Re: [lojban-beginners] Reuse request

[Jonathan Jones]

It's been a while since the last set of these. I'm guessing he's making up for it by sending a whole bunch at once:

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rex May <rm...@mac.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Lojban pics
To: Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>

On Apr 19, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Rex May wrote:

I don't know why there's more than one copy of some of these.  But here they are

<lcpic0010.jpg><lcpic0010.jpg><lcpic0010.jpg><lcpic0011.jpg><lcpic0011.jpg><lcpic0012.jpg><lcpic0012.jpg><lcpic0013.jpg><lcpic0013.jpg><lcpic0014.jpg><lcpic0014.jpg><lcpic0015.jpg><lcpic0015.jpg><lcpic0016.jpg><lcpic0017.jpg><lcpic0018.jpg><lcpic0019.jpg><lcpic0020.jpg>

Rex May

rm...@mac.com

PHONE: 1-970-218-0889

All about me here:

http://www.baloocartoons.com

http://balooscartoonblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/BALOO-THE-CARTOONIST/375938452048

http://www.zazzle.com/rexfmay*

Follow me on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/RexMayBaloo

Rex May

rm...@mac.com

PHONE: 1-970-218-0889

All about me here:

http://www.baloocartoons.com

http://balooscartoonblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/BALOO-THE-CARTOONIST/375938452048

http://www.zazzle.com/rexfmay*

Follow me on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/RexMayBaloo

[Jonathan Jones]

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Rex May <rm...@mac.com> wrote:

Rex May

rm...@mac.com

PHONE: 1-970-218-0889

All about me here:

http://www.baloocartoons.com

http://balooscartoonblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/BALOO-THE-CARTOONIST/375938452048

http://www.zazzle.com/rexfmay*

Follow me on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/RexMayBaloo

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

[Jonathan Jones]

Okay, so that's all of them. There are some things I feel need a bit of editing, but I can easily do that myself. I doubt the final touches should take longer than an hour or thereabouts. I'll let you know when it's done and where I've put it so you can see the final product.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Rex May <rm...@mac.com> wrote:

Rex May

rm...@mac.com

PHONE: 1-970-218-0889

All about me here:

http://www.baloocartoons.com

http://balooscartoonblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/BALOO-THE-CARTOONIST/375938452048

http://www.zazzle.com/rexfmay*

Follow me on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/RexMayBaloo

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Michael Turniansky]

  Hi, finally got a chance to read through this and I don't know if you've already discussed the following points, so if so, please ignore:

 

 1.  You are using "ralte" where you probably more likely want "ponse"

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

 3.  You are using "srana" in panels 62-65 (and maybe elsewhere) when you really want "ckini" if you mean "related to".  "srana" means "pertaining to"

 4.   You are using "verba" where you probably want "panzi"  Where the latter is not incorrect, per se, it's the analog to tixnu and and bersa that you are using in those panels.  

  

       --gejyspa

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Hi, finally got a chance to read through this and I don't know if you've already discussed the following points, so if so, please ignore:

 

 1.  You are using "ralte" where you probably more likely want "ponse"

No. I most certainly want "hold", not 'own".
 

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

Because it a translation from the Ceqli.

"go ten taq. go ten dwe si taq. go ten daya sa taq ja kiri sa taq. go ten dwe si taq. han, dwe!"
"I have hand. I have two of hand. I have right-hand and left-hand. I have two of hand. Hand, two!"

This is obviously not have as in ralte or ponse, either.
 

 3.  You are using "srana" in panels 62-65 (and maybe elsewhere) when you really want "ckini" if you mean "related to".  "srana" means "pertaining to"

In Ceqli the word is "ten". "ten" means "have / possess". In Lojban, that means srana / ralte / ponse, as far as I'm concerned. I know that srana does not mean "related to" in the familial sense.
 

 4.   You are using "verba" where you probably want "panzi"  Where the latter is not incorrect, per se, it's the analog to tixnu and and bersa that you are using in those panels.  

No. I most certainly want child "a young person", not "an offspring".
 

[Michael Turniansky]

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Hi, finally got a chance to read through this and I don't know if you've already discussed the following points, so if so, please ignore:

 

 1.  You are using "ralte" where you probably more likely want "ponse"

No. I most certainly want "hold", not 'own".
 

  "hold" is "jgari"  "ralte" means to "hold on to/retain".  And they are doing neither to their pets.

 

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

Because it a translation from the Ceqli.

"go ten taq. go ten dwe si taq. go ten daya sa taq ja kiri sa taq. go ten dwe si taq. han, dwe!"
"I have hand. I have two of hand. I have right-hand and left-hand. I have two of hand. Hand, two!"

This is obviously not have as in ralte or ponse, either.
 

  But "I have a hand" is "mi se xance" "I have two hands" is "mi se xance lo remei" "mi se xance lo pritu", etc.  

 3.  You are using "srana" in panels 62-65 (and maybe elsewhere) when you really want "ckini" if you mean "related to".  "srana" means "pertaining to"

In Ceqli the word is "ten". "ten" means "have / possess". In Lojban, that means srana / ralte / ponse, as far as I'm concerned. I know that srana does not mean "related to" in the familial sense.
 

  But are you trying to make a lojban primer, or trying to make a word-by-word literal translation of Ceqli, which never works out going between ANY pair of languages?  The point being that "I have a son (etc)" is simply "mi se bersa"

 

 4.   You are using "verba" where you probably want "panzi"  Where the latter is not incorrect, per se, it's the analog to tixnu and and bersa that you are using in those panels.  

No. I most certainly want child "a young person", not "an offspring".
 

  If you are saying "I have three children", if you are using "verba", it could just mean you've kidnapped some kids off the street and are keeping them in your basement.  What the _meaning_ of the sentence you want to convey is "There are three things that are my offspring" -> "mi se panzi lo cimei (/ci da)"

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Hi, finally got a chance to read through this and I don't know if you've already discussed the following points, so if so, please ignore:

 

 1.  You are using "ralte" where you probably more likely want "ponse"

No. I most certainly want "hold", not 'own".
 

  "hold" is "jgari"  "ralte" means to "hold on to/retain".

You're right. I used the wrong word. But your original suggestion wasn't correct, either.
 

And they are doing neither to their pets.

I wasn't aware that I had used ralte in relation to anyone's pets, but I see now I did do that in #26. That will have to be fixed.
 

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

Because it a translation from the Ceqli.

"go ten taq. go ten dwe si taq. go ten daya sa taq ja kiri sa taq. go ten dwe si taq. han, dwe!"
"I have hand. I have two of hand. I have right-hand and left-hand. I have two of hand. Hand, two!"

This is obviously not have as in ralte or ponse, either.
 

  But "I have a hand" is "mi se xance" "I have two hands" is "mi se xance lo remei" "mi se xance lo pritu", etc.

Fine, but what's the general valsi for "have" in the sense used here, which is neither hold, nor possess, nor retain? Are you suggesting that every instance of "<x1> srana lo <bridi>" be changed to "<x1> se <bridi>"?
 

 3.  You are using "srana" in panels 62-65 (and maybe elsewhere) when you really want "ckini" if you mean "related to".  "srana" means "pertaining to"

In Ceqli the word is "ten". "ten" means "have / possess". In Lojban, that means srana / ralte / ponse, as far as I'm concerned. I know that srana does not mean "related to" in the familial sense.
 

  But are you trying to make a lojban primer, or trying to make a word-by-word literal translation of Ceqli, which never works out going between ANY pair of languages?  The point being that "I have a son (etc)" is simply "mi se bersa"

I do not consider it to be useful as a primer- I don't even consider the original Ceqli one to be useful as a Ceqli primer. It was my intent to hold as close as possible to the original, but I knew before I started that an exact "word-by-word translation" wasn't going to be possible.
 

 4.   You are using "verba" where you probably want "panzi"  Where the latter is not incorrect, per se, it's the analog to tixnu and and bersa that you are using in those panels.  

No. I most certainly want child "a young person", not "an offspring".
 

  If you are saying "I have three children", if you are using "verba", it could just mean you've kidnapped some kids off the street and are keeping them in your basement.  What the _meaning_ of the sentence you want to convey is "There are three things that are my offspring" -> "mi se panzi lo cimei (/ci da)"

I see your point. There are no points where verba could not be replaced with panzi.

On another note, where the /hell/ where you two months ago, when I was /asking/ people for help with the translation, and submitting my translation for review? Why did you wait until the project was finished and has been downloaded 230+ times to bring these up?
 

      --gejyspa

[Michael Turniansky]

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Hi, finally got a chance to read through this and I don't know if you've already discussed the following points, so if so, please ignore:

 

 1.  You are using "ralte" where you probably more likely want "ponse"

No. I most certainly want "hold", not 'own".
 

  "hold" is "jgari"  "ralte" means to "hold on to/retain".

You're right. I used the wrong word. But your original suggestion wasn't correct, either.
 

And they are doing neither to their pets.

I wasn't aware that I had used ralte in relation to anyone's pets, but I see now I did do that in #26. That will have to be fixed.
 

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

Because it a translation from the Ceqli.

"go ten taq. go ten dwe si taq. go ten daya sa taq ja kiri sa taq. go ten dwe si taq. han, dwe!"
"I have hand. I have two of hand. I have right-hand and left-hand. I have two of hand. Hand, two!"

This is obviously not have as in ralte or ponse, either.
 

  But "I have a hand" is "mi se xance" "I have two hands" is "mi se xance lo remei" "mi se xance lo pritu", etc.

Fine, but what's the general valsi for "have" in the sense used here, which is neither hold, nor possess, nor retain? Are you suggesting that every instance of "<x1> srana lo <bridi>" be changed to "<x1> se <bridi>"?

  There is no single lojban word which means the English "have" in all its senses (my Merriam Webster lists over 13.)  Indeed, I'm surprised that Ceqli does have such a thing.  In most cases, such as "I have a house/car/pet/hat", possession is indicated, and "ponse" is correct.  In cases of indicating holding something ("I have a gun"), "jgari" would be correct" To indicate a general relationship between two things, the actual nature of the relationship should be indicated ("I have a brother", "I have a head" -> "mi se bruna" "mi se stedu")

 

 

 

 3.  You are using "srana" in panels 62-65 (and maybe elsewhere) when you really want "ckini" if you mean "related to".  "srana" means "pertaining to"

In Ceqli the word is "ten". "ten" means "have / possess". In Lojban, that means srana / ralte / ponse, as far as I'm concerned. I know that srana does not mean "related to" in the familial sense.
 

  But are you trying to make a lojban primer, or trying to make a word-by-word literal translation of Ceqli, which never works out going between ANY pair of languages?  The point being that "I have a son (etc)" is simply "mi se bersa"

I do not consider it to be useful as a primer- I don't even consider the original Ceqli one to be useful as a Ceqli primer. It was my intent to hold as close as possible to the original, but I knew before I started that an exact "word-by-word translation" wasn't going to be possible.
 

 4.   You are using "verba" where you probably want "panzi"  Where the latter is not incorrect, per se, it's the analog to tixnu and and bersa that you are using in those panels.  

