Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Starting stories
Michael Turniansky
> It seems the subscript method can be used with {ki}. That means we can
> have different modal settings loaded into different {ki} subscripted
> with {xi} and then recall each one of them accordingly whenever we
> need them. But I'm not sure how to unstick/cancel them separately.
> Let's say I have had {de'i li 1776 pi'e 7 pi'e 4 bu'u la steito di'o
> la uacintyn kixipa} and {de'i li 1870 pi'e 9 pi'e 4 bu'u la frans di'o
> la paris kixire} in my lojbanic text. I can recall either of these
> settings with just {kixipa} or {kixire} (so says CLL). But how do I
> unstick only one of them? If I use a bare {ki}, that would cancel both
> settings
I guess the real question is "why would you need to unstick them?"
It seems that, unlike "ki" itself, there is no automatic appending of
tenses with kixi__ unless you actually use them. Therefore, you can
ignore their existence, until you bring them up. If you want to set
them to a different value, just use "kixiPA <sumti>" again.
--gy
Ian Johnson
I do like {puzuku} for some of these usages, though. It also has the assonance, which is kinda nice for a children's story (which is what I'm writing for simplicity's sake).
I suppose one could use both. For example (and this is what I was doing earlier when this came up) you could start the whole text by introducing some relevant characters and a little bit of information about them, beginning with {ni'o ni'o ni'o} and then essentially say "one day, such and such happened" with "one day" being translated as {puzuku}.
mu'omi'e latros.
I suggest "puzuku", which means "at a long distance in time toward theOn 10 February 2010 23:27, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In English we have things like "once upon a time" or "one day" that we use
> conventionally to start stories, especially in fiction. Latin takes this one
> step further and uses just one word, "olim", which unlike the English
> version has no tense dependence; it makes sense to use olim in a story about
> the distant future. Does Lojban have anything like this, either defined this
> way (like Latin) or conventionally used this way (like English)? I've been
> hunting for a while and haven't gotten anywhere.
past". I first used it when I translated a Japanese folk tale. In
Japanese they say "mukasi mukasi", meaning "past past", plus "aru
tokoro ni", meaning "at some place", for which I like to use "bu'uku".
mu'o mi'e tijlan
tijlan
have different modal settings loaded into different {ki} subscripted
with {xi} and then recall each one of them accordingly whenever we
need them. But I'm not sure how to unstick/cancel them separately.
Let's say I have had {de'i li 1776 pi'e 7 pi'e 4 bu'u la steito di'o
la uacintyn kixipa} and {de'i li 1870 pi'e 9 pi'e 4 bu'u la frans di'o
la paris kixire} in my lojbanic text. I can recall either of these
settings with just {kixipa} or {kixire} (so says CLL). But how do I
unstick only one of them? If I use a bare {ki}, that would cancel both
Ian Johnson
Jameson Orndorff
So far we have only considered tenses in isolated bridi. Lojban
provides several ways for a tense to continue in effect over more than
a single bridi. This property is known as ``stickiness'': the tense
gets ``stuck'' and remains in effect until explicitly ``unstuck''. In
the metaphor of the imaginary journey, the place and time set by a
sticky tense may be thought of as a campsite or way-station: it
provides a permanent origin with respect to which other tenses are
understood. Later imaginary journeys start from that point rather than
from the speaker.
Also, from the ma'oste:
ki KI tense default
tense/modal: set/use tense default; establishes new open scope
space/time/modal reference base
So I meant modals. I could be wrong - the CLL *doesn't* supply
examples of non-tense modals being stickied, at least in that section
I linked.
mi'e .kribacr. mu'o
tijlan
> I'm not quite sure how {ni'o ni'o ni'o} works here; I checked the CLL and it
> seems to more or less indicate "going off on a completely different topic
> altogether"...the mechanisms are actually pretty specific, but the core
> "meaning" seems somewhat vague. I can see how it might, but I'm not quite
> clear on how it fits.
