Lojban
The Logical Language
Log in
Username:
Password:
I forgot my password |
CapsLock is on.
Log in
History: Implied {co'e} and Multiple-Question Questions
View page
Source of version: 3
(current)
{CODE(wrap="1")}[16:34] <udjalus> coi ro do ro do ro do ro do [16:34] <vensa> xalbo: the desk at the office is the place one is at [16:35] == MayDaniel [~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel] has quit [] [16:36] == udjalus [8a64d0d8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.138.100.208.216] has quit [Client Quit] [16:36] <vensa> short for {mi de'a zvati lo jibni be lo skami} :) [16:37] <@xalbo> je'e [16:37] <vensa> you think {mi de'a jibni} would also be understandable? [16:38] == Imami [~Ali.Sajid@119.152.165.47] has quit [] [16:39] <vensa> coi udjalus [16:39] <@xalbo> probably, yeah [16:39] <vensa> lo do jufra pu nalgenra [16:40] == Sxem [~sky@pool-71-178-129-174.washdc.east.verizon.net] has joined #lojban [16:40] <vensa> si nalgendra [16:41] <vensa> .y .u'u li'a ja'a gendra [16:41] <vensa> gerna coi ro do ro do ro do ro do [16:41] <gerna> (0[{coi <(1ro BOI)1 do> DO'U} {<(1[{ro BOI} do] [{ro BOI} do])1 (1[ro BOI] do)1> VAU}])0 [16:41] <vensa> cizra [16:42] <soto> gerna lo cizra le cizra la cizra [16:42] <gerna> (0[{<(1lo cizra KU)1 (1le cizra KU)1> <la cizra KU>} VAU])0 [16:42] <vensa> hmm, aparently a list of sumti with no selbri is also a gramatical utterance [16:42] == kribacr [42c07e03@gateway/web/freenode/ip.66.192.126.3] has joined #lojban [16:42] <kribacr> coi [16:42] <vensa> probably in order to be able to answer questions like {ma zvati ma} [16:42] <@xalbo> Exactly. [16:42] <vensa> :) [16:42] <Volatile> heh. nice. [16:43] <kribacr> Sorry, my computer froze, so I missed anything you guys said. [16:43] <kribacr> What about ma zvati ma? [16:43] <vensa> we said: {coi ba'e la kribacr .i mi'a prami do} [16:44] <vensa> nm ma zvati ma [16:44] <Volatile> Hm, is no "omitted selbri" cmavu implictly involved somewhere? [16:45] <Volatile> co'e [16:45] <vensa> volatile:im not sure, but I can think of cases where it shouldnt be [16:45] <vensa> e.g.: {ma djica lonu ma cliva} [16:45] <vensa> the answer to that does not involve a single {co'e} relation between the two {ma}s [16:46] <vensa> xalbo: am I right? [16:46] == eternaleye [~alex@exherbo/developer/eternaleye] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] [16:46] <Volatile> Hm. And the answer does not have to have the relationship pointed out? [16:47] <@xalbo> I think there's some debate on whether one can omit {co'e} or not. [16:47] <vensa> IMO: no. the order of the sumti defines which {ma} each one is answering... [16:47] <Volatile> Is { zo'e zo'e } a legit answer, or do you have to do { zo'e co'e lonu zo'e co'e } ? :) [16:47] <vensa> yay! I love debate :) [16:47] <@xalbo> {zo'e zo'e} is absolutely a legit answer. [16:48] <@xalbo> And there's also a {bu'a} such that {mi ti bu'a} is the same as {mi djica lo nu mi ti cliva}, it's just a complicated one :) [16:48] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has joined #lojban [16:48] <kucli> coi ke'u ro do [16:48] <vensa> xalbo: how do you define that bu'a? [16:48] <vensa> (using cei) [16:49] <vensa> coi la kucli [16:50] <@xalbo> I'm not sure, actually. With one place free, I can use ckaji, but there needs to be something for more variables. [16:51] <Volatile> Is it always possible to interpret the answers as full structures omitting a lot of relation wordsL [16:51] <Volatile> s/L/?/ [16:51] <@xalbo> That is, {ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva} is *almost* it, but not quite. [16:51] <vensa> xalbo: I dont follow. but I gather that's the argument "for" including {co'e}. i.e. saying that there IS "some" selbri that relates the two sumti, so that selbri can be {co'e} even if its unclear what {co'e} actually is...? [16:52] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban [16:52] <vensa> wow! that was beautifuly complicated [16:52] <vensa> I think I understood the "gist" of it [16:52] <@xalbo> {djica co cliva} is pretty darn close, of course :) [16:52] <vensa> yes [16:53] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Client Quit] [16:53] <vensa> but an *exact* selbri is possible? because {ckaji} isnt *exactly* the same.... even if it were gramaticaly standardised to use all those {xi}s [16:54] <@xalbo> So, absent a question we're answering, {mi lo mensi be do} is a grammatical utterance, and {mi co'e lo mensi be do} is a grammatical and sensible utterance. The question is whether the former has the same meaning/interpretation as the latter. [16:54] <vensa> also: I misunderstand {ce'uxipa ce'uxire}. y not just {ce'uxire} [16:54] <@xalbo> I wanted {mi ti cliva}, not {ti cliva} [16:55] <vensa> oh "I leave here".. ok [16:56] <@xalbo> And I'm not even sure what your question about an exact selbri means. [16:56] <vensa> xalbo: but still: {mi ti ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva} puts {ti} in the x2 of ckaji. not in the ce'uxire [16:58] <vensa> I think that {mi co'e lo mensi be do} means that there is an expressable relationship between me and your sister. wether we want to allow using {co'e} even in cases where that relationship cannot be exactly expressed (in the same form as it were expressed in the question) is what the debate is about (I reckon ) [17:00] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has quit [Quit: Offline] [17:01] <kribacr> .i li'a si'a ji'a mi co'e lo mamta be do [17:01] <vensa> doi kribacr xa'a'a [17:01] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has quit [Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi] [17:02] <selpa`i> kribacr: Do you still teach like you did two years