No. I most certainly want child "a young person", not "an offspring".
 

  If you are saying "I have three children", if you are using "verba", it could just mean you've kidnapped some kids off the street and are keeping them in your basement.  What the _meaning_ of the sentence you want to convey is "There are three things that are my offspring" -> "mi se panzi lo cimei (/ci da)"

I see your point. There are no points where verba could not be replaced with panzi.

On another note, where the /hell/ where you two months ago, when I was /asking/ people for help with the translation, and submitting my translation for review? Why did you wait until the project was finished and has been downloaded 230+ times to bring these up?
 

  Well, I did actually write my first note about it on Mar. 16 on your original thread, and I also commented when the first 10 panels were released.  Did I have the time to look up the original comic and compare your long draft to it?  No, not really (as indicated by the fact that my current response came two weeks after the last comment on this thread),  but so many other people were commenting on it, and to be honest, it seemed like you really weren't interested in taking their constructive criticism (your responses ran along the lines of "I know I'm wrong, but I don't care"), so I figured why should I bother wasting my time?  Anyway, it was easier to see it in the actual strip, like Renato had done.

                        --gejyspa

  

      --gejyspa

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Hi, finally got a chance to read through this and I don't know if you've already discussed the following points, so if so, please ignore:

 

 1.  You are using "ralte" where you probably more likely want "ponse"

No. I most certainly want "hold", not 'own".
 

  "hold" is "jgari"  "ralte" means to "hold on to/retain".

You're right. I used the wrong word. But your original suggestion wasn't correct, either.
 

And they are doing neither to their pets.

I wasn't aware that I had used ralte in relation to anyone's pets, but I see now I did do that in #26. That will have to be fixed.
 

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

Because it a translation from the Ceqli.

"go ten taq. go ten dwe si taq. go ten daya sa taq ja kiri sa taq. go ten dwe si taq. han, dwe!"
"I have hand. I have two of hand. I have right-hand and left-hand. I have two of hand. Hand, two!"

This is obviously not have as in ralte or ponse, either.
 

  But "I have a hand" is "mi se xance" "I have two hands" is "mi se xance lo remei" "mi se xance lo pritu", etc.

Fine, but what's the general valsi for "have" in the sense used here, which is neither hold, nor possess, nor retain? Are you suggesting that every instance of "<x1> srana lo <bridi>" be changed to "<x1> se <bridi>"?

  There is no single lojban word which means the English "have" in all its senses (my Merriam Webster lists over 13.)  Indeed, I'm surprised that Ceqli does have such a thing.  In most cases, such as "I have a house/car/pet/hat", possession is indicated, and "ponse" is correct.  In cases of indicating holding something ("I have a gun"), "jgari" would be correct" To indicate a general relationship between two things, the actual nature of the relationship should be indicated ("I have a brother", "I have a head" -> "mi se bruna" "mi se stedu")

I didn't say "all" senses. I said "this" sense, and you didn't answer my question. Based on your response, I'll assume your answer would be "yes".
 

 3.  You are using "srana" in panels 62-65 (and maybe elsewhere) when you really want "ckini" if you mean "related to".  "srana" means "pertaining to"

In Ceqli the word is "ten". "ten" means "have / possess". In Lojban, that means srana / ralte / ponse, as far as I'm concerned. I know that srana does not mean "related to" in the familial sense.
 

  But are you trying to make a lojban primer, or trying to make a word-by-word literal translation of Ceqli, which never works out going between ANY pair of languages?  The point being that "I have a son (etc)" is simply "mi se bersa"

I do not consider it to be useful as a primer- I don't even consider the original Ceqli one to be useful as a Ceqli primer. It was my intent to hold as close as possible to the original, but I knew before I started that an exact "word-by-word translation" wasn't going to be possible.
 

 4.   You are using "verba" where you probably want "panzi"  Where the latter is not incorrect, per se, it's the analog to tixnu and and bersa that you are using in those panels.  

No. I most certainly want child "a young person", not "an offspring".
 

  If you are saying "I have three children", if you are using "verba", it could just mean you've kidnapped some kids off the street and are keeping them in your basement.  What the _meaning_ of the sentence you want to convey is "There are three things that are my offspring" -> "mi se panzi lo cimei (/ci da)"

I see your point. There are no points where verba could not be replaced with panzi.

On another note, where the /hell/ where you two months ago, when I was /asking/ people for help with the translation, and submitting my translation for review? Why did you wait until the project was finished and has been downloaded 230+ times to bring these up?
 

  Well, I did actually write my first note about it on Mar. 16 on your original thread, and I also commented when the first 10 panels were released.  Did I have the time to look up the original comic and compare your long draft to it?  No, not really (as indicated by the fact that my current response came two weeks after the last comment on this thread),  but so many other people were commenting on it, and to be honest, it seemed like you really weren't interested in taking their constructive criticism (your responses ran along the lines of "I know I'm wrong, but I don't care"), so I figured why should I bother wasting my time?  Anyway, it was easier to see it in the actual strip, like Renato had done.

No, my responses ran along the lines of "what you're complaining about is petite". What you're talking about right now is not petite. It's pretty damned important points, actually. Also, I did actually take a lot of the feedback into consideration- the whole thing with using unassigned ko'a, for example- but it turned out that the proposed alternative was actually /worse/ than what I had in some of those cases, so I reverted. I have never refused to make a change when I knew that I was wrong- I have disagreed that some things were wrong. But I have never in my life, in anything, been wrong and decided to continue being so. If it is shown to me that I am wrong, whether it be through other people showing me, as you did with the pet ralte use and the panzi<->verba thing, or by my own furtherance of knowledge, or what-have-you, I will immediately endeavor to be right. I may be stubborn, but I'm not stupid, and refusing to reverse one's stance in the face of overwhelming evidence is stupid.

On that note, I am going to make your suggested changes. I just wish you had said something before the involved panels had been made, because it's a hell of a lot less effort to make changes /before/ production than /after/.
 

                        --gejyspa 

      --gejyspa

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Michael Turniansky]

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

Because it a translation from the Ceqli.

"go ten taq. go ten dwe si taq. go ten daya sa taq ja kiri sa taq. go ten dwe si taq. han, dwe!"
"I have hand. I have two of hand. I have right-hand and left-hand. I have two of hand. Hand, two!"

This is obviously not have as in ralte or ponse, either.
 

  But "I have a hand" is "mi se xance" "I have two hands" is "mi se xance lo remei" "mi se xance lo pritu", etc.

Fine, but what's the general valsi for "have" in the sense used here, which is neither hold, nor possess, nor retain? Are you suggesting that every instance of "<x1> srana lo <bridi>" be changed to "<x1> se <bridi>"?

  There is no single lojban word which means the English "have" in all its senses (my Merriam Webster lists over 13.)  Indeed, I'm surprised that Ceqli does have such a thing.  In most cases, such as "I have a house/car/pet/hat", possession is indicated, and "ponse" is correct.  In cases of indicating holding something ("I have a gun"), "jgari" would be correct" To indicate a general relationship between two things, the actual nature of the relationship should be indicated ("I have a brother", "I have a head" -> "mi se bruna" "mi se stedu")

I didn't say "all" senses. I said "this" sense, and you didn't answer my question. Based on your response, I'll assume your answer would be "yes".

   Well, the point I was trying to make is that lojban would consider "I have a hand" and "I have a head" to be to DIFFERENT senses of a word glossed in English as "have" because one is "being-with-hand" and one is "being-with-head".  So I am not suggesting that "every instance of '<x1> srana lo <bridi>' be changed to '<x1> se <bridi>'"  Only where '<x1> se <bridi>' is in fact what you are trying to convey. 

  Well, I did actually write my first note about it on Mar. 16 on your original thread, and I also commented when the first 10 panels were released.  Did I have the time to look up the original comic and compare your long draft to it?  No, not really (as indicated by the fact that my current response came two weeks after the last comment on this thread),  but so many other people were commenting on it, and to be honest, it seemed like you really weren't interested in taking their constructive criticism (your responses ran along the lines of "I know I'm wrong, but I don't care"), so I figured why should I bother wasting my time?  Anyway, it was easier to see it in the actual strip, like Renato had done.

No, my responses ran along the lines of "what you're complaining about is petite". What you're talking about right now is not petite. It's pretty damned important points, actually. Also, I did actually take a lot of the feedback into consideration- the whole thing with using unassigned ko'a, for example- but it turned out that the proposed alternative was actually /worse/ than what I had in some of those cases, so I reverted. I have never refused to make a change when I knew that I was wrong- I have disagreed that some things were wrong. But I have never in my life, in anything, been wrong and decided to continue being so. If it is shown to me that I am wrong, whether it be through other people showing me, as you did with the pet ralte use and the panzi<->verba thing, or by my own furtherance of knowledge, or what-have-you, I will immediately endeavor to be right. I may be stubborn, but I'm not stupid, and refusing to reverse one's stance in the face of overwhelming evidence is stupid.

  For example on the issue of "la" vs. "zo" in regards to the x1 "cmene" you were told you were flat-out wrong about it by many people and yet you dug in your heels for the longest time about it.

  (on the issue of petty complaints, btw, the word is "petty", not "petite"  ;-) )

 

On that note, I am going to make your suggested changes. I just wish you had said something before the involved panels had been made, because it's a hell of a lot less effort to make changes /before/ production than /after/.
  

  Sorry.  I commiserate.   But like I said, I'm very behind on my emails (currently two weeks), and as you might imagine, reading lojban requires more effort than many other things.

                       --gjeyspa

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

Because it a translation from the Ceqli.

"go ten taq. go ten dwe si taq. go ten daya sa taq ja kiri sa taq. go ten dwe si taq. han, dwe!"
"I have hand. I have two of hand. I have right-hand and left-hand. I have two of hand. Hand, two!"

This is obviously not have as in ralte or ponse, either.
 

  But "I have a hand" is "mi se xance" "I have two hands" is "mi se xance lo remei" "mi se xance lo pritu", etc.

Fine, but what's the general valsi for "have" in the sense used here, which is neither hold, nor possess, nor retain? Are you suggesting that every instance of "<x1> srana lo <bridi>" be changed to "<x1> se <bridi>"?

  There is no single lojban word which means the English "have" in all its senses (my Merriam Webster lists over 13.)  Indeed, I'm surprised that Ceqli does have such a thing.  In most cases, such as "I have a house/car/pet/hat", possession is indicated, and "ponse" is correct.  In cases of indicating holding something ("I have a gun"), "jgari" would be correct" To indicate a general relationship between two things, the actual nature of the relationship should be indicated ("I have a brother", "I have a head" -> "mi se bruna" "mi se stedu")

I didn't say "all" senses. I said "this" sense, and you didn't answer my question. Based on your response, I'll assume your answer would be "yes".

