~pp~zgana: new question: what kinds of things can be pensi2
~pp~[3:42pm] selpa`i: I asked that same question like 2 weeks ago.
~pp~[3:42pm] zgana: aaand?
~pp~[3:42pm] lindar: du'u
~pp~[3:42pm] selpa`i: I still can't tell for sure.
~pp~[3:42pm] selpa`i: du'u yes
~pp~[3:42pm] selpa`i: But what else?
~pp~[3:42pm] selpa`i: Some ppl said nu
~pp~[3:43pm] lindar: Yeah, I saw that.
~pp~[3:43pm] lindar: It's wrong.
~pp~[3:43pm] zgana: it says subject/concept in the definition
~pp~[3:43pm] lindar: ...or at least less correct.
~pp~[3:43pm] zgana: not fact
~pp~[3:43pm] tricus left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
~pp~[3:43pm] lindar: ...
~pp~[3:43pm] lindar: Well... that's what's been used.
~pp~[3:43pm] lindar: Maybe si'o?
~pp~[3:43pm] lindar: It's a weird word.
~pp~[3:44pm] lindar: The common convention has du'u as pensi2.
~pp~[3:44pm] selpa`i: is it malgli to use it for "I think I will go"?
~pp~[3:44pm] zgana: probably
~pp~[3:44pm] selpa`i: The definition is a bit unclear to me
~pp~[3:44pm] lindar: It -is- unclear.
~pp~[3:44pm] zgana: what do you mean by "i think i will"
~pp~[3:44pm] lindar: If you have a problem, write a proposal. We can submit it as an official proposal to the BPFK.
~pp~[3:44pm] zgana: are you unsure? are you deciding?
~pp~[3:45pm] tricus joined the chat room.
~pp~[3:45pm] selpa`i: both
~pp~[3:45pm] selpa`i: kinda
~pp~[3:45pm] tricus left the chat room.
~pp~[3:45pm] selpa`i: it seems malgli
~pp~[3:45pm] lindar: I'm not particularly sure.
~pp~[3:45pm] selpa`i: but allowing only du'u seems about weird
~pp~[3:45pm] lindar: I'm actually going to side against convention in this case and say anything could be put there, but an abstraction seems -more- correct.
~pp~[3:45pm] lindar: rlpowell: Can we get your input?
~pp~[3:46pm] zgana: valsi djuno
~pp~[3:46pm] lindar: Broca: If you're here, I'd love your input as well.
~pp~[3:46pm] zgana: .oi
~pp~[3:46pm] lindar: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/
~pp~[3:46pm] zgana: i know but i wanted it here for the discussion
~pp~[3:46pm] tricus joined the chat room.
~pp~[3:46pm] lindar: Also there are goldendict dictionaries and other stuff....
~pp~[3:46pm] zgana: x2 is a fact, x3 is a subject
~pp~[3:46pm] zgana: to mi ca'o pilno la vlasisku toi
~pp~[3:47pm] lindar: Hmmm...
~pp~[3:47pm] selpa`i: mi pensi do
~pp~[3:47pm] lindar: Like I said, write up the proposal, use your evidence (that was a good one), and I'll submit it.
~pp~[3:48pm] Moddington is now known as Modd|nazvati.
~pp~[3:48pm] rlpowell: lindar: With what?
~pp~[3:48pm] selpa`i: pensi2
~pp~[3:49pm] lindar: What goes in pensi2?
~pp~[3:50pm] zgana: selpa`i: in your example, i'd maybe say {.i ju'o ru'e ba zi cliva}
~pp~[3:51pm] selpa`i: .ie
~pp~[3:51pm] selpa`i: Something like that
~pp~[3:51pm] zgana: .i zo .au ka'e co'e .e'u ru'e
~pp~[3:52pm] selpa`i: never = no roi?
~pp~[3:53pm] latros: I think so?
~pp~[3:53pm] selpa`i: k
~pp~[3:54pm] lindar: Ehm... kinda?
~pp~[3:54pm] lindar: "Zero times"
~pp~[3:54pm] donri left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
~pp~[3:55pm] zgana: {na pu} might work if you just mean {i've never ___}
~pp~[3:55pm] lindar: You haven't in the past...
~pp~[3:56pm] selpa`i: On that note, it'd be useful to have a template of how the maximum selbri would look, most importantly the order of the tenses, negations etc
~pp~[3:56pm] selpa`i: NA PU SELBRI, but with all the selma'o that can be in a selbri
~pp~[3:57pm] Xunie joined the chat room.
~pp~[3:57pm] rlpowell: lindar: A du'u or a si'o, I should think.
~pp~[3:57pm] selpa`i: what about simple ko'a?
~pp~[3:57pm] selpa`i: KOhA
~pp~[3:58pm] rlpowell: lindar: The issue of what goes in various places is a large one that needs some real sit-down discussion betwene a bunch of peolpe at some point; if there's something about pensi2 that's unusually weird in this respect, it should be noted on the gismu issues page.