ago? [17:02] <@xalbo> I assert that it means there is a relationship that is relevant to the conversation, not that it can necessarily be expressed *simply*. [17:02] <kribacr> Wow... has it really been two years? O_O [17:02] <selpa`i> Yes, almost exactly- [17:02] <kribacr> Yes, I still teach. Well, in theory. I don't have as much t ime as I used to. [17:02] <vensa> xalbo: can it be expressed AT ALL? [17:02] <kribacr> But yes, I can still teach. [17:02] <@xalbo> (and I knew the {ckaji} was wrong, I was complaining about it at the time) [17:02] <selpa`i> Uh, sucks to hear that you are so busy. [17:02] <kribacr> Today seems like a slow day, so I may have time for a lesson in a few hours. [17:03] <kribacr> xalbo is a wonderful teacher as well. [17:03] <@xalbo> If there is a relationship that cannot be expressed, then lojban is utterly broken. I do not believe that is the case, though. [17:03] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has joined #lojban [17:03] == mode/#lojban [+o kpreid] by ChanServ [17:03] <selpa`i> Well, it was more of a general question, and I wouldnt be your pupil this time. [17:03] == sanotehu_ [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban [17:03] <kribacr> On the subject of implied co'e, if that's what you're talking about, I'm sort of a proponent for it. [17:03] <selpa`i> I know, xalbo is a nice teacher as well [17:03] <kribacr> Ah, gotcha. [17:03] <kribacr> Who? And how new? [17:03] <selpa`i> It was mostly a hypothetical question. [17:04] <selpa`i> I know someone who I would like to learn lojban or atleast get into it. [17:04] == sanotehu_ [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Client Quit] [17:04] <kribacr> Ah, gotcha. [17:04] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban [17:04] <vensa> xalbo: expressed with a single selbri. how? you cant even express a simple {ma broda lonu brode ma} with a single selbri, so what will you do with a huge number of {ma}s? [17:04] <@xalbo> Anyway, I'd love to have a word that means "x1 (relation with an arbitrary number of empty spots marked by ce'u) is true with x2 filling ce'u1, x3 filling ce'u2, etc" [17:04] <selpa`i> But it's unclear whether that person will actually do it. [17:05] <vensa> xalbo: that would probably solve it [17:05] <vensa> but as of currently, it seems that lojban is broken [17:05] <vensa> IF you add the implied co'e [17:05] <selpa`i> Does anyone happen to have the old chatlogs [17:05] <selpa`i> ? [17:05] <selpa`i> From 2 years ago? [17:06] <vensa> I think Hugglesworth has a bunch of logs on his machine. maybe they go back 2 yrs [17:06] <vensa> He once looked for something for me [17:06] <soto> http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/ ? [17:06] <@xalbo> vensa: The point is that that's a content word (it's just a selbri), and that the class of selbri is wide open. I could coin a fu'ivla that means just that, and there you go. [17:07] <vensa> hmmmmm [17:07] <vensa> but the original question did not use the fu'ivla. so is it still the same thing? [17:07] <@xalbo> There's nothing *fundamentally* unexpressible about that. [17:08] <vensa> yeah. I suppose I could/should be accepted (an implied co'e) [17:08] <vensa> so, whats the main argument AGAINST? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [17:08] <vensa> soto: that's stuff expressed IN LOJBAN only [17:08] <vensa> it filters out the english [17:09] <soto> oh right [17:09] <@xalbo> I'm not sure. And I was previously somewhat against it. But I really don't have a good argument against it. [17:09] <vensa> hehehe [17:09] <vensa> this is exactly what my discussion topics log is for [17:09] <@xalbo> I tend to include explicit {co'e}, but I'm not sure there's a reason to do so. [17:09] * vensa is archiving [17:09] <kribacr> I think the problem with implied {co'e} is when people just speak vocatives. [17:10] <vensa> kribacr: what does that mean? [17:10] <vensa> example? [17:11] <kribacr> Well... [17:11] <kribacr> coi la vensa [17:11] <vensa> coi .u'i [17:11] <kribacr> Is there an implied {co'e} there? [17:11] <vensa> ahhhh [17:11] <vensa> dunno. and if there is. what harm does it do? [17:11] <kribacr> If there is, is it harmless? [17:11] <kribacr> Right. [17:11] <vensa> I think its harmless [17:11] <kribacr> I'm just playing devil's advocate here. [17:12] <vensa> obviously, if I am addressing you, I am telling you something [17:12] <vensa> perhasp {coi la kribacr zo'e co'e zo'e} is {coi la kribacr mi rinsa do} [17:13] <vensa> btw: you could say the same thing about bare UI [17:13] <@xalbo> Answering questions is weird anyway. {.i ma fanta lo nu do mo}, for instance, naïvely produces an aswer that doesn't seem right at all. [17:13] <vensa> but there too I believe there is an implied {co'e} [17:14] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] [17:14] <vensa> xalbo: I think it's like the difference between "a complete answer" and fragments [17:14] <@xalbo> Yeah. [17:14] <vensa> I would reply {do fanta lonu mi surla} to be clear [17:14] <vensa> but is {do surla} a valid answer??? [17:15] <vensa> that seems wrong [17:15] <UukGoblin> I'd just reply {go'i} ;-] [17:15] == LogicallyDashing [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban [17:15] <vensa> because e.g. {broda pa} is ungramatical [17:15] <vensa> but I could have asked: {do mo xo gerku}? [17:16] <@xalbo> ke'u Answering questions is weird anyway. [17:16] == Amie [~Amie@122.172.26.171] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] [17:16] <vensa> I think full answers should be mandatory for questions with more than one question word [17:17] <vensa> or perhaps: {.i}-seperated answers [17:17] <UukGoblin> does {go'i} re-ask a {ma}/{mo} question? [17:17] <vensa> {do .i. surla} [17:17] <vensa> {broda .i pa} [17:17] <vensa> uuk: yes IMO [17:18] <vensa> you are repeating the question, leaving it in question form. [17:18] <vensa> you could be asking yourself aloud [17:18] <selpa`i> What? [17:18] <vensa> or asking the listener to answer instead of you [17:18] <@xalbo> There may be a case to be made for a I to separate answer words. It would also give an unambiguous way to answer a question instead of making a new, unrelated statement. [17:18] <vensa> .iesai [17:18] <UukGoblin> why 'unrelated'? ;-] [17:18] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has quit [Quit: Page closed] [17:19] * vensa is so happy he's archiving these new ideas [17:19] <UukGoblin> definitely related, although repeating a lot of what was said [17:19] <@xalbo> Maybe not "unrelated", but "dodging the question" [17:19] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has joined #lojban [17:19] <vensa> uuk: the statement {do surla} answers the question {ma fanta lonu do mo} but it makes an unrelated statement [17:20] <@xalbo> "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS." [17:20] <UukGoblin> oh, I see [17:20] <vensa> xalbo: "dodging questions should still be allowed"... just frowned upon :) [17:21] <UukGoblin> I thought replying with a full sentence made an unrelated statement [17:21] <vensa> no [17:21] <@xalbo> Yes. But the point is that if you ask a question with {mo}, I need a way to *not* answer it, and any bridi I saw *will* answer it. [17:22] <UukGoblin> mhm [17:22] <vensa> xalbo: example? [17:22] <tcatipax> mi na djuno? [17:22] <@xalbo> ke'u "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS." [17:22] <UukGoblin> like, "What are you doing?" "Nice weather, isn't it?" [17:22] <vensa> xalbo: how would that be in lojban? simpler version [17:23] <vensa> xalbo: whats wrong with answering {do mo} with {lo tcima cu pluka} [17:23] <vensa> ? [17:23] <@xalbo> .i do mo le mi mensi / .i .yy lo tcima ku melbi [17:23] <vensa> yeah. so whats the problem? [17:24] == donri [~dag@unaffiliated/dagodenhall] has joined #lojban [17:24] <@xalbo> Well, it *probably* carries over the x2, at least. [17:24] <vensa> wha?! [17:24] <vensa> why does it carry stuff over? [17:24] <@xalbo> Think about it. Is not {cinba} a valid answer there? [17:24] <vensa> you said {melbi}. not {go'i}. not {co'e} [17:25] <vensa> yes. cinba is valid [17:25] <vensa> BUT [17:25] <vensa> the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no? [17:25] <@xalbo> The answer to {mo} is some relationship such that its x1, x2, whatever other places were given to the {mo} make it true. [17:25] <vensa> but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no? [17:26] <@xalbo> I don't see where you get that from. [17:26] <vensa> common sense [17:26] <vensa> x1 or any other x [17:26] <kribacr> Tuesday's coming. Did you bring your coat? [17:27] <vensa> kribacr: is "Tuesday's coming" the answer? [17:27] <kribacr> I live in a giant bucket. [17:27] <vensa> kribacr: that is a y/n question. [17:27] <vensa> so unless I answered go'i or na go'i I dodged your question [17:28] <@xalbo> Well in {.i do mo / citka lo badna}, we're replacing in {lo badna} for the x2. Or is this new interpretive convention only for sumti that were previously explicitly filled? [17:28] <vensa> hmmm [17:28] <vensa> xalbo: in that example, you only ADDED X's. you didnt OVERRIDE any [17:28] <vensa> IMO when you OVERRIDE one of them, it becomes a "dodging" statement [17:29] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has quit [Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi] [17:30] <UukGoblin> well [17:30] <vensa> xalbo: also, I dont understand how my proposition about {i} seperating answers to a multiple-question question "solves" this for you [17:31] <UukGoblin> let my put my question into the discussion, which is probably what xalbo already mentioned: say someone asks {do mo}, and you want to make an observative about a rain that's just started so you want to say {carvi}, but that'll make /you/ rain [17:31] <@xalbo> My idea was to make a new I that would do nothing but separate/precede answers. Then {.i} would always be dodging, and the new I would be for answering. [17:32] <kribacr> .i but for answers? [17:32] <kribacr> I like that. [17:32] <selpa`i> Hm.. [17:32] <kribacr> .i ma gletu ma [17:32] <vensa> xalbo: ohhhh [17:32] == MayDaniel [~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel] has joined #lojban [17:32] == ksion [Xion@210-dzi-2.acn.waw.pl] has joined #lojban [17:32] <kribacr> new-I la .kribacr. new-I lo mamta be do [17:32] <kribacr> .i'e [17:32] <vensa> .u'isai [17:33] <kribacr> Hmm. [17:33] <selpa`i> Seems unnecessary [17:33] <vensa> and {new-I la kribacr .i lo tcima} would be a partial answer [17:33] <kribacr> Are there any CVV or CV'V that could be derived from ... danfu is it? [17:34] <vensa> you could change {paunai} to mean "answer follows" :P [17:35] <kribacr> Eww... no. [17:35] <@xalbo> {.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo}. [17:36] <vensa> uuk: in the {carvi} case I would just say {ti carvi} thereby overriding hte x1 {do} and making it into a statement not a question [17:36] <vensa> valsi nolraitru [17:36] <valsi> nolraitru = t1=n1 is a regent/monarch of t2 by standard n2. [17:36] <@xalbo> Just *try* and change the topic on that one. Note that there are no places to override. [17:36] == bortzmeyer [~bortzmeye@batilda.nic.fr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] [17:36] <vensa> xalbo: ooohhh [17:36] <vensa> you got me [17:37] <kribacr> D'oh, {dau} is taken. [17:37] <kribacr> Stupid hex. [17:37] <vensa> how about {mi na catra .i do bebna} :P [17:38] == Amie [~Amie@122.172.26.171] has joined #lojban [17:38] == tama [~tama@adsl-68-88-67-67.