   Well, the point I was trying to make is that lojban would consider "I have a hand" and "I have a head" to be to DIFFERENT senses of a word glossed in English as "have" because one is "being-with-hand" and one is "being-with-head".  So I am not suggesting that "every instance of '<x1> srana lo <bridi>' be changed to '<x1> se <bridi>'"  Only where '<x1> se <bridi>' is in fact what you are trying to convey. 

  Well, I did actually write my first note about it on Mar. 16 on your original thread, and I also commented when the first 10 panels were released.  Did I have the time to look up the original comic and compare your long draft to it?  No, not really (as indicated by the fact that my current response came two weeks after the last comment on this thread),  but so many other people were commenting on it, and to be honest, it seemed like you really weren't interested in taking their constructive criticism (your responses ran along the lines of "I know I'm wrong, but I don't care"), so I figured why should I bother wasting my time?  Anyway, it was easier to see it in the actual strip, like Renato had done.

No, my responses ran along the lines of "what you're complaining about is petite". What you're talking about right now is not petite. It's pretty damned important points, actually. Also, I did actually take a lot of the feedback into consideration- the whole thing with using unassigned ko'a, for example- but it turned out that the proposed alternative was actually /worse/ than what I had in some of those cases, so I reverted. I have never refused to make a change when I knew that I was wrong- I have disagreed that some things were wrong. But I have never in my life, in anything, been wrong and decided to continue being so. If it is shown to me that I am wrong, whether it be through other people showing me, as you did with the pet ralte use and the panzi<->verba thing, or by my own furtherance of knowledge, or what-have-you, I will immediately endeavor to be right. I may be stubborn, but I'm not stupid, and refusing to reverse one's stance in the face of overwhelming evidence is stupid.

  For example on the issue of "la" vs. "zo" in regards to the x1 "cmene" you were told you were flat-out wrong about it by many people and yet you dug in your heels for the longest time about it.

I did say I was stubborn, didn't I?
 

  (on the issue of petty complaints, btw, the word is "petty", not "petite"  ;-) )

"Petty" is the wrong spelling but the correct pronunciation, "petite" is the correct spelling but the wrong pronunciation. "Petite" is a French word meaning "small".
 

On that note, I am going to make your suggested changes. I just wish you had said something before the involved panels had been made, because it's a hell of a lot less effort to make changes /before/ production than /after/.
  

  Sorry.  I commiserate.   But like I said, I'm very behind on my emails (currently two weeks), and as you might imagine, reading lojban requires more effort than many other things.

                       --gjeyspa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Michael Turniansky]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 2. Why "mi srana lo xance" rather than "mi se xance"?

Because it a translation from the Ceqli.

"go ten taq. go ten dwe si taq. go ten daya sa taq ja kiri sa taq. go ten dwe si taq. han, dwe!"
"I have hand. I have two of hand. I have right-hand and left-hand. I have two of hand. Hand, two!"

This is obviously not have as in ralte or ponse, either.
 

  But "I have a hand" is "mi se xance" "I have two hands" is "mi se xance lo remei" "mi se xance lo pritu", etc.

Fine, but what's the general valsi for "have" in the sense used here, which is neither hold, nor possess, nor retain? Are you suggesting that every instance of "<x1> srana lo <bridi>" be changed to "<x1> se <bridi>"?

  There is no single lojban word which means the English "have" in all its senses (my Merriam Webster lists over 13.)  Indeed, I'm surprised that Ceqli does have such a thing.  In most cases, such as "I have a house/car/pet/hat", possession is indicated, and "ponse" is correct.  In cases of indicating holding something ("I have a gun"), "jgari" would be correct" To indicate a general relationship between two things, the actual nature of the relationship should be indicated ("I have a brother", "I have a head" -> "mi se bruna" "mi se stedu")

I didn't say "all" senses. I said "this" sense, and you didn't answer my question. Based on your response, I'll assume your answer would be "yes".

   Well, the point I was trying to make is that lojban would consider "I have a hand" and "I have a head" to be to DIFFERENT senses of a word glossed in English as "have" because one is "being-with-hand" and one is "being-with-head".  So I am not suggesting that "every instance of '<x1> srana lo <bridi>' be changed to '<x1> se <bridi>'"  Only where '<x1> se <bridi>' is in fact what you are trying to convey. 

  Well, I did actually write my first note about it on Mar. 16 on your original thread, and I also commented when the first 10 panels were released.  Did I have the time to look up the original comic and compare your long draft to it?  No, not really (as indicated by the fact that my current response came two weeks after the last comment on this thread),  but so many other people were commenting on it, and to be honest, it seemed like you really weren't interested in taking their constructive criticism (your responses ran along the lines of "I know I'm wrong, but I don't care"), so I figured why should I bother wasting my time?  Anyway, it was easier to see it in the actual strip, like Renato had done.

No, my responses ran along the lines of "what you're complaining about is petite". What you're talking about right now is not petite. It's pretty damned important points, actually. Also, I did actually take a lot of the feedback into consideration- the whole thing with using unassigned ko'a, for example- but it turned out that the proposed alternative was actually /worse/ than what I had in some of those cases, so I reverted. I have never refused to make a change when I knew that I was wrong- I have disagreed that some things were wrong. But I have never in my life, in anything, been wrong and decided to continue being so. If it is shown to me that I am wrong, whether it be through other people showing me, as you did with the pet ralte use and the panzi<->verba thing, or by my own furtherance of knowledge, or what-have-you, I will immediately endeavor to be right. I may be stubborn, but I'm not stupid, and refusing to reverse one's stance in the face of overwhelming evidence is stupid.

  For example on the issue of "la" vs. "zo" in regards to the x1 "cmene" you were told you were flat-out wrong about it by many people and yet you dug in your heels for the longest time about it.

I did say I was stubborn, didn't I?
 

  (on the issue of petty complaints, btw, the word is "petty", not "petite"  ;-) )

"Petty" is the wrong spelling but the correct pronunciation, "petite" is the correct spelling but the wrong pronunciation. "Petite" is a French word meaning "small".
 

  Yes, "petite" is the French for small, however, the English word "petty", which is derived from the French, is the correct spelling for what you are trying to convey.  To quote from Merriam Webster's 11th collegiate:

1 : having secondary rank or importance : minor, subordinate

2

: having little or no importance or significance

3

: marked by or reflective of narrow interests and sympathies :small-minded

...

Examples of PETTY

1. a petty argument about grammar

    It is definition 2 (or perhaps 1) that you are looking at here, and is directly conveyed by their example.

    (Have I mentioned that I am an editor over at an English language website for about 8years?  ;-) )

    Incidentally, I didn't stress that I DO appreciate the work you have done, and don't mean to denigrate it in any way.  Your translation of the comic is of great importance.

              --gejyspa

[Jonathan Jones]

I know the English definitions. I know that in English, "Petite" is pronounced "pe-teet" and is a woman's garment size. I think that whole thing is stupid, and choose to use the French word exclusively.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

    Incidentally, I didn't stress that I DO appreciate the work you have done, and don't mean to denigrate it in any way.  Your translation of the comic is of great importance.

              --gejyspa

It is? Why is that? I fail to see the importance, let alone the greatness thereof.

[MorphemeAddict]

Then you risk being misunderstood, because the English word you mean is not "petite". Indeed, "petty" is from the masculine form "petit", not the feminine form, so "petite" is still wrong. 

stevo 

 

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

... "what you're complaining about is petit".
 

stevo 

 

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, May 07, 2012 19:57:02 MorphemeAddict wrote:
> Then you risk being misunderstood, because the English word you mean is not
> "petite". Indeed, "petty" is from the masculine form "petit", not the
> feminine form, so "petite" is still wrong.

Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.

Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Monday, May 07, 2012 19:57:02 MorphemeAddict wrote:
> Then you risk being misunderstood, because the English word you mean is not
> "petite". Indeed, "petty" is from the masculine form "petit", not the
> feminine form, so "petite" is still wrong.

Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.

Or at least wash your hands afterwards? :)
 

Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

Anyway, before I upload the modified comic, are there any other errors anyone sees?

(And by error, I am specifically excluding the complaints about it being in a small-caps font for reasons of Lojban not caring about case, and the whole ".i" thing, as I consider that to be implicit in the fact that the jufra in question are separated by panel borders.)

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

 ... "I have a hand" is "mi se xance" "I have two hands" is "mi se xance lo remei" "mi se xance lo pritu", etc.

Fine, but what's the general valsi for "have" in the sense used here, which is neither hold, nor possess, nor retain? Are you suggesting that every instance of "<x1> srana lo <bridi>" be changed to "<x1> se <bridi>"?

  There is no single lojban word which means the English "have" in all its senses (my Merriam Webster lists over 13.)  Indeed, I'm surprised that Ceqli does have such a thing.  In most cases, such as "I have a house/car/pet/hat", possession is indicated, and "ponse" is correct.  In cases of indicating holding something ("I have a gun"), "jgari" would be correct" To indicate a general relationship between two things, the actual nature of the relationship should be indicated ("I have a brother", "I have a head" -> "mi se bruna" "mi se stedu")

I didn't say "all" senses. I said "this" sense, and you didn't answer my question. Based on your response, I'll assume your answer would be "yes".

   Well, the point I was trying to make is that lojban would consider "I have a hand" and "I have a head" to be to DIFFERENT senses of a word glossed in English as "have" because one is "being-with-hand" and one is "being-with-head".  So I am not suggesting that "every instance of '<x1> srana lo <bridi>' be changed to '<x1> se <bridi>'"  Only where '<x1> se <bridi>' is in fact what you are trying to convey. 

So, in other words, your answer is "yes", at least in the cases where the place structure of <bridi> is "x1 is the <bridi> of x2 ...", such as with stedu, xance, dalpe'o, famti, panzi, etc., etc.

Obviously in the case of valsi that don't follow that pattern we just can't use that word for that sense of "have", since apparently we have no valsi that has that sense /generally/, which, by the way, was what I was asking.

Also, I disagree that pets are owned. Yes, they are bought, but I don't consider any living thing property, so ponse is definitely not the right word for the relationship between myself and my pets.

[Jonathan Jones]

Here's an update on the translation, only the affected panels are listed, so pay attention to the numbers. If you see anything I missed, let me know. Also, again, if there's anything in the rest of the translation that bears revisiting, let me know about that too.

17. cy: doi.sam. do jgari lo va mo
    sy: mi jgari lo mapku

18. ti me lo mi mapku .i mi jgari lo mi mapku di'o lo xance .i mi xanra'e lo mi mapku

20. cy: doi.djan. do jgari lo va mo
    dy: mi jgari lo tankytu'u .i ti me lo mi tankytu'u

26. dy: la.flyfis. dalpe'o mi
    sy: xu la.clalis. se dalpe'o ji'a ta

27. .ie cy. se dalpe'o .iki'u lo cy. dalpe'o na gerku .i lo go'i cu mlatu .i lo mlatu cu se cmene zo snime

42. mi se xance .i mi se xance lo remei .i mi se xance lo pritu .e lo zunle .i mi se xance lo remei .i re xance
    li pa .i lo ri'u xance
    li re .i lo zu'a xance
(Side note: I thought about changing these to "lo pritu xance" and "lo zunle xance" to match "mi se xance lo pritu .e lo zunle", but I decided not to, as it had the benefit of using the cmavo forms, and I figured readers would get that pritu<->ri'u and zunle<->zu'a. What do you think?)