~pp~[3:58pm] selpa`i: "I think about you" mi pensi do
~pp~[3:58pm] selpa`i: is that BS?
~pp~[3:58pm] lindar: It sounds reasonable to me.
~pp~[3:58pm] lindar: Like I said, somebody write up the proposal, I'll put it on the correct page.
~pp~[3:58pm] rlpowell: selpa`i: Was your KOhA question about pensi2?
~pp~[3:59pm] selpa`i: Yes
~pp~[3:59pm] rlpowell: Because that sounds like sumti raising to me.
~pp~[3:59pm] zgana: i've never seen any other proposals, so i wouldn't necessarily know how to start
~pp~[3:59pm] zgana: rlpowell: consider djuno2 and djuno3
~pp~[3:59pm] zgana: or cilre
~pp~[3:59pm] zgana: subjects can be things, in those words
~pp~[3:59pm] selpa`i: djuno2?
~pp~[3:59pm] lindar: Yeah, I really have to agree there.
~pp~[4:00pm] latros: is there a way to raise without having to use SE
~pp~[4:00pm] lindar: That's not what that means.
~pp~[4:00pm] latros: er
~pp~[4:00pm] rlpowell: zgana: the "subject" places there look pretty seriously redundant.
~pp~[4:00pm] latros: wait
~pp~[4:00pm] latros: nvm
~pp~[4:00pm] latros: tu'a, right right
~pp~[4:00pm] selpa`i: redundant?
~pp~[4:00pm] selpa`i: they get used all the time
~pp~[4:01pm] lindar: They are somewhat redundant as one or the other gets used, but never both at once.
~pp~[4:01pm] zgana: they could be replaced by zo'ei constructs, probably
~pp~[4:01pm] selpa`i: true
~pp~[4:01pm] rlpowell: zgana: But yes, either djuno3 is redundand or pensi is missing a place; a note to that effect on gismu issues would be good.
~pp~[4:01pm] rlpowell: selpa`i: What's the difference between {mi djuno tu'a le karce} and {mi djuno fi le karce}?
~pp~[4:01pm] latros: I find jimpe's place structure is, in a practical sense, backwards
~pp~[4:01pm] rlpowell: AFAICT, they are *exactly* the same thing.
~pp~[4:01pm] latros: .ie
~pp~[4:01pm] rlpowell: Which means one of those places adds no vaule.
~pp~[4:01pm] lindar: Agreed.
~pp~[4:01pm] zgana: .ie
~pp~[4:02pm] latros: although
~pp~[4:02pm] latros: I suppose
~pp~[4:02pm] latros: {mi djuno fi le xumske}
~pp~[4:02pm] latros: is somewhat of a different intended meaning from {mi djuno tu'a le xumske}
~pp~[4:02pm] rlpowell: And which also means that pensi2 should be clearly stated to be like djuno2, out of which you can get the subject with tu'a
~pp~[4:02pm] latros: when djuno3 is a "field", in other words
~pp~[4:02pm] rlpowell: Right now it sounds like it's djuno2+djuno3, which is broken.
~pp~[4:02pm] selpa`i: It is possible to see some difference between the two
~pp~[4:03pm] zgana: does this mean we should expect {djuno} to change in the future, possibly?
~pp~[4:03pm] rlpowell: latros: I still don't see a difference; "I know some chemistry" vs. "I know things about chemistry". Seems the same to me.
~pp~[4:03pm] rlpowell: zgana: Unlikely.
~pp~[4:03pm] latros: but it's not that you know a du'u that has xumske in it
~pp~[4:03pm] latros: it's that you know things that are part of the field of chemistry
~pp~[4:03pm] zgana: latros: what about zo'e pe
~pp~[4:04pm] latros: that would fix it
~pp~[4:04pm] selpa`i: "I know that something is going on with a car" vs "I know some fact about a car"
~pp~[4:04pm] latros: that works for things like cars
~pp~[4:04pm] zgana: mi pensi zo'e pe lo nu cliva
~pp~[4:04pm] zgana: maybe
~pp~[4:04pm] latros: I don't think it works for things like chemistry
~pp~[4:04pm] latros: zo'e pe / zo'ei does fix it though
~pp~[4:04pm] rlpowell: < selpa`i> "I know that something is going on with a car" vs "I know some fact about a car" -- I do not see an interesting difference; something that is going on with a car *is* a fact about a car, no?
~pp~[4:05pm] zgana: actually di'u is wrong
~pp~[4:05pm] selpa`i: rlpowell: I suppose the difference I see, is "action/event" vs "subject"
~pp~[4:05pm] lindar: With zo'ei, I see no reason for djuno3.
~pp~[4:05pm] selpa`i: rlpowell: the former seems more ... animate
~pp~[4:06pm] lindar: OKAY SO PLEASE WRITE A PROPOSAL STATING YOUR OPINIONS AND EVIDENCE AND I'LL SUBMIT IT TO THE BPFK. -___-
~pp~[4:06pm] rlpowell: Heh.