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] [17:38] <UukGoblin> there was this meta-negator [17:38] <UukGoblin> metalinguistic negator [17:38] <UukGoblin> na'i [17:39] <vensa> yes! good point Uk [17:39] <vensa> it seems very handy here [17:39] <vensa> {.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo}. {na'i} [17:39] <vensa> I wanted to say also that the "new i" should be for cases where you DONT intend to answer becuz those are the less frequent cases [17:40] <vensa> so using {na'i} for that purpose exactly seems brilliant. (and the intended way) [17:41] <vensa> so the answer to the {carvi} problem would be. {.i na'i carvi} [17:41] <UukGoblin> hm. [17:41] <selpa`i> How do you say "this" as in "this house" ? [17:42] <UukGoblin> I kinda thought {na'i} would mean "your question is wrong" rather than "I don't feel like answering it" [17:42] <@xalbo> vensa: That says it's not raining. [17:42] <UukGoblin> selpa`i, {ti}? [17:42] <vensa> selpa'i {lo vi zdani} [17:42] <@xalbo> selpa`i: {ti poi zdani}, roughly. [17:42] * vensa is looking up na'i [17:42] <@xalbo> (could also be {noi} instead of {poi}) [17:43] <selpa`i> Thx gusy. [17:43] <kribacr> lo bu'u zdani [17:43] <selpa`i> Guys. [17:43] <dbrock-> I too would like to have a word that indicates that something is an answer [17:43] <dbrock-> the opposite of {pau} [17:44] <kribacr> Hmm. I wish there was more CVV and CV'V space available. ._. [17:44] <vensa> xalbo: so, {na'i .i carvi} [17:44] == Suprano [~Suprano@vpn-stud.rz-zw.fh-kl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] [17:44] <dbrock-> if I got to choose, {pau nai} would mean "answer follows", {pau cu'i} would mean "question does not follow", and {pau nai cu'i} would mean "answer does not follow" [17:45] <vensa> I still think maybe the word should be for "this is NOT an answer". I would hate to be required to utter another syllable for 99% of the time [17:45] <@xalbo> dbrock-: Then I'm glad you don't get to choose. [17:45] <dbrock-> :) [17:45] <@xalbo> Sorry, had to go there, but I don't think that's a natural scale at all, and it changes way too much. [17:45] <kribacr> da'au [17:46] <vensa> dbrock: does {pau} currently have a {cu'i}? [17:46] <dbrock-> yeah, I think of {UI nai} as being a separate scale [17:46] <dbrock-> but that's not how most people think of it [17:46] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has quit [Quit: Offline] [17:46] <@xalbo> I just don't like {.i} between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence. [17:46] <vensa> xalbo: what was that an answer to? [17:47] <dbrock-> to me, the {pau} scale would be "how much of a question is this", whereas the {pau nai} scale would be "how much of an answer is this" [17:47] <dbrock-> so you could have {pau pau nai} for "answering with a question" [17:47] <vensa> how about {pauna'i} for "I dont intent to answer you"? :P [17:47] <dbrock-> well, {pau nai pau} would be a more natural order, I guess [17:48] <@xalbo> vensa: What was what an answer to? [17:48] == urandom_ [~user@p548A63A4.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lojban [17:49] <@xalbo> ({ge'i}, for instance, I don't think can be answered except with a whole sentence) [17:49] <dbrock-> {fu'e pau nai i broda i brode i brodi fu'o}? [17:49] <vensa> xalbo: the statement you said above the statement I said that asked tha [17:49] <vensa> *that [17:49] <dbrock-> for a three-part-answer [17:49] == tcatipax [d9ab814a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.217.171.129.74] has quit [Quit: Page closed] [17:50] <@xalbo> vensa: Just quote the mabla sentence. [17:50] <vensa> valsi ge'i [17:50] <valsi> ge'i = logical connective: forethought all but tanru-internal connective question (with gi). [17:50] <vensa> <@xalbo> I just don't like {.i} between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence. [17:50] <vensa> gerna ge [17:50] <gerna> not grammatical: ge ⚠[17:50] <vensa> gerna e [17:50] <gerna> (0e)0 [17:50] <vensa> hmmm.. geks alone seem to be ungramatical [17:50] <dbrock-> gerna ge co'e gi co'e [17:50] <gerna> (0[ge {co'e VAU} gi {co'e VAU} VAU])0 [17:51] <vensa> gerna ge gi [17:51] <gerna> not grammatical: ge _gi_ ⚠[17:51] <dbrock-> what's the problem with that? [17:51] <vensa> yeah, xalbo? [17:51] <@xalbo> Means that a question with {ge'i} is harder to answer. [17:51] == urandom__ [~user@p548A498A.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] [17:51] <vensa> not if we add implied {gi} to the grammar parser [17:51] <dbrock-> true [17:51] <@xalbo> At least, the only way to answer it is to make an entire bridi, not just fill in the blank. [17:52] <dbrock-> I guess you could answer with an afterthought connective? [17:52] <vensa> de'a [17:52] <@xalbo> Um, *{ge gi} isn't legal either. [17:53] <dbrock-> see any problem with answering with afterthoughts, xalbo? [17:54] <@xalbo> Don't know. In general it's odd to answer with something other than the form of the question. [17:58] == Suprano [~Suprano@p57B13280.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lojban [17:59] == syllogism [~syllogism@173.216.64.250] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] [18:00] <vensa> dbrock: a question could contain both {ge'i} AND {ji} so that answering in a diff form would be confusing [18:00] <vensa> xalbo: add implied co'es too and you'll get {ge co'e gi co'e} [18:01] <@xalbo> If you try to answer out of order, though, you *really* screw things up, so I don't think that's a problem. [18:01] <vensa> xalbo: why do you think {.i} between multiple parts of a fragmented answer cant be a complete reply? [18:03] <@xalbo> {.i} separates bridi by the same speaker. That seems pretty different from separating fragments that are all used to fill parts of a single bridi. [18:03] <vensa> why? [18:03] == Suprano [~Suprano@p57B13280.