48. la snime cu dalpe'o .ije la.flyfis. dalpe'o ji'a .i mi se dalpe'o .ije la.djan. se dalpe'o ji'a

54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli

59. la.grin. .e la.salis. se bruna lo pamei .i la.bil. bruna la.grin. .e la.salis. .i la.bil. se mensi lo remei .i la.grin. .e la.salis. mensi la.bil.

60. le ci panzi cu bersa mi .ija'a bersa mi .i mi mamta le ci panzi .i la.sam. patfu .i mi .e la.sam. rirni le ci panzi .i lo mi'a bersa cu nanla .ije lo mi'a tixnu cu nixli

61. cy: lo vu nanmu cu mo
    by: ko'a goi la.zam. .i lo go'i cu bruna la.sam. .i mi fetspe la.sam. gi'e ji'a me'ispe la.zam. .i la.zam. bunspe mi .i la.zam. famti lo mi'a ci panzi
    sy: la.zam. bruna mi

62. la.zam. famti la.bil. .e la.grin. .e la.salis. .i lo se go'i cu se famti la.zam. .i la.bil. nanmu se famti la.zam. .ije la.grin. .e la.salis. ninmu se famti la.zam. .i la.zam. famti pa nanmu .e re ninmu .i go'i ci se famti

63. cy: ta mo
    by: ta patfu mi .i ta se cmene zo.baluz. .i la.baluz. patfu mi .iji'a pafspe la.sam. gi'e mamypa'u ci mi'a panzi .i la.sam. be'aspe la.baluz.
    sy: coi.baluz.
    vy: coi mamypa'u

64. ji'a la.baluz. se fetspe .i lo go'i fetspe cu se cmene zo.jin. .i la.jin. mamta mi gi'e mamymamta ci mi'a panzi .iji'a mamyspe la.sam. .i la.sam. be'aspe la.jin. .iji'a jy. be'aspe la.zam.

65. ji'a la.baluz. .e la.djin. se bersa la.jos. .i la.jos. bruna mi .iji'a la.jos. famti ci mi'a panzi .iji'a jy. se bersa la.stiv. gi'e se tixnu la.teris. .i la.stiv. .e la.teris. se famti mi .iji'a lo go'i cu tamne ci mi'a panzi .ije ci mi'a panzi cu tamne lo go'i

68. cy: doi.baras. do se panzi lo xomei
    by: mi se panzi lo cimei

69. cy: xo panzi cu tixnu
    by: re le ci panzi cu tixnu .i pa le ci panzi cu bersa

70.
pa bersa re tixnu cu te sumji ci panzi
1 bersa + 2 tixnu = 3 panzi

ci panzi pa bersa cu sumji re tixnu
3 panzi - 1 bersa = 2 tixnu

71. cy: doi.baras. lo do panzi cu nanca li xo
    by: lo mi bersa cu nanca li so .ije lo mi tixnu cu nanca li paci .i lo go'i cu kanjbe

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, before I upload the modified comic, are there any other errors
> anyone sees?

22/23/24: "ta" should be "tu" since it's away from both speaker and listener.

26: "ji'a" should be after "la clalis" since it's her that is the
additional person having a pet, it's not about her having a pet in
addition to doing something else to it.

31: I would use "bramau" rather than "fi" here. It seems like she's
making straightforward comparisons.

32/33/34: I think "norbra" is better than "na'obra", and I would also
prefer "brana'o" to "na'obra".

38: misplaced "ji'a" again.

43: "sepli" should be "sepsi'u", and "kansa" is about doing something
together, not really about location. I suggest "jonsi'u" or
"tolsepsi'u" instead.

48/49: misplaced "ji'a".

63: To me "ko'a pafspe ko'e" means "ko'a speni lo patfu be ko'e", and
"ko'a be'aspe ko'e" is "ko'a speni lo bersa be ko'e".

64: Similarly for "mamspe" (no need for "y").

67: "pa ki'o pa no no" is "1,100", not "1,000,100", which is "pa ki'o
ki'o pa no no". "du" is better than "mintu" for the equals sign.
Calling "-" sumji and "/" pilji is extremely weird.

72: x3 of "zmadu" should be a property, not a number.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 18. ti me lo mi mapku .i mi jgari lo mi mapku di'o lo xance .i mi xanra'e lo
> mi mapku

It's better without "di'o". Also "xanjai" instead of "xanra'e"?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, before I upload the modified comic, are there any other errors
> anyone sees?

22/23/24: "ta" should be "tu" since it's away from both speaker and listener.

Right, my mistake. I think it's because the Ceqli version used "ka" (the equivalent to "ta") that messed me up.
 

26: "ji'a" should be after "la clalis" since it's her that is the
additional person having a pet, it's not about her having a pet in
addition to doing something else to it.

Noted.

31: I would use "bramau" rather than "fi" here. It seems like she's
making straightforward comparisons.

Well, yes, but I was trying to keep the grammar simple. Part of that was using gismu instead of lujvo if at all possible, especially in the earlier panels. That's not to say I won't do it, just that I'd like other opinions on the matter as well.
 

32/33/34: I think "norbra" is better than "na'obra", and I would also
prefer "brana'o" to "na'obra".

Do you have any particular reason for this, or is it just a personal preference? Also, would you prefer "norbra" over "brana'o" or vice-versa?
 

38: misplaced "ji'a" again.

43: "sepli" should be "sepsi'u", and "kansa" is about doing something
together, not really about location. I suggest "jonsi'u" or
"tolsepsi'u" instead.

Okay, the sepsi'u thing I get, but lo te kansa is an event /or/ state. I agree that "jonsi'u" is a better choice here, but I'd prefer to use gismu as I said above, I can't use any word involving jorne in the later panels, and the repitition of the word in multiple examples is kind of the point of those panels.

Do you have a suggestion I can use in place of sepli/kansa I can use in all those panels?
 

48/49: misplaced "ji'a".

63: To me "ko'a pafspe ko'e" means "ko'a speni lo patfu be ko'e", and
"ko'a be'aspe ko'e" is "ko'a speni lo bersa be ko'e".

So, "spepa'u" and "spebe'a"?
 

64: Similarly for "mamspe" (no need for "y").

"spemamta"?
 

67: "pa ki'o pa no no" is "1,100", not "1,000,100", which is "pa ki'o
ki'o pa no no". "du" is better than "mintu" for the equals sign.
Calling "-" sumji and "/" pilji is extremely weird.

Agreed, but mekso is awful, and I don't understand it, so I chose not to use it. If you can re-do the examples using mekso, I'll put those in instead.

Ah, yeah. Hmm. I think my reason for the sumji pliji weirdness was order. "li vo sumji li re li re" is "the number 4 is the sum of the number 2 and the number 2", yes, but it could also be read as "the number 4 less by the number 2 is the number 2". Now that I think about it, that sounds really stupid to me. Again, I don't understand mekso, so I did my best at the time.
 

72: x3 of "zmadu" should be a property, not a number.

Um, the x3 of zmadu is a propery /or/ quantity. lo se nanca is a quantity, specifically a quantity of years, unless I'm missing something.
 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

22-24,26,38,48,49,63,and 64 have been changed as per your critique. I'm going to wait on your response before I do anything to the others.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 18. ti me lo mi mapku .i mi jgari lo mi mapku di'o lo xance .i mi xanra'e lo
> mi mapku

It's better without "di'o".

Right, that's a hold-over from the previous "mi ralte lo mi ...", because ralte's place structure didn't have that, that I missed when making the correction ralte->jgari.
 

Also "xanjai" instead of "xanra'e"?

Yes, thank you.
 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Those are fixed now.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 32/33/34: I think "norbra" is better than "na'obra", and I would also
>> prefer "brana'o" to "na'obra".
>
> Do you have any particular reason for this, or is it just a personal
> preference? Also, would you prefer "norbra" over "brana'o" or vice-versa?

In order of preference: no'e barda > norbra > brana'o

"brana'o" is from "cnano lo ka barda", "na'obra" is not so clear.

>> 43: "sepli" should be "sepsi'u", and "kansa" is about doing something
>> together, not really about location. I suggest "jonsi'u" or
>> "tolsepsi'u" instead.
>
> Okay, the sepsi'u thing I get, but lo te kansa is an event /or/ state.

Yes, but the hands that are raised together are kansi'u as much as
those that are touching one other together.

>I
> agree that "jonsi'u" is a better choice here,

"lamsi'u" works too.

>but I'd prefer to use gismu as
> I said above, I can't use any word involving jorne in the later panels, and
> the repitition of the word in multiple examples is kind of the point of
> those panels.
>
> Do you have a suggestion I can use in place of sepli/kansa I can use in all
> those panels?

sepsi'u/tolsepsi'u?

>> 63: To me "ko'a pafspe ko'e" means "ko'a speni lo patfu be ko'e", and
>> "ko'a be'aspe ko'e" is "ko'a speni lo bersa be ko'e".
>
> So, "spepa'u" and "spebe'a"?

spepa'u is father-in-law, spebe'a is stepson.

son-in-law would usually be tixspe ("nakni pazyspe", "male
offspring-spouse") would be a more exact translation, which is not
necessarily better.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> 32/33/34: I think "norbra" is better than "na'obra", and I would also
>> prefer "brana'o" to "na'obra".
>
> Do you have any particular reason for this, or is it just a personal
> preference? Also, would you prefer "norbra" over "brana'o" or vice-versa?

In order of preference: no'e barda > norbra > brana'o

"brana'o" is from "cnano lo ka barda", "na'obra" is not so clear.

I think I'll go with with no'e barda, then. Thank you.
 

>> 43: "sepli" should be "sepsi'u", and "kansa" is about doing something
>> together, not really about location. I suggest "jonsi'u" or
>> "tolsepsi'u" instead.
>
> Okay, the sepsi'u thing I get, but lo te kansa is an event /or/ state.

Yes, but the hands that are raised together are kansi'u as much as
those that are touching one other together.

>I
> agree that "jonsi'u" is a better choice here,

"lamsi'u" works too.

Well, yes, but it doesn't work in panel  #44, or (at least arguably) in #45, as a replacement for kansa.

>but I'd prefer to use gismu as
> I said above, I can't use any word involving jorne in the later panels, and
> the repitition of the word in multiple examples is kind of the point of
> those panels.
>
> Do you have a suggestion I can use in place of sepli/kansa I can use in all
> those panels?

sepsi'u/tolsepsi'u?

Um, do you have a better suggestion?

Do we really not have a gismu of any kind for to'e sepli?
 

>> 63: To me "ko'a pafspe ko'e" means "ko'a speni lo patfu be ko'e", and
>> "ko'a be'aspe ko'e" is "ko'a speni lo bersa be ko'e".
>
> So, "spepa'u" and "spebe'a"?

spepa'u is father-in-law, spebe'a is stepson.

son-in-law would usually be tixspe ("nakni pazyspe", "male
offspring-spouse") would be a more exact translation, which is not
necessarily better.

