbbat on Thu 03 of Dec, 2009 12:56 GMT posts: 324

    On Saturday 12 September 2009 22:57:12 Stela Selckiku wrote:
    > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM, stevo <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
    > Hmm, well here is how I think of it: There are an infinite number of
    > da/de/di/ko'a/fo'a/etc available, because you can use anything as a
    > subscript. You don't have to start anywhere in particular; it would
    > be fine to start with da xi ci ze mu. While I would agree with you
    > that plain "da" is not necessarily identical to any particular
    > subscripted "da", it's also not necessarily unidentical to them! So
    > while I believe that our practice of starting with a subscripted two
    > is more of a habit than a rule, the reason for the habit is just to
    > make it abundantly clear that you are making a second distinct
    > reference.

    I think that "da" is unequal to "daxi<ny>" for all ny, and similarly for
    anything else in KOhA. But "daxipira'eci" is equal to "daxifi'uci". On the
    other hand, "faxipa" is equal to "fa", and "faxifi'uci" is meaningless.

    Pierre


    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.

    Link
    Posted by stevo on Thu 03 of Dec, 2009 12:56 GMT posts: 381

    In a message dated 9/12/2009 23:20:32 Eastern Daylight Time,
    selckiku@gmail.com writes:


    > Now that you mention it, I think it's possible that making daxipa
    > conventionally identical to da could be helpful or at least
    > aesthetically pleasing-- "daxipa" vs "daxire" being more balanced than
    > "da" vs "daxire"-- but we so rarely get up to that many references in
    > nonhypothetical situations that it's hard to actually test things out.
    >

    I would like to keep "da" as distinct from the "daxi-" series as it is from
    "de".

    stevo

    Link
    Posted by timonator on Thu 03 of Dec, 2009 12:57 GMT posts: 85851

    Stela Selckiku wrote:
    > Hmm, well here is how I think of it: There are an infinite number of
    > da/de/di/ko'a/fo'a/etc available, because you can use anything as a
    > subscript.

    It would be really interesting to subscript da with no'o, su'o or du'e :-)

    mu'o mi'e timos


    Link
    Posted by timonator on Fri 04 of Dec, 2009 11:23 GMT posts: 85851

    @mail.gmail.com>
    In-Reply-To: <425e4ac20909121957k10d645a2o8d2c5a03bc3e7c59@mail.gmail.com>
    X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
    Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig6C45BD6B93BBEC09CA1DAFEE"
    X-archive-position: 16168
    X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
    Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
    Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
    X-original-sender: timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
    X-list: lojban-list

    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
    ------enig6C45BD6B93BBEC09CA1DAFEE
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Stela Selckiku wrote:
    > Hmm, well here is how I think of it: There are an infinite number of
    > da/de/di/ko'a/fo'a/etc available, because you can use anything as a
    > subscript.

    It would be really interesting to subscript da with no'o, su'o or du'e :-)=


    mu'o mi'e timos


    ------enig6C45BD6B93BBEC09CA1DAFEE
    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
    Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
    Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

    ---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAkqtEp4ACgkQus6NTCHpCECJywCeKbPpbGJ3fkDy03APqtz5C5t4
    Z70AnjuvwNIXYX/HKfkOuJokW1p9oX4J
    =rPtm
    ---END PGP SIGNATURE---

    ----enig6C45BD6B93BBEC09CA1DAFEE


    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.

    Link
    Posted by PierreAbbat on Fri 04 of Dec, 2009 11:23 GMT posts: 324

    On Sunday 13 September 2009 11:41:13 Timo Paulssen wrote:
    > Stela Selckiku wrote:
    > > Hmm, well here is how I think of it: There are an infinite number of
    > > da/de/di/ko'a/fo'a/etc available, because you can use anything as a
    > > subscript.
    >
    > It would be really interesting to subscript da with no'o, su'o or du'e :-)

    or tu'o or ka'opai or so'a...

    mu'omi'e .pier.


    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.

    Link
    Posted by timonator on Fri 04 of Dec, 2009 11:23 GMT posts: 85851

    da xi su'o so ki'o du la songokun

    mu'o mi'e timos


    Link
    Posted by dbrock on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 11:20 GMT posts: 47

    I'm surprised that nobody suggested {da xi re} = {de}.

    --
    Daniel Brockman
    daniel@brockman.se


    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.

    Link