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] [18:03] <vensa> ma tavla ma -> .i mi .i do [18:04] <vensa> means: {.i mi tavla .i do se tavla} [18:04] <vensa> (remeber the implied co'e) [18:04] <@xalbo> That seems very different from {mi tavla do}. [18:05] <vensa> why? context welds them together IMO [18:05] <vensa> how do you solve the {do surla} bug with something other than a seperating {i}? [18:06] <dbrock-> xalbo has already proposed the addition of new I [18:06] <vensa> oh. [18:06] <vensa> so {newI mi newI do} is acceptable xalbo? [18:06] <dbrock-> danfu ze'ei i mi danfu ze'ei i do [18:06] <@xalbo> Seems much more so, yes. [18:07] <vensa> i c [18:07] <vensa> fine we need the newI for other things too (specifying dodging answers) [18:07] <@xalbo> (I'd still probably just answer {mi do}, but for more complicated ones, yes) [18:07] <dbrock-> I don't really see why we need a new I [18:08] <@xalbo> The point is that if newI is for answering, then oldI (spelled {.i}) keeps its completely normal function, which just happens to work out to question dodging. [18:08] <dbrock-> well, it's not a matter of need, of course [18:08] <vensa> in that case I am "for" dbrock's {paunai} def [18:08] <dbrock-> but I mean other similar things are solved using UI [18:08] <@xalbo> (and in most cases, you start speaking without either, so there's no problem) [18:09] <vensa> xalbo: isnt there an implied {oldI} at the start? [18:09] <@xalbo> I strongly oppose changing {pau nai}. You can argue for a UI, but you can't have that one. [18:09] <dbrock-> I don't propose changing {pau nai} [18:09] <dbrock-> you can't do things like that [18:10] <vensa> {paucu'i} is currently undefined [18:10] <dbrock-> it's impossible, so debating it is a waste of time [18:10] <vensa> dbrock: 1. anything is posible [18:10] <vensa> 2. didt you suggest that earlier? [18:10] <vensa> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Discursives [18:10] <UukGoblin> hm. [18:11] <dbrock-> I have long been an advocate of thinking of {UI ja'ai} and {UI nai} as completely separate scales [18:12] <vensa> so you did suggest to change {paunai} [18:12] <UukGoblin> with stuff like 'paunai', what is there to distinguish between definitions like 'answer follows', 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'? [18:12] <dbrock-> that's why I said "if I got to choose, {pau nai} would mean "answer follows" " [18:12] <UukGoblin> :-] [18:12] <dbrock-> I didn't say "I propose we change the meaning of {pau nai}" [18:12] <vensa> oh [18:12] <vensa> I read that as that [18:13] <vensa> who cares about the old meaning of {paunai} its probably rarely been used [18:13] <dbrock-> yeah, I can see how you'd read it as a proposal [18:13] <@xalbo> (Note that I also didn't say "we need a new I" but "a case could be made for a new I" [18:13] <dbrock-> {pau nai} has seen significant enough use that people will just say "NO" [18:13] <vensa> uuk: what you mean by 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows' [18:13] <dbrock-> and the only effect of trying to change its meaning will be to cement the old meaning even further [18:13] <vensa> xalbo :) [18:14] <vensa> "cement"? [18:14] <UukGoblin> vensa, "the following is not meant to be intepreted as a question" and "the following is meant to cancel the question in question" [18:15] <vensa> I am very much an advocate of changing the old for the benefit of the future. as an answer to the nay-saying conservatives I have proposed the "version\scripting" system [18:15] <UukGoblin> cementing is a popular technique of postponing trouble with blown up nuclear reactors for later [18:15] <vensa> uuk: regular {i} is the first. and you cant obliterate a question once it was asked. you can just choose to not answer it with regular {i} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [18:17] <UukGoblin> vensa, nah, it's kinda not my question... my problem is {pau nai} is a cluster, but because {pau} can be negated in different ways, doesn't it make {pau nai} a bit ambiguous? {CODE} {CODE(wrap="1")}[17:18] <vensa> xalbo: how does {i'au} sound to you as the "newI"? (from {i} + {danfu}) [17:18] * Volatile citka [17:18] <vensa> Volatile: {zo'oi} is for one word quote only [17:19] <Volatile> vensa: well, that was one word quoted. Then, I kinda changed language. [17:19] <vensa> Volatile: you can translate word by word using valsi. it still wont help you understand the grammar [17:19] <vensa> Volatile: that doesnt parse [17:19] <@xalbo> vensa: Feels like an attitudinal to me. [17:19] <vensa> you need {zoi .gy. bla bla bla .gy} [17:20] <vensa> xalbo: does {i} feel like an attitudinal? [17:20] <vensa> are there experimental-cmavo attitudinals? [17:20] <vensa> I guess ur right tho [17:21] <@xalbo> I'm used to single vowels being connectives, and multiple vowels being UI1. It's not set in stone of course, but probably not good to mess with. [17:21] <Volatile> vensa: I meant to just quote one word, but then I realize that I don't really know the correct grammar (modals, no?) to express what I wanted anyhow... [17:21] <vensa> V: fine [17:21] * Volatile cu citka.i co'o [17:22] <vensa> xalbo: {da'au}? [17:22] <@xalbo> Better. [17:22] <vensa> or: {ni'au} (ni'o} + {danfu} [17:24] <kribacr> .u'i sai coi jungo [17:24] <vensa> yeah it does sound a bit chinese [17:24] <vensa> kribacr: did you hear about our idea? [17:24] <kribacr> Yes. [17:24] <kribacr> I for responses. [17:24] <kribacr> I was here yesterday. [17:25] <vensa> those are different I's in ur 2 sentences... [17:25] <vensa> english