You know, I really, really dislike the use of a word meaning female to describe a male (and vice-versa), and not because it's prejudicial to homosexual relationships- although that is an excellent additional reason, imo.

At this point, "pazyspe" seems like the best option to me. I don't honestly care about the lack of gender specification- we already know he's a guy. Plus, it kind of goes with my reasoning behind calling a female officer of the law a policeman. That and the fact that while English (amd apparently, Ceqli) aren't very gender-neutral, Lojban /is/. It might even be malropno to be gender specific....

So, if {ko'a tixspe ko'e} is {ko'a speni lo tixnu be ko'e}, what is {ko'a bersa ko'e ki'u lodu'u speni lo ri panzi}?

Also, why is it that all the familial gismu have a "by bond x3" except bersa and tixnu? I hate it when I encounter exceptions like that.

I think from this point, I'm going to start /pretending/ they do have the "by bond" x3. So, what's the lujvo for {ko'a bersa ko'e lo nunspe}?
 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Since you didn't reply to the others:

doi rodo Are you satisfied with barda in #31, given my reasoning behind using it, or would you rather I changed it to "bramau" as .xorxes. suggests?

doi.xorxes. So, to make sure, spepa'u and spemamta are the correct words?

Regarding #67-#70: Can I get the math problems done using mekso? From anyone? IIRC, someone did a proposal on how to fix the mekso (.xorxes.?) so it wasn't quite so incomprehensible, maybe use that instead? Failing that, I'll jjust de-weirdify what's on there now.

Regarding #72: I'm not missing anything, right?

[Miles Forster]

coi
Since I'm pro-mekso (one of a select few?), it's probably my job to do this.

> Regarding #67-#70: Can I get the math problems done using mekso? From
> anyone? IIRC, someone did a proposal on how to fix the mekso
> (.xorxes.?) so it wasn't quite so incomprehensible, maybe use that
> instead? Failing that, I'll jjust de-weirdify what's on there now.

#67
1,000,100 pa ki'o ki'o pa no no
186,000 pa bi xa ki'o
1,000,000,000 pa ki'o ki'o ki'o
= du
+ su'i
- vu'u
* pi'i
/ fe'i

4 + 9 = 13 li vo su'i so du li pa ci
100 - 8 = 92 li pa no no vu'u bi du li so re
8 * 7 = 56 li bi pi'i ze du li mu xa
99 / 33 = 3 li so so fe'i ci ci du li ci

#68-69 are fine with regards to numbers.

#70
The mekso parts are:
li mo'e pa bersa su'i mo'e re tixnu du li mo'e ci verba
li mo'e ci verba vu'u mo'e pa bersa du li mo'e re tixnu

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
.i da xamgu ganse fi no na'ebo lo risna
.i lo vajrai cu nonselji'u lo kanla

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> son-in-law would usually be tixspe ("nakni pazyspe", "male
>> offspring-spouse") would be a more exact translation, which is not
>> necessarily better.
>
> You know, I really, really dislike the use of a word meaning female to
> describe a male (and vice-versa),

Do you dislike "maternal grandfather" and "paternal grandmother" too?

>and not because it's prejudicial to
> homosexual relationships- although that is an excellent additional reason,
> imo.

It's just a different grouping than in English. English "son-in-law"
groups the male spouses of the offspring in a single word, whatever
the sex of the offspring, while Lojban "tixspe" groups the spouses of
the female offspring in one word, whatever the sex of the spouses.
Both words allow for homosexual marriages, just different ones.

> At this point, "pazyspe" seems like the best option to me. I don't honestly
> care about the lack of gender specification- we already know he's a guy.

Right, that's more general.

> So, if {ko'a tixspe ko'e} is {ko'a speni lo tixnu be ko'e}, what is {ko'a
> bersa ko'e ki'u lodu'u speni lo ri panzi}?

But why should marrying someone have to make you the son of their
parents? You could even be older than their parents, which makes
calling yourself their son sound even more strange. Just because
English happens to use the same word for "son" and "son-in-law"
doesn't mean Lojban should.

> Also, why is it that all the familial gismu have a "by bond x3" except bersa
> and tixnu? I hate it when I encounter exceptions like that.

Yes, it's annoying.

> I think from this point, I'm going to start /pretending/ they do have the
> "by bond" x3. So, what's the lujvo for {ko'a bersa ko'e lo nunspe}?

That would be a stepson, right? Or is it a son-in-law? It depends on
whose marriage we are talking about.

> doi.xorxes. So, to make sure, spepa'u and spemamta are the correct words?

For "patfu lo speni" and "mamta lo speni". Or you could use "sperirni"
for both if you don't want sex to be involved.

> Regarding #72: I'm not missing anything, right?

I don't think "lo se nanca" makes sense there.

[ianek]

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 2:12:55 PM UTC+2, xorxes wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jonathan Jones  wrote:

So let's change it! I mean, we should gather complaints like that and make new versions of Lojban from time to time (once a couple of years?).

If there are annoying things in Lojban and we know how to fix them, then we should stop complaining and do something! It's our language, there's nobody to stop us!

I have similar thoughts about jbovlaste, but I'll better start another thread for that.

mu'o mi'e ianek

[gleki]

Please don't change anything in gismu definitions!
We may ignore some sumti place, use sumtcita for "by bond..." etc.
but don't change the existing rules.
In extreme cases let's just create new gismu in favor of elder ones
but this
would be something extraordinal.

The only thing I can accept in the nearest future is from Lojbanic
born
children (doi .robin. .a'o ta baza zasti vau .u'i)

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> son-in-law would usually be tixspe ("nakni pazyspe", "male
>> offspring-spouse") would be a more exact translation, which is not
>> necessarily better.
>
> You know, I really, really dislike the use of a word meaning female to
> describe a male (and vice-versa),

Do you dislike "maternal grandfather" and "paternal grandmother" too?

Not if you mean, respectively, the "father of the mother of X" and "the mother of the father of X". But in those cases, the word describing the person is, respectively, "grandfather" and "grandmother". The opposite-gender portion describes the person's child's gender, not theirs.
 

>and not because it's prejudicial to
> homosexual relationships- although that is an excellent additional reason,
> imo.

It's just a different grouping than in English. English "son-in-law"
groups the male spouses of the offspring in a single word, whatever
the sex of the offspring, while Lojban "tixspe" groups the spouses of
the female offspring in one word, whatever the sex of the spouses.
Both words allow for homosexual marriages, just different ones.

Well, then, it's the different grouping that makes it all confusing and annoying. The English gloss/keyword/definition is very misleading entirely because of that.
 

> At this point, "pazyspe" seems like the best option to me. I don't honestly
> care about the lack of gender specification- we already know he's a guy.

Right, that's more general.

> So, if {ko'a tixspe ko'e} is {ko'a speni lo tixnu be ko'e}, what is {ko'a
> bersa ko'e ki'u lodu'u speni lo ri panzi}?

But why should marrying someone have to make you the son of their
parents? You could even be older than their parents, which makes
calling yourself their son sound even more strange. Just because
English happens to use the same word for "son" and "son-in-law"
doesn't mean Lojban should.

I suppose you have a point. I will reiterate that I feel that tixspe should not be translated as "son-in-law" in the English definition of the word, however, as it is misleading.
 

> Also, why is it that all the familial gismu have a "by bond x3" except bersa
> and tixnu? I hate it when I encounter exceptions like that.

Yes, it's annoying.

> I think from this point, I'm going to start /pretending/ they do have the
> "by bond" x3. So, what's the lujvo for {ko'a bersa ko'e lo nunspe}?

That would be a stepson, right? Or is it a son-in-law?

Yes. (A very Lojbanic answer, iidssm. )
 

It depends on
whose marriage we are talking about.

> doi.xorxes. So, to make sure, spepa'u and spemamta are the correct words?

For "patfu lo speni" and "mamta lo speni". Or you could use "sperirni"
for both if you don't want sex to be involved.

> Regarding #72: I'm not missing anything, right?

I don't think "lo se nanca" makes sense there.

Yes, you said that, but you never elaborated, which is why I continue asking.
 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jonathan Jones]

You do realize that changing the place structures of valsi that do not fit the pattern of their group to fit the pattern and thus erase exceptions would make remembering the entire group easier, while adding a new word, of any kind, to the language, makes the language harder, yes?

Here's an example:

mamta  - x1 is a mother of x2; x1 bears/mothers/acts maternally toward x2; [not necessarily biological]
patfu     - x1 is a father of x2; x1 begets/sires/acts paternal towards x2; [not necessarily biological]
rirni       - x1 is a parent of/raises/rears x2; x1 mentors/acts parental toward child/protege x2
famti     - x1 is an aunt/uncle of x2 by bond/tie x3; x1 is an associated member of x2's parent's generation
panzi    - x1 is a [biological] offspring/child/kid/hybrid of parent(s) x2; (adjective:) x1 is filial
tixnu     - x1 is a daughter of mother/father/parents x2; [not necessarily biological]
bersa    - x1 is a son of mother/father/parents x2 [not necessarily biological]
bruna    - x1 is brother of/fraternal to x2 by bond/tie/standard/parent(s) x3; [not necess. biological]
mensi   - x1 is a sister of/sororal to x2 by bond/tie/standard/parent(s) x3; [not necessarily biological]

Notice how all of those are familial relationships, but some have a "by bond" x3 place, and some don't? This is what we call an exception. To make things doubly irritating, all of these words contain the information that the relationship is not necessarily biological, /including/ the ones that don't give you a place to say what kind of relationship it is!

Do you really want to have to remember which ones have the "by bond" x3 and which don't? If they /all/ did, then the place structure of the entire group would be "x1 is <familial relationship> of x2 by bond x3", and all you'd need to remember for that individual valsi is which <familial relationship> that valsi is, and additionally would enable a person to say "I have an adopted son." without accidentally placing the bond "adopted" into the non-existent x3 place that /ought/ to be there, or resorting to using BAI to make it have that place tag.

In short, there are /NO/ harmful effects to regulating the place structure's of similar words. For example, if all measurement valsi had the exact same place structure, differing only in the thing being measured, then that means for all of those valsi we would only need to remember one place structure.

Exceptions crop up in every language, and they are /always/ /bad/.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.

To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:25 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

So let's change it! I mean, we should gather complaints like that and make new versions of Lojban from time to time (once a couple of years?).

If there are annoying things in Lojban and we know how to fix them, then we should stop complaining and do something! It's our language, there's nobody to stop us!

I have similar thoughts about jbovlaste, but I'll better start another thread for that.

mu'o mi'e ianek

Well, as far as gismu are concerned, we're not currently allowed to make any changes. By the statutes of our community, the "baseline" of the language is not allowed to change until the entirety has been documented. This only means gismu and cmavo, btw. We're allowed to make and edit as many lujvo, fu'ivla, and cmevla as we want.