~pp~[4:06pm] rlpowell: lindar: I don't think we have enough for a *proposal* here.
~pp~[4:06pm] zgana: .u'i ru'e ko smacni
~pp~[4:06pm] selpa`i: Why change djuno when it doesn't cause any problems?
~pp~[4:07pm] rlpowell: The point is more discussion needs to occur; a simple "look at pensi2 vs. djuno2/3 wtf?" on the gismu issues page would suffice.
~pp~[4:07pm] rlpowell: selpa`i: I have no particular intention of changing djuno.
~pp~[4:07pm] selpa`i: Good.
~pp~[4:07pm] rlpowell: Redundancy is not a crime.
~pp~[4:07pm] selpa`i: Agreed.
~pp~[4:07pm] latros: that I can agree with
~pp~[4:07pm] latros: there's a fair amount of usage breaking there
~pp~[4:07pm] enthymeme left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
~pp~[4:08pm] tjader: Has anyone translated the poem of the ring to lojban?
~pp~[4:08pm] latros: I mean, is it really helpful to replace all the fi's with zo'ei's?
~pp~[4:08pm] zgana: i find that later places are always harder to remember
~pp~[4:08pm] selpa`i: I don't find that to be true.
~pp~[4:08pm] lindar: -_____- I'm just going to copypaste this discussion if nobody wants to write anything formal.
~pp~[4:09pm] rlpowell: tjader: The what?
~pp~[4:09pm] zgana: so pulling the epistemology place down by one would help n00bs
~pp~[4:09pm] rlpowell: lindar: < rlpowell> The point is more discussion needs to occur; a simple "look at pensi2 vs. djuno2/3 wtf?" on the gismu issues page would suffice.
~pp~[4:09pm] zgana: at least ones who think like me
~pp~[4:09pm] rlpowell: lindar: I've said that like 4 times now; which part confuses you?
~pp~[4:09pm] tjader: rlpowell: ash nazg durbatuluk...
~pp~[4:09pm] rlpowell: tjader: Oooh.
~pp~[4:09pm] tjader: one ring to rule them all
~pp~[4:09pm] rlpowell: *That* ring.
~pp~[4:09pm] rlpowell: I was thinking like the nibelungen or something.
~pp~[4:09pm] lindar: The part where "wtf?" pages don't do crap and then later we need documented discussion and proposals -anyway-.
~pp~[4:10pm] rlpowell: lindar: Yes, but we don't *have* a proposal right now.
~pp~[4:10pm] selpa`i: Bullshit, I'm sure people don't want to relearn a bunch of place structures just because it might be easier for noobs when there is one place less.
~pp~[4:10pm] tjader: la pa degja'i
~pp~[4:10pm] rlpowell: And Idon't have the focus/energy to produce one, and this isn't the right group anyway.
~pp~[4:10pm] zgana: selpa`i: i wasn't clear
~pp~[4:10pm] zgana: i wouldn't argue that it should be changed! definitely not
~pp~[4:10pm] rlpowell: lindar: Part of my plan is to have a bunch of such discussions to generate such proposals.
~pp~[4:10pm] tjader: anyway, is there a translation of that already floating around?
~pp~[4:10pm] zgana: hindsight is 20/20 though. i just mean it -would have been- easier the other way
~pp~[4:10pm] • rlpowell fucking hates epistemology places.
~pp~[4:10pm] rlpowell: And standard places, and observer places.
~pp~[4:11pm] rlpowell: tjader: Not to my knowledge.
~pp~[4:11pm] selpa`i: I've never used any of those.
~pp~[4:11pm] zgana: rlpowell: that's a good point. those things don't usually have names that you just use in a sentence
~pp~[4:11pm] lindar: Yeahhhh....
~pp~[4:11pm] lindar: I think we should just have an epistemology and standard BAI.
~pp~[4:11pm] rlpowell: I hate them because that's what BAI is for. The problem is that the gismu list predates BAI. :)
~pp~[4:12pm] selpa`i: Though again, no one forces you to use them.
~pp~[4:12pm] zgana: .ua
~pp~[4:12pm] rlpowell: 'strue.
~pp~[4:12pm] rlpowell: But I've been trying to memorize place structures lately.
~pp~[4:13pm] zgana: can more BAI be made for those places?
~pp~[4:13pm] selpa`i: Maybe with mekso gone. :P
~pp~[4:13pm] rlpowell: Well, for things that really need it, like say *djuno*, an epistomolgy place is fine, and we have du'o
~pp~[4:14pm] selpa`i: Which should suffice.
~pp~[4:14pm] rlpowell: Similarily zgana/ga'a for observer.
~pp~[4:14pm] rlpowell: And manri/ma'i fro standard.
~pp~[4:15pm] zgana: .ua sai .a'u
~pp~[4:15pm] rlpowell: I've considered simply dropping those places from my memorization schedule.