ambiguity :P [17:25] <kribacr> I lamented the fact that {dau} was unavailable. [17:25] <kribacr> Indeed. [17:25] <@xalbo> Right now I have my head in the *huge* bpfk thread from the weekend, about where "texts" begin and end with multiple speakers [17:26] <ksion> coi rodo .i ma lamji je fanza se stidi la vensa u'i [17:26] <vensa> thats also a big one [17:26] <vensa> .u'iru'e .oiro'a doi ksion [17:26] <@xalbo> Unfortunately, we don't have a convention for quoting selma'o names in running English text (since for all but I there's not much problem), nor even for talking about them in Lojban. [17:27] <vensa> doi ksion ni'au lo danfu valsi [17:27] <ksion> ue [17:27] <ksion> xu do stidi tu'a lo cmavo pe lo danfu pe fi'o simsa zo pau [17:28] <ksion> s/lo danfu pe/lo danfu zi'epe [17:28] <vensa> ksion: {ni'au} (sounds cooler) is the proposed cmavo which will act "like" an {i} but signal that the utterance is a "partial reply" to a question word, and not a full sentence [17:28] <@xalbo> .i cmavo lo selma'o be zo .i [17:28] <ksion> And the need for having this is ...? [17:29] <vensa> imagine you are asked a multiple-question question, e.g.: [17:29] <vensa> {ma djica lonu do mo} [17:29] <ksion> xalbo: I usually say {zo'oi FAhA}. [17:30] <vensa> if you want the full answer to be {do djica lonu mi surla} would you say {do surla}? [17:30] <ksion> No, {do .i surla}. [17:30] <vensa> becuz that seems to imply some other nonexistent bridi relationship [17:31] <vensa> yes, that may be enough. but [17:31] <vensa> then we got into decding how we are supposed to "avoid" a question [17:31] <vensa> I ask you {do mo} but you dont want to answer. you want to point out that it's raininng so you say {carvi} [17:31] <vensa> it "seems" as though you are claiming that {mi carvi} [17:32] <ksion> {.i co'e .i carvi} [17:32] <selpa`i> how bout ni'o [17:32] <ksion> {ni'o} or {ta'o} is fine too. [17:32] <vensa> xsion: what about if I ask {xo} and you dont want to answer? [17:33] <ksion> ji'i [17:33] <vensa> so basically the questioner forces the listener to respond to their question, even if its with a vague answer, get the question "out of the way" before he can say anything? [17:33] <ksion> (if you want a question type where I don't have a 'neutral' reply, try {cu'e} :) ) [17:33] <vensa> IMO that is a little annoying [17:34] <vensa> valsi cu'e [17:34] <valsi> cu'e = tense/modal question. [17:34] <selpa`i> I dont think its a problem [17:34] <ksion> Then {.i .i <your stuff>} works. [17:34] <vensa> do'e [17:34] <selpa`i> When I answer by saying something unrelated, then context will show that I didnt care to answer. [17:34] <vensa> {do'e} is vague of {cu'e} [17:34] <vensa> but there is no vague for {fi'a} [17:34] <vensa> valsi fi'a [17:34] <selpa`i> That happens all the time in natural languages too [17:35] <valsi> fi'a = sumti place tag: place structure number/tag question. [17:35] <ksion> {faxiji'i} [17:35] <vensa> selpa'i: but there can be unclear cases where it's not clear if you are answering or not [17:35] <vensa> ksion: nice [17:35] <selpa`i> In such a case, the question asker will ask for clarification like normal [17:35] <vensa> still. y force the listener to "get the question out of the way". [17:35] <ksion> vensa: Question is not enforced grammatically. You don't have to escape it by grammatical means, really. [17:36] == Dessous [~DaMan@a88-115-70-173.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #lojban [17:36] <vensa> if I ask you {ma mo mo xo ma mo xu} [17:36] <selpa`i> That's a stupid question [17:36] <vensa> selpa'i: it's just an example [17:36] <ksion> Then the correct answer is {ko ko gletu} :P [17:36] <selpa`i> yes [17:36] <vensa> I can fill it with other "meaning" words and leave the same number of Q words [17:36] <selpa`i> u'i [17:36] <vensa> xa'a [17:37] <selpa`i> If you ask me such a dumb question, you cant expect me to answer it [17:37] <ksion> Or {ki'a}, if you still want to be polite (I'd not be). [17:37] <vensa> ksion: you say I dont have to escape the question. so why do you propose the {co'e .i broda} approach? [17:38] <selpa`i> co'e is a polite evasion move [17:38] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] [17:38] <ksion> vensa: Because it is customary to expect an answer after a question. It's not by-grammar though, but only by-semantics. [17:38] <vensa> IMO if you ask me a question I should be able to say whatever I want. but only if I want to ONLY "fill in the slots" of the question words, I need something like {ni'au} [17:38] <selpa`i> I agree. [17:39] <timonator> ni'au? [17:39] <vensa> ksion: I think this should be decided by grammar. much like the {go'i} answer is a gramatical mechanism [17:39] <ksion> ta'a ni'o ta'o a'anai -- Possible solutions. [17:40] <ksion> {go'i} being answer is not grammatical mechanism. {go'i} being last bridi is. [17:40] <vensa> I think not defining this issue is leaving room for some sort of ambiguity [17:40] <timonator> right, go'i is by far not only for answers [17:40] <vensa> not only [17:40] <timonator> {i za'a ta muvdu} {i do go'i gasnu} {i mi na go'i} [17:40] <vensa> nm go'i [17:41] <kribacr> .i do ja'a go'i [17:41] <kribacr> coi spitaki [17:41] <ksion> [17:40:49] <vensa> I think not defining this issue is leaving room for some sort of ambiguity -- And? [17:41] <kribacr> ko cikna binxo [17:41] <vensa> And? do you like ambiguity? [17:41] <selpa`i> lojban is hella ambiguous anyway [17:41] <vensa> says you [17:41] <vensa> it's not supposed to be [17:41] <ksion> Semantically, I'm from neutral to positive. [17:42] <selpa`i> Semantically it is. [17:42] <ksion> Of course it is supposed to be. [17:42] <selpa`i> Grammatically, not so much. [17:42] <ksion> .i mi