In other words, when the goal as stated on this page has been met, then we can start actually making improvements to the base language, such as regulating the place structures to remove exceptions. Until then, however, when it comes to the baseline, all we can do is talk, moan, discuss, and complain.

[Michael Turniansky]

  While not denying the badness of the model not being consistent, you do realize that you can add additional places in utterance to gismu without fanfare, right? "mi tixnu la djan lo za'i {adopt}" -> "mi tixnu la djan do'e la za'i {adopt}".  And it wouldn't be hard for the listener/reader to understand the nature of the "x3" place.

  As to some of your other questions.   I have no problem with panel 31 using barda fi, although I do agree that "bramau" would be "more correct".

   If you don't believe that you can own a pet, that's okay, that just means "la clalis ponse lo mlatu na'e bo la aionys"  :-)

   (in any case, you're okay here, because "se dalpe'o" works, too.

         --gejyspa

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  While not denying the badness of the model not being consistent, you do realize that you can add additional places in utterance to gismu without fanfare, right? "mi tixnu la djan lo za'i {adopt}" -> "mi tixnu la djan do'e la za'i {adopt}".  And it wouldn't be hard for the listener/reader to understand the nature of the "x3" place.

Yes, I know. In the particular case of the familial relationship valsi, I would not be surprised if people often assumed that the word /did/ have a "by bond" x3 if someone filled three places in such a bridi. Which is why I've decided to "pretend" they all /do/ have that x3, regardless of the currently official definition, because it doesn't harm anything and it's actually friggin' useful to boot.

I was responding to gleki's plea, in an attempt to explain how changing the place structure of the exception valsi to match the rest of their groups' would be a /good/ thing. It has nothing to do with the Lojban translation of the comic.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

As to some of your other questions.   I have no problem with panel 31 using barda fi, although I do agree that "bramau" would be "more correct".

Yes, it would. My reason for choosing barda are entirely out of a desire for simplicity in the words presented, and barda is simpler than bramau. I wouldn't use the phrase "more correct", though. barda is still "correct", it's just that bramau is a "better choice".

   If you don't believe that you can own a pet, that's okay, that just means "la clalis ponse lo mlatu na'e bo la aionys"  :-)

   (in any case, you're okay here, because "se dalpe'o" works, too.

         --gejyspa

I think the relationship between a pet and it's caretaker is a unique bond that has similarities to the relationship between a person and his friends, and boss and her subordinates, and a person and his property, but is not truly the same as any of these. But that's not really important, as it's a philosophical opinion and we're discussing grammar.

[Michael Turniansky]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

.

   If you don't believe that you can own a pet, that's okay, that just means "la clalis ponse lo mlatu na'e bo la aionys"  :-)

   (in any case, you're okay here, because "se dalpe'o" works, too.

         --gejyspa

I think the relationship between a pet and it's caretaker is a unique bond that has similarities to the relationship between a person and his friends, and boss and her subordinates, and a person and his property, but is not truly the same as any of these. But that's not really important, as it's a philosophical opinion and we're discussing grammar.

  I agree.  You're the one that said you didn't want to use "ponse" because of your philosophy.  I merely point out that the te ponse enables you to limit the universe of who recognizes this ownership.  In the eyes of the  majority of cultures and governments, you can ponse lo dalpe'o.  In some cultures, you can ponse lo gunka.  In some, you can ponse lo fetspe, and in some, you can ponse lo panzi.  But like I said, you can use "se dalpe'o", be uncontroversial and true to your philosophy.  

            --gejyspa

[ianek]

Of those things, the least controversial should be {mi ponse lo xance}, because I certainly am the owner of my hand, even if I can't point to an appropriate law/custom. Although, {mi ponse lo xance} sounds pretty gruesome to me.

[Jonathan Jones]

Hooray for uncontroversial!

So, back to the pending changes list, it looks like everything is taken care of now except for the elaboration on .xorxes. opinion that "lo se nanca" in {lo mi'a tixnu cu zmadu lo mi'a bersa lo se nanca li vo} in panel #72 doesn't make sense, and I'd also like to get more people's input on {lo vi mlatu cu barda fi lo vu mlatu} vs. {lo vi mlatu cu bramau fi lo vu mlatu} (and by extension, {lo vu mlatu cu cmalu fi lo vi mlatu} vs. {lo vu mlatu cu cmamau fi lo vi mlatu}) in panel #31.

Perhaps someone else that shares .xorxes.' view would care to proffer an explanation? I'm sure I'm not the only person here who'd like to get the corrected comic out as soon as possible.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Miles Forster <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

coi
Since I'm pro-mekso (one of a select few?), it's probably my job to do this.

#70
The mekso parts are:
li mo'e pa bersa su'i mo'e re tixnu du li mo'e ci verba
li mo'e ci verba vu'u mo'e pa bersa du li mo'e re tixnu

These don't work. the tixnu and bersa form a tanru with du. What's the closer for mo'e? I know I could use cu or ku, but I think this is a good opportunity to introduce that particular terminator.

Nevermind, I found it. (te'u)
 

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i 

--

[Jonathan Jones]

Oh yes, and what the fix is, if it isn't "loni se nanca".
 

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Miles Forster]

Yes, a te'u is missing, sorry. I was rushing to be the first to answer :P

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Miles Forster <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

Yes, a te'u is missing, sorry. I was rushing to be the first to answer :P

Well, I admire your enthusiasm, then, and hope that you continue. Also, thanks.

On a related note, has anyone else noticed that jboski absolutely hates numbers? Anytime I submit anything with "li" in it, jboski always encounters an "unexpected error" and refuses to parse.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

   If you don't believe that you can own a pet, that's okay, that just means "la clalis ponse lo mlatu na'e bo la aionys"  :-)

   (in any case, you're okay here, because "se dalpe'o" works, too.

         --gejyspa

I think the relationship between a pet and it's caretaker is a unique bond that has similarities to the relationship between a person and his friends, and boss and her subordinates, and a person and his property, but is not truly the same as any of these. But that's not really important, as it's a philosophical opinion and we're discussing grammar.

  I agree.  You're the one that said you didn't want to use "ponse" because of your philosophy.  I merely point out that the te ponse enables you to limit the universe of who recognizes this ownership.  In the eyes of the  majority of cultures and governments, you can ponse lo dalpe'o.  In some cultures, you can ponse lo gunka.  In some, you can ponse lo fetspe, and in some, you can ponse lo panzi.  But like I said, you can use "se dalpe'o", be uncontroversial and true to your philosophy.  

            --gejyspa

Hooray for uncontroversial!

So, back to the pending changes list, it looks like everything is taken care of now except for the elaboration on .xorxes. opinion that "lo se nanca" in {lo mi'a tixnu cu zmadu lo mi'a bersa lo se nanca li vo} in panel #72 doesn't make sense, and I'd also like to get more people's input on {lo vi mlatu cu barda fi lo vu mlatu} vs. {lo vi mlatu cu bramau fi lo vu mlatu} (and by extension, {lo vu mlatu cu cmalu fi lo vi mlatu} vs. {lo vu mlatu cu cmamau fi lo vi mlatu}) in panel #31.

Perhaps someone else that shares .xorxes.' view would care to proffer an explanation? I'm sure I'm not the only person here who'd like to get the corrected comic out as soon as possible.

Oh yes, and what the fix is, if it isn't "loni se nanca".

Amendment: There's also the kansa/sepli thing.

[Miles Forster]

Am 09.05.2012 23:53, schrieb Jonathan Jones:
> On a related note, has anyone else noticed that jboski absolutely
> hates numbers? Anytime I submit anything with "li" in it, jboski
> always encounters an "unexpected error" and refuses to parse.

I just looked at it, and it appears to use the same parser as our
grammar bot on IRC. There is a simple fix to your problem: For any
trailing PA strings, either close them with boi or close the li with
lo'o. That will work.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh yes, and what the fix is, if it isn't "loni se nanca".

"lo ka [ce'u] nanca [ma kau]".

"ce'u" stands for the ones with the property (in this case the people
being compared) and "ma kau" stands for the value that makes the bridi
true in each case.

"ni" makes more sense with selbri that don't already have a number as
one of their arguments, since it essentially adds a quantity place to
its inner selbri.

[Jonathan Jones]

So, {lo mi'a tixnu cu zmadu lo mi'a bersa loka se nanca li vo}?

[Jonathan Jones]

Regarding the kansa/sepli thing:

I'm assuming that kansa/sepli in the other panels is good as is, meaning the problem is only in panel #43, yes?

[MorphemeAddict]

On the other hand, nobody can stop you from using the form of Lojban you want. It may not be understood readily if you do. 

You take the risk, you accept the consequences. 

(Sadly, the beginners list is not the place for this sort of comment, but there it is.)

stevo

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:45 PM, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

On the other hand, nobody can stop you from using the form of Lojban you want. It may not be understood readily if you do. 

You take the risk, you accept the consequences. 

(Sadly, the beginners list is not the place for this sort of comment, but there it is.)

stevo

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Lojban is a proscribed language, so there's /only/ one form. If you're not using that form, you're not using Lojban.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

So, in the course of making the corrections, I came across this little snag:

The man Zam is the brother of the husband of the daughter of the woman Jin, which makes him Jin's son-in-law.

In the original translation, I have {jy. be'aspe la.zam.}, which is obviously wrong.

So, let's see. {jy. mamta lo speni be lo bruna be la.zam.} is {jy. be'aspemamta la.zam.}? Is there some way to make that shorter?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, in the course of making the corrections, I came across this little snag:

The man Zam is the brother of the husband of the daughter of the woman Jin, which makes him Jin's son-in-law.

In the original translation, I have {jy. be'aspe la.zam.}, which is obviously wrong.

So, let's see. {jy. mamta lo speni be lo bruna be la.zam.} is {jy. be'aspemamta la.zam.}? Is there some way to make that shorter?

Oops. I meant "bunspemamta

What about getting rid of the "speni" part, which means leaving the "te bruna" implicit, and further removing the gender specificity, and going with "tubmamta"?

[Jonathan Jones]

Okay, so here's the corrected translation thus far.

Some notes:
I haven't made the barda->bramau change yet, because I'm still waiting to hear from more than two people before I do anything there.

I'm not exactly happy with the breaking of what I'll call "shadowing" for lack of a better term in panel #43 with respect to the surrounding panels, but I decided trying to figure out a word-choice that /didn't/ wasn't worth the effort, so I just went with jonsi'u/sepsi'u.

In panel #64, it currently reads {dy. tubmamta la.zam.} for "Jin is the mother-in-law of Zam". Zam's brother's wife is Jin's daughter. Unless someone has a better idea, I'm going to leave it like that.