>
> I do like {puzuku} for some of these usages, though. It also has the
> assonance, which is kinda nice for a children's story (which is what I'm
> writing for simplicity's sake).
>
> I suppose one could use both. For example (and this is what I was doing
> earlier when this came up) you could start the whole text by introducing
> some relevant characters and a little bit of information about them,
> beginning with {ni'o ni'o ni'o} and then essentially say "one day, such and
> such happened" with "one day" being translated as {puzuku}.
Closer to "one day" would be {ca ku}, {ca da}, or {ca zo'e} ({ca}
means simultaneity in relation to something, which isn't necessarily
happening at the moment of the utterance). Also {de'i ku} would be a
good option in some context, especially if you want to imply that the
date is specifiable.
Luke Bergen
tijlan
I suggest "puzuku", which means "at a long distance in time toward the
past". I first used it when I translated a Japanese folk tale. In
Japanese they say "mukasi mukasi", meaning "past past", plus "aru
tokoro ni", meaning "at some place", for which I like to use "bu'uku".
Jameson Orndorff
{ki}! {ki} "stickies" modals, so that you may lock future discourse as
always being relative to *that* time. see
http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c10/s13.html for more information.
Michael Turniansky
> Oh wow. I didn't realize that. How would you even use {ki} with a modal?
> Would it be like {mi klama le zdani va'oki mi famgau lo gunka} or would it
> be {... va'o mi famgau lo gunka ki}. And would all other bridi following
> this one have the automatic sumti added to them of {... va'o mi famgau lo
> gunka}?
> My brain is all melty now.
>
example would be correct, except that the "mi famgau lo gunka" has to
be preceded by " lo nu". All tags are followed only by a single
sumti. You need an abstractor if you want to put in a bridi. And
that's correct, until you cancel it with a kiku, that va'o phrase
would be attached to everything. (So that's "mi klama le zdani
va'oki lo nu mi famgau lo gunka" (although that means under the
conditions of you finishing off the worker, which is probably NOT what
you meant. "se gunka" is, I expect, what you wanted, unless you are
building a robot.
See for example, the first (humongous) sentence of my translation of
the book of Esther -- ca _KI_ lo cedra be tu'a la .axacyveROC. po'u la
.axacyveROC. poi turni la xinselje'a kubi'i la kuc. vu'o noi selje'a
parezemei ku'o ku'o ca lo nu .abu goi la .axacyveROC. po'u le
nolraitru cu zutse le .abu nolstizu be tu'i la cucan. no'u le raltca
kei ca lo cimoi be lo'i nanca pe lo nu .abu turni keiku .abu cu zbasu
pa balsai seva'u ro nobli kujoi ro selfu ca'u ge lo jenmi be la pars
joi la gugrmedia gi lu'o lo nobli .e lo jansu lu'u pe lo selje'a
.icabo .abu jarco loi kargu pe lo selsi'a selnolraitru .e loi selmanci
pe lo kamba'i ca'o so'i djedi po'u lo pabinomei
The entire story takes place in the time of Ahasuerus. I never
unstickified it.
--gejyspa
Luke Bergen
Ian Johnson
mu'omi'e latros.
Alan Post
[I suggest "ni'o ni'o ni'o"]
xu do jinvi
[What do you think?]
-Alan
--
Every place a riddle,
every riddle a poem,
every poem a spirit,
every spirit a place.
Jorge Llambías
<mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So that's "mi klama le zdani
> va'oki lo nu mi famgau lo gunka" (although that means under the
> conditions of you finishing off the worker, which is probably NOT what
> you meant. "se gunka" is, I expect, what you wanted, unless you are
> building a robot.
In addition to that, "famgau" means "x1 puts end x2 to x3" so the se
gunka should really be in x3.
For "finishing" is the sense of "completing", "mulgau" is better: "mi
mulgau lo se gunka", or "mi sisti lo nu gunka" if you just stop
working.
mu'o mi'e xorxes