za'e firxance lo se cusku be la vensa [17:42] <vensa> valsi firxance [17:42] <valsi> no results. http://vlasisku.lojban.org/firxance [17:42] <vensa> oh [17:42] <vensa> is that an example of semantic ambiguity [17:42] <vensa> ? [17:43] <ksion> Nope ;) [17:43] <vensa> but it is [17:43] <ksion> Well, nonce words are an example of it. [17:43] <vensa> xalbo: help me out here [17:43] <ksion> ({firxance}, as it's not-so-hard to figure out, is meant to mean "facepalm" :) ) [17:43] <vensa> why did we think it was a good idea yesterday? [17:45] <vensa> ksion: you want to go over the discussion and see if you agree with any of it? [17:45] <vensa> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Implied+%7Bco%27e%7D+and+Multiple-Question+Questions [17:45] <ksion> Sure. [17:45] <vensa> gr8 [17:45] * vensa is glad there is a use for his archiving [17:47] <@xalbo> .oi [17:48] <ksion> vensa: You can extract a place from any number of nested abstractions be using an appropriate number of {jai} and SE. [17:48] <@xalbo> It seems wrong that we use the same cmavo ({.i}) for starting a new complete bridi, and for filling in sequential fragments of someone else's bridi. [17:49] <Volatile> "facepalm" sounds like some kind of tree to me. Guess it's some malglico... [17:49] <vensa> I think we should decide between 3 options: 1. you need to say {co'e} and {ji'i} for every question to get it out of the way first (i dont like this option) 2. you say {ta'a} or {ni'o} or something to imply that you are NOT answering the question 3. you use {ni'au} for cases when you want to indicate that you ARE answering [17:49] <vensa> xalbo: "seems wrong" is a bit short of an argument IMO [17:50] <selpa`i> #3 seems terrible [17:50] <ksion> 4. You say what you want since question aren't grammatically binding. [17:50] <vensa> ksion: ki'e [17:50] <selpa`i> I like 4 the best. [17:50] <vensa> ksion: if 4, then who knows whether I'm answering you or not? [17:51] <selpa`i> Context. [17:51] <vensa> I can imagine cases where it's unclear from context [17:51] * Volatile does not like " [17:51] <Volatile> argh [17:51] <Volatile> 4 [17:51] <vensa> so what if "natlangs get away with it" [17:51] <selpa`i> Sure, but in those cases, you can clarify. [17:51] <ksion> "What are you doing?" "Raining" [17:51] <@xalbo> Well, 4 is always going to be the most common, and with good reason. But it still seems important (there's that "seems" again) to be able to specify one way or another. [17:53] <Volatile> I'd say that in this language more than others, specificity matters... [17:54] <vensa> wouldnt it be prettier if lojban had an elegent way to deal with it? [17:54] <ksion> [17:38] <UukGoblin> na'i -- uasai, how could I forget it! [17:54] <ksion> There you go, your miraculous "escape-all-questions" cmavo. [17:54] <vensa> selpa'i: calrifying with more sentences is exaclty the thing we want to avoid in lojban [17:54] <@xalbo> The example I use before, I think, was {.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo}. Answering {co'e} there is a bad idea. [17:55] <selpa`i> Is that so? [17:55] <@xalbo> ksion: Problem is that {na'i} isn't avoiding an answer, it's specifically saying that there *isn't* one. [17:55] <vensa> xalbo: yes! thank you! the {catra} example [17:56] <vensa> .ie on the {na'i} not working [17:56] <vensa> {na'i} is something else [17:56] <selpa`i> Why did you kill the monarch? [17:56] <@xalbo> If you ask the above catra question, I can't plead the fifth in Lojban. I can use {na'}, or I can give a reason, but I can't just say "I want a lawyer!" without that being my answer for why I killed him. [17:57] <ksion> je'e [17:58] <ksion> Then that's why we have {na'i}. [17:59] <@xalbo> {na'i} doesn't do that, though. It says that the question itself is wrong (in this case, because I didn't kill him), not that I'm not going to answer it. [17:59] <vensa> ksion {na'i catra .i mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer}? [17:59] * Volatile klama .i co'o [17:59] <ksion> vensa: {na'i} is UI. Thus {.i go'i na'i} [18:00] <vensa> xalbo: so why not {i go'i na'i .i <what you want to say>} [18:00] <@xalbo> That means {mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu no'a na'i}, which sure seems b0rken to me. [18:00] <ksion> ...What? [18:00] <vensa> huh? [18:00] <selpa`i> ..? [18:01] == Wolvenreign [~david@c-69-136-176-250.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #lojban [18:01] <@xalbo> I asked for a {mo}. You gave me a bridi. [18:01] <vensa> it says {na'i mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu ma} [18:01] <vensa> ohhhh [18:01] == Wolvenreign has changed nick to labnytru [18:01] <ksion> No, I gave you a selbri. Which is incidentally the same. [18:01] <vensa> wow - this raises another issue [18:02] <ksion> ... [18:02] <@xalbo> But even without that, the {na'i} doesn't not answer the question. it asserts that the question is wrong. That's different. [18:03] <vensa> A says {do djica lonu mo} B wants to repeat the question to A. does {go'i ra'o} work? [18:03] <ksion> xalbo: It doesn't answer it. [18:03] <labnytru> coi rodo [18:03] <vensa> xalbo: legal differences. "I didnt say I didnt do it" :P -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [18:05] <@xalbo> For whatever legal reason, I don't want to say that I *didn't* kill him, but I sure as Hell don't want to say I did. All I *want* to say is "I want a lawyer". [18:05] <@xalbo> {na'i} does the first of those three, {co'e} the second. [18:06] <labnytru> So, folks. [18:06] <ksion> Congratulations. You made me use the biggest cannon. [18:06] <labnytru> How many of you know what SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is? [18:06] <ksion> Behold, {sei}! ... {.i