Anyway, here's the full translation as it appears in the comic:

1. coi
2. mi se cmene zo.clalis.
3. ko'a goi la.djan.
4. ko'a se cmene zo.djan.
5. cy: coi.djan.
   dy: coi.clalis.
6. mi ninmu
7. ko'a nanmu .i la.djan. nanmu
8. cy: mi ninmu .i do nanmu
   dy: mi nanmu .i do ninmu
9. cy: ko'a nanmu
   dy: ko'e ninmu
10. mi zvati ti
11. do zvati ta
12. ko'i zvati tu
13. mi .e do zvati ti .i mi'o zvati ti
14. mi .e ko'i zvati ti .i mi'a zvati ti
15. do .e ko'i zvati ta .i do'o zvati ta
16. cy: mi se cmene zo.clalis. .ije ko'a se cmene zo.djan. .i ma cmene do
    sy:mi se cmene zo.sam.
17. cy: doi.sam. do jgari lo va mo
    sy: mi jgari lo mapku
18. ti me lo mi mapku .i mi jgari lo mi mapku lo xance .i mi xanjai lo mi mapku
19. cy: xu ta me lo do mapku
    sy: go'i .i ti me lo mi mapku
20. cy: doi.djan. do jgari lo va mo
    dy: mi jgari lo tankytu'u .i ti me lo mi tankytu'u
21. ti me lo la.sam. mapku .ije ti me lo la.djan. tankytu'u
22. doi.clalis. tu mo
23. cy: tu gerku
    sy: xu tu me lo do gerku
24. nago'i .i tu na me lo mi gerku .i tu me lo la.djan. gerku
25. sy: doi.djan. ma cmene lo do gerku
    dy: zo.flyfis. cmene
26. dy: la.flyfis. dalpe'o mi
    sy: xu la.clalis.ji'a se dalpe'o
27. .ie cy. se dalpe'o .iki'u lo cy. dalpe'o na gerku .i lo go'i cu mlatu .i lo mlatu cu se cmene zo snime
28. xu la snime cu mlatu .i lo go'i cu barda.iepei mlatu
29. go'i .i la snime cu barda .i lo go'i cu tcebra
30. lo vi mlatu cu barda .i lo vu mlatu cu cmalu
31. lo vi mlatu cu barda fi lo vu mlatu .i lo vu mlatu cu cmalu fi lo vi mlatu
32. sy: xu la.flyfis. barda gerku
    cy: nago'i .i la.flyfis. barda najenai cmalu .i lo go'i cu no'e barda
33. cmalu mapku ... barda mapku ... no'e barda mapku
34. barda zdani ... cmalu zdani ... no'e barda zdani
35. sy: la.djan. zvati ma
    cy: go'i tu
36. sy: mi zvati ma
    cy: doi.sam. do zvati ta
37. sy: doi.clalis. do xabju ma
    cy: mi xabju lo vu cmalu zdani
38. sy: la.djan. xabju ma
    cy: la.djan.ji'a xabju lo vu cmalu zdani
39. sy: xu do .e la.djan. xabju lo vu cmalu zdani
    cy: go'i .i mi'a kansa xabju
40. la.djan. mi speni .i la.djan. nakspe mi .ije mi fetspe dy. .i mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe gi'e kansa xabju
41. mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. kansa xabju lo vu cmalu zdani .i ro mi'a vu kanxa'u
42. mi se xance .i mi se xance lo remei .i mi se xance lo pritu .e lo zunle .i re xance
    .i li pa .i lo ri'u xance
    .i li re .i lo zu'a xance
43. lo mi xance cu jonsi'u .i lo mi xance cu sepsi'u
44. ko'a kansa xabju .i ko'e sepli xabju
45. mi citka .i la.djan. citka .i mi .e dy. kansa citka .i mi'a kancti
46. zo ji'a .i la snime cu pendo .iji'a lo go'i cu mlatu .i mi citka lo plise .iji'a mi citka lo badna
47. la.djan. nanmu .iji'a do nanmu .i mi na nanmu .i mi ninmu
48. la snime cu dalpe'o .ije la.flyfis.ji'a dalpe'o .i mi se dalpe'o .ije la.djan.ji'a se dalpe'o
49. sy: xu lo vu cipni cu dalpe'o ji'a
    cy: na go'i
50. lo vu cipni cu danlu gi'enai dalpe'o .i lo dalpe'o cu danlu pendo gi'e xabju lo nanmu ja ninmu .i lo vu cipni cu xabju lo tricu
51. co'o la cipni
52. cy: doi.sam. mi fetspe .i xu do nakspe
    sy: go'i doi.clalis. .i mi nakspe
53. lo vi ninmu cu fetspe mi .i ti se cmene zo.baras.
54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli
55. cy: xu lo vu nanla cu bersa do'o
    by: nago'i .ija'a nanla .ijenai bersa mi'a
56. lo mi'a bersa cu zvati ti .i lo go'i cu barda zmadu lo vu nanla .i se cmene zo.bil. .i la.bil. bersa mi'a .i lo go'i .e mi'a kansa xabju lo mi'a zdani
57. cy: lo do tixnu cu zvati ma
    by: go'i tu .i re vu nixli cu tixnu mi'a
58. re mi'a tixnu cu nixli .i lo go'i cu se cmene zo.grin. .e zo.salis. .i la.salis. mensi la.grin. .ije la.grin. mensi la.salis. .i re nixli cu mensi la.bil.
59. la.grin. .e la.salis. se bruna lo pamei .i la.bil. bruna la.grin. .e la.salis. .i la.bil. se mensi lo remei .i la.grin. .e la.salis. mensi la.bil.
60. le ci panzi cu bersa mi .ija'a bersa mi .i mi mamta le ci panzi .i la.sam. patfu .i mi .e sy. rirni le ci panzi .i lo mi'a bersa cu nanla .ije lo mi'a tixnu cu nixli
61. cy: lo vu nanmu cu mo
    by: ko'a goi la.zam. .i lo go'i cu bruna la.sam. .i mi fetspe la.sam. gi'e ji'a bunspe la.zam. .i la.zam. me'ispe mi .i la.zam. famti lo mi'a ci panzi
    sy: la.zam. bruna mi
62. la.zam. famti la.bil. .e la.grin. .e la.salis. .i lo se go'i cu se famti la.zam. .i la.bil. nanmu se famti la.zam. .ije la.grin. .e la.salis. ninmu se famti la.zam. .i la.zam. famti pa nanmu .e re ninmu .i go'i ci se famti
63. cy: ta mo
    by: ta patfu mi .i ta se cmene zo.baluz. .i la.baluz. patfu mi .iji'a spepa'u la.sam. gi'e mamypa'u ci mi'a panzi .i la.sam. pazyspe la.baluz.
    sy: coi.baluz.
    vy: coi mamypa'u
64. ji'a la.baluz. se fetspe .i lo go'i fetspe cu se cmene zo.djin. .i la.djin. mamta mi gi'e mamymamta ci mi'a panzi .iji'a spemamta la.sam. .i la.sam. pazyspe la.djin. .iji'a dy. tubmamta la.zam.
65. ji'a la.baluz. .e la.djin. se bersa la.jos. .i la.jos. bruna mi .iji'a la.jos. famti ci mi'a panzi .iji'a jy. se panzi la.stiv. .e la.teris. .i la.stiv. .e la.teris. se famti mi .iji'a lo go'i cu tamne ci mi'a panzi .ije ci mi'a panzi cu tamne lo go'i

66.
lo namcu cu jbobau
1 pa  6 xa         10 pano
2 re  7 ze         11 papa
3 ci  8 bi         12 pare
4 vo  9 so         20 reno
5 mu  0 no        900 sonono
                 7000 zeki'o
*1,000 ki'o      2011 renopapa
>0 za'uno        1984 pasobivo
>1 za'u     1,000,000 paki'oki'o
>6 za'uxa

  za'u lo prenu = za'u prenu

67.
1,000,100 paki'oki'opanono
186,000 pabixaki'o
1,000,000,000 paki'oki'oki'o
= du
+ su'i
- vu'u
× pi'i
÷ fe'i
4+9=13   li vo su'i so du li paci
100-8=92 li panono vu'u bi du li sore
8×7=56   li bi pi'i ze du li muxa
99÷33=3  li soso fe'i cici du li ci

68. cy: doi.baras. do se panzi lo xomei
    by: mi se panzi lo cimei
69. cy: xo panzi cu tixnu
    by: re le ci panzi cu tixnu .i pa le ci panzi cu bersa

70.
li mo'e pa bersa su'i mo'e re tixnu te'u du li mo'e ci panzi
1 bersa + 2 tixnu = 3 panzi

li mo'e ci panzi vu'u mo'e pa bersa te'u du li mo'e re tixnu
3 panzi - 1 bersa = 2 tixnu

71. cy: doi.baras. lo do panzi cu nanca li xo
    by: lo mi bersa cu nanca li so .ije lo mi tixnu cu nanca li paci .i lo go'i cu kanjbe
72. mi nanca li civo .ije lo mi nakspe goi la.sam. nanca li cixa .i lo go'i cu zmadu mi loka se nanca kei li re .i lo mi'a tixnu cu zmadu lo mi'a bersa loka se nanca kei li vo

Please for the love of all that is good look it over this time. If I don't hear anything about this within 48 hours I will assume that everyone is agreeable to it as is and I will upload it to the tiki page.

I did this 2 day waiting period last time too, so I'm hoping the second time will be more successful than the first. I really don't want to revisit this in a month /again/ because someone took too long to voice their thoughts.

And by the way, I consider a response such as "hang on, I haven't finished looking through it yet" a valid reason to not upload this in 2 days.

[MorphemeAddict]

On the one hand, I agree with you. So what? If it's almost Lojban, who's to say the differences are not just a mistake, handled through context and further explanation. 

On the other hand, Lojban may be prescribed, but it's not proscribed (i.e., denounced, forbidden, condemned, prohibited). 

stevo 

[Jonathan Jones]

Changes in bold.

Correction on panel #60:

60. le ci verba cu panzi mi .ija'a panzi mi .i mi mamta le ci verba .i la.sam. patfu .i mi .e sy. rirni le ci verba .i lo mi'a bersa cu nanla .ije lo mi'a tixnu cu nixli

Correction on panel #61:

61. cy: lo vu nanmu cu mo

    by: ko'a goi la.zam. .i lo go'i cu bruna la.sam. .i mi fetspe la.sam. gi'e ji'a bunspe la.zam. .i la.zam. spebu'a mi .i la.zam. famti lo mi'a ci panzi
    sy: la.zam. bruna mi

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:50 AM, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

On the one hand, I agree with you. So what? If it's almost Lojban, who's to say the differences are not just a mistake, handled through context and further explanation. 

On the other hand, Lojban may be prescribed, but it's not proscribed (i.e., denounced, forbidden, condemned, prohibited).
 

stevo 

Oops. I meant prescribed, obviously.
 

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, {lo mi'a tixnu cu zmadu lo mi'a bersa loka se nanca li vo}?

With "kei" and preferrably no "se": "lo mi'a tixnu cu zmadu lo mi'a
bersa lo ka nanca kei li vo" since "ce'u" is normally assumed to go in
the first empty slot.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the kansa/sepli thing:
>
> I'm assuming that kansa/sepli in the other panels is good as is, meaning the
> problem is only in panel #43, yes?

I think the simxu forms make more sense in those too, but they are
tanru modifiers, so it could be anything.