sei na pinka} [18:08] <@xalbo> labnytru: I only know of SEO as "Evil people trying to hijack Google to show me what they want instead of what I want." [18:08] <ksion> (Although I still think xalbo misunderstands {na'i} giving it less "power" than it really has) [18:08] <labnytru> Good enough answer, although it doesn't have to be that way. [18:09] <labnytru> Ultimately, you could have a website with valuable information related to the keyword and not have it show up on Google because of it's lack of optimization. [18:09] <ksion> {na'i} is metalinguistic. It invalidates EVERYTHING linguistically associated with statement it marks. It does not only negate the "truth case", but also "false case". [18:09] <@xalbo> Point. [18:09] <vensa> xalbo: why not go with option2? {do pu catra lo nulraitru ki'u lonu mo} -> {ni'o mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer} [18:10] <labnytru> Well, with that in mind... [18:10] <vensa> xalbo: does "point" mean you agree about {na'i} with ksion? [18:10] <@xalbo> It means that ksion made a good point about {na'i}, and I'm stepping back to reconsider in light of that. [18:11] <labnytru> I've been working with an SEO forum to learn more...and I've been chosen to be the sole co-moderator of it. [18:11] <vensa> ok. so we're going with option2 and {na'i}?{CODE} {CODE(wrap="1")}[19:00] <ksion> vensa: So, did we come to any conclusions regarding your question issues? [19:00] <vensa> selpa'i: {i mi kakne lonu ca lonu} sounded like you were correcting yourself [19:00] <selpa`i> *fai [19:00] <selpa`i> I wasnt [19:00] <kribacr> Yes, exactly. [19:00] <vensa> ksion: I think we said to use {na'i} if you want to avoid answering a question [19:00] <selpa`i> or was I? It should be in the text [19:01] <kribacr> The x1 becomes the {fai}-tagged slot. [19:01] <selpa`i> Yes. [19:01] <vensa> you wasnt [19:01] <kribacr> Tagless {jai} basically implies a {tu'a} for the x1. [19:01] <vensa> but your voice sounded like you were [19:01] <vensa> it confused me [19:01] <selpa`i> okay [19:01] <kribacr> You understand {.i tu'a mi bandu do}? [19:01] <selpa`i> valsi bandu [19:01] <valsi> bandu = x1 (event) defends/protects x2 (object/state) from threat/peril/potential x3 (event). [19:01] <selpa`i> Yes. [19:01] <selpa`i> I do. [19:01] <ksion> vensa: Okay. Thing is, I don't like it. xalbo was wrong about {na'i} invalidationg only the "truth variant" of the question but was right about it invalidating the question and not only expressing the desire to avoid answering it. [19:01] == tcatypatxu [d9ab8148@gateway/web/freenode/ip.217.171.129.72] has joined #lojban [19:02] <kribacr> {.i mi jai bandu do} means pretty much the same thing. [19:02] <selpa`i> *head explodes* [19:02] <tcatypatxu> mi citka lo pitnanba be lo vo cilra [19:02] <tcatypatxu> Guess! [19:02] <ksion> cilra ki'a [19:02] <vensa> ksion: "invalidating the question" gives you the option to say something else. you dont need to "express your desire to not answer it" IMO. you could do that with an additional attitudianl [19:03] <selpa`i> So {jai bandu} is the selbri? [19:03] <kribacr> Yes. [19:03] <selpa`i> Which has x1 = tu'a something [19:03] == MayDaniel [~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel] has quit [] [19:03] <ksion> vensa: True. But {na'i} also states that question is metalinguistically wrong *regardless* of you wanting or not to answer it. [19:03] <selpa`i> Okay [19:04] <tcatypatxu> I assume my sentence is correct since no one is telling me 101 ways I'm horribly wrong :D [19:04] <kribacr> With a place structure of "x1 defends/protects x2 (object/state) from threat/peril/potential x3 (event) with event of defending fai". Or something like that. [19:04] <ksion> vensa: And the other way around: you would have to invalidate a totally valid question if you didn't want to answer it and used {na'i} to express that unwillingness/ [19:05] <selpa`i> uanai [19:05] <kribacr> Where am I losing you? [19:05] == smajis [~josy@92.14.153.58] has joined #lojban [19:05] <vensa> ksion: ok. so do you feel better about {ni'o} instead of {na'i}? [19:05] <selpa`i> It's just so weird and confusing [19:05] <selpa`i> Especially since it seems to double [19:06] <selpa`i> fai and x2 are the same there or not? [19:06] == vilfredo [~wilfred@cpc1-woki6-2-0-cust455.6-2.cable.virginmedia.com] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] [19:06] <ksion> vensa: Yes. [19:06] <selpa`i> And in {mi jai bandu do} fai is not even used. [19:06] <smajis> .i coi [19:07] <kribacr> {fai} is just another spot. [19:07] <vensa> ksion: good. then let that be the new conclusion. except we'll need the BPFK to include that in the definition of {ni'o} [19:07] <kribacr> You don't have to fill every place. [19:07] <kribacr> Same with SE. [19:07] <selpa`i> I know. [19:07] <kribacr> You can easily just say {.i mi te vecnu}. [19:07] <ksion> vensa: Maybe. Not sure if it's needed. "New topic" being the key part of {ni'o}'s definition is pretty clear. [19:08] <vensa> ksion: ok. then maybe in the second-layer guidelines [19:08] <selpa`i> It's confusing that {tu'a mi bandu du} = {mi jai bandu do} [19:08] == zyzazezuzizo [~antoine@78.114.15.185] has joined #lojban [19:08] <ksion> vensa: u'i You like the layers! :) [19:08] <vensa> yes :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [19:09] <ksion> Better to like the layers than be liked by lawyers. [19:10] <vensa> .u'i{CODE}
About
Introduction
What Others Say
FAQ
Learning
Books
Vocabulary
Lojbanic Software
Community
Web/Email Forums
IRC Chat
Links
News
Dictionary
Swag
Multimedia
Lojbanic Texts
Audio
Wiki
Recent Changes
Popular Pages
How To Edit
The LLG
Official Projects
Publications
Donate!
Contact Us
Search Lojban Resources