"sepli" in the case of living in different houses is not really the
opposite of "kansa" though. It only seems to work because they are
neighbours, so separated by a wall or two.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the kansa/sepli thing:
>
> I'm assuming that kansa/sepli in the other panels is good as is, meaning the
> problem is only in panel #43, yes?

I think the simxu forms make more sense in those too, but they are
tanru modifiers, so it could be anything.

So you think simxu would be better in /every/ instance where I've used kansa? I used kansa in panels #39-41, 44, 45, and 46. Most of them are "kansa xabju", one is "kansa citka".
 

"sepli" in the case of living in different houses is not really the
opposite of "kansa" though. It only seems to work because they are
neighbours, so separated by a wall or two.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Okay, seriously, stop just saying "It shouldn't be X". I can't do anything about it if you don't say what you think it should be. Obviously I don't know what you think the appropriate choice is, or I would have used it, so you need to /tell/ me.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Regarding the kansa/sepli thing:
>> >
>> > I'm assuming that kansa/sepli in the other panels is good as is, meaning
>> > the problem is only in panel #43, yes?
>>
>> I think the simxu forms make more sense in those too, but they are
>> tanru modifiers, so it could be anything.
>
> So you think simxu would be better in /every/ instance where I've used
> kansa?

"kansi'u", not just "simxu", yes. But since most of them are tanru
modifiers it is not a big deal.

>> "sepli" in the case of living in different houses is not really the
>> opposite of "kansa" though. It only seems to work because they are
>> neighbours, so separated by a wall or two.
>

> Okay, seriously, stop just saying "It shouldn't be X". I can't do anything
> about it if you don't say what you think it should be.

You could use "tolkansi'u xabju", but as I said, the picture does show
two houses one next to the other, so in that particular case "sepsi'u"
does apply too.

> ? Obviously I don't

> know what you think the appropriate choice is, or I would have used it, so
> you need to /tell/ me.

But it's your translation, not mine. When it comes to translations,
there are very rarely definitely right or wrong answers.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Regarding the kansa/sepli thing:
>> >
>> > I'm assuming that kansa/sepli in the other panels is good as is, meaning
>> > the problem is only in panel #43, yes?
>>
>> I think the simxu forms make more sense in those too, but they are
>> tanru modifiers, so it could be anything.
>
> So you think simxu would be better in /every/ instance where I've used
> kansa?

"kansi'u", not just "simxu", yes. But since most of them are tanru
modifiers it is not a big deal.

Which is good, because I'd rather stick with kansa in those tanru for the same reason I'd prefer to stick with barda in the earlier cat comparison.
 

>> "sepli" in the case of living in different houses is not really the
>> opposite of "kansa" though. It only seems to work because they are
>> neighbours, so separated by a wall or two.
>

> Okay, seriously, stop just saying "It shouldn't be X". I can't do anything
> about it if you don't say what you think it should be.

You could use "tolkansi'u xabju", but as I said, the picture does show
two houses one next to the other, so in that particular case "sepsi'u"
does apply too.

The x3 of sepli is the thing doing the seperating. In the English definition at least (It doesn't have a Lojban definition yet) the applicable te sepli are any of "partition/wall/gap/interval/separating medium".

Would you disagree that {mi do sepli loka clabra}? (I probably could have come up with something better for "great distance", but meh.)
 

> ? Obviously I don't
> know what you think the appropriate choice is, or I would have used it, so
> you need to /tell/ me.

But it's your translation, not mine. When it comes to translations,
there are very rarely definitely right or wrong answers.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

Well, that's why I used the phrase "you think". I'm not talking about right or wrong here. You are clearly making these comments because you feel that there is a /better choice/ than the one I have made in those instances. Merely telling me that you dislike my choice doesn't provide enough information. Providing what you think would be a better choice as well, however, would.

Such as with the "na'obra" thing.

You'll notice that I asked you not only why you preferred a different word choice, but also your order of preference regarding the multiple choices. My decision to use "no'e barda" in the end wasn't based on your preference, but it did take your opinion into account. (I chose "no'e barda" because I like it more than the lujvo form of same, it's more simple, which I feel is important in the earlier panels especially, and I think no'e is a better choice than cnano.)

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The x3 of sepli is the thing doing the seperating. In the English definition
> at least (It doesn't have a Lojban definition yet) the applicable te sepli
> are any of "partition/wall/gap/interval/separating medium".
>
> Would you disagree that {mi do sepli loka clabra}? (I probably could have
> come up with something better for "great distance", but meh.)

No, I would agree. But if you are happy with any true statement, then
two people living together in the same house are also "sepli".

What I don't like much is "kansa" and "sepli" being contrasted as if
they were antonyms, since they are not quite at the same level. But I
do understand the difficulty of translating this since the comic was
designed to show the contrast between two particular Ceqli words, not
two Lojban words. What you could do is make this about "to'e" instead
of about sepli vs. kansa, and then use "sepsi'u" and "tolsepsi'u" for
the hands and "kansi'u" and "tolkansi'u" for xabju.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The x3 of sepli is the thing doing the seperating. In the English definition
> at least (It doesn't have a Lojban definition yet) the applicable te sepli
> are any of "partition/wall/gap/interval/separating medium".
>
> Would you disagree that {mi do sepli loka clabra}? (I probably could have
> come up with something better for "great distance", but meh.)

No, I would agree. But if you are happy with any true statement, then
two people living together in the same house are also "sepli".

You have a point there.
 

What I don't like much is "kansa" and "sepli" being contrasted as if
they were antonyms, since they are not quite at the same level. But I
do understand the difficulty of translating this since the comic was
designed to show the contrast between two particular Ceqli words, not
two Lojban words. What you could do is make this about "to'e" instead
of about sepli vs. kansa, and then use "sepsi'u" and "tolsepsi'u" for
the hands and "kansi'u" and "tolkansi'u" for xabju.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

You know, I actually really like that idea. I would want to do some graphical editing for it, though, so that in both panels the "[to'e] rodsi'u" are in the same order.

So, how about, respectively:

{lo mi xance cu sepsi'u .i lo mi xance cu to'e sepsi'u} (Picture edited to reverse hands apart/together order.)
{ko'a kansi'u xabju .i ko'e tolkansi'u xabju)

Which has the additional benefit of showing that the valsi "to'e" and the rafsi "tol" are equivalent?

[Jonathan Jones]

Or how about {lo mi xance cu jonsi'u .i lo mi xance cu to'e jonsi'u}, without graphic editing, would would be nicer for me?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, how about, respectively:
>>
>> {lo mi xance cu sepsi'u .i lo mi xance cu to'e sepsi'u} (Picture edited to
>> reverse hands apart/together order.)
>> {ko'a kansi'u xabju .i ko'e tolkansi'u xabju)

I would go with "ko'a kansi'u lo ka xabju .i ko'e tolkansi'u lo ka xabju".

>> Which has the additional benefit of showing that the valsi "to'e" and the
>> rafsi "tol" are equivalent?
>
> Or how about {lo mi xance cu jonsi'u .i lo mi xance cu to'e jonsi'u},
> without graphic editing, would would be nicer for me?

Sounds good.

[Jonathan Jones]

Now what to do about #45?

{mi citka .i la.djan. citka .i mi .e dy. kansi'u citka .i mi'a kansi'ucti} has nothing to do with to'e, it was another example of the "together" deal, so it's basically useless now....

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now what to do about #45?
>
> {mi citka .i la.djan. citka .i mi .e dy. kansi'u citka .i mi'a kansi'ucti}
> has nothing to do with to'e, it was another example of the "together" deal,
> so it's basically useless now....

".e" is not quite right there. "mi .e dy. kansi'u citka" means "mi
kansi'u citka .i je dy. kansi'u citka". You want "jo'u" or "joi".

I also prefer the lujvo as "mi jo'u dy. kansi'u lo ka citka .i mi'a ctikansi'u".

(There are a couple of other places where you have ".e" that don't
quite work, but I didn't bother to comment on them.)

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> So, how about, respectively:
>>
>> {lo mi xance cu sepsi'u .i lo mi xance cu to'e sepsi'u} (Picture edited to
>> reverse hands apart/together order.)
>> {ko'a kansi'u xabju .i ko'e tolkansi'u xabju)

I would go with "ko'a kansi'u lo ka xabju .i ko'e tolkansi'u lo ka xabju".

>> Which has the additional benefit of showing that the valsi "to'e" and the
>> rafsi "tol" are equivalent?
>
> Or how about {lo mi xance cu jonsi'u .i lo mi xance cu to'e jonsi'u},
> without graphic editing, would would be nicer for me?

Sounds good.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Now what to do about #45?

{mi citka .i la.djan. citka .i mi .e dy. kansi'u citka .i mi'a kansi'ucti} has nothing to do with to'e, it was another example of the "together" deal, so it's basically useless now....

I'm also thinking about removing the final lines in panels #41 and 45, as they currently contain the complicated, ugly, and likely never actually used in conversation "kansi'uxa'u" and "kansi'ucti". Thoughts?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now what to do about #45?
>
> {mi citka .i la.djan. citka .i mi .e dy. kansi'u citka .i mi'a kansi'ucti}
> has nothing to do with to'e, it was another example of the "together" deal,
> so it's basically useless now....

".e" is not quite right there. "mi .e dy. kansi'u citka" means "mi
kansi'u citka .i je dy. kansi'u citka". You want "jo'u" or "joi".

Or I could put "mi .e dy." inside "lo'i", but I don't much like that idea.

Where are these other places?
 

I also prefer the lujvo as "mi jo'u dy. kansi'u lo ka citka .i mi'a ctikansi'u".

(There are a couple of other places where you have ".e" that don't
quite work, but I didn't bother to comment on them.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Or I could put "mi .e dy." inside "lo'i", but I don't much like that idea.
>
> Where are these other places?

I don't remember, somewhere near the end. Try expanding them and see
which ones don't make sense. ".e" can always be expanded as ".i je"

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are the other ones I found that might be misusing ".e". Off the top of your
> head, do they seem to be all the ones you saw?

I spotted this one:

54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli

I think that expands as "noi me pa nanla gi'e me re nixli".

I also saw some ungrammatical sentences in:

65. ji'a la.baluz. .e la.djin. se bersa la.jos. .i la.jos. bruna mi
.iji'a la.jos. famti ci mi'a panzi .iji'a jy. se panzi la.stiv. .e
la.teris. .i la.stiv. .e la.teris. se famti mi .iji'a lo go'i cu tamne
ci mi'a panzi .ije ci mi'a panzi cu tamne lo go'i

I think you want "lo ci panzi be mi'a", or "lo mi'a ci panzi".

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> lo go'i cu se cmene zo.grin. .e zo.salis.
>

> For this one, would "zo.grin. fa'u zo.salis." work as I expect?

Since we don't have the corresponding gadri for "fa'u", I would say yes.

(But the sentence preceding that one has an error.)

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

So,

mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. kans'iu xabju lo vu cmalu zdani

mi .e dy. kansi'u citka

lo go'i .e mi'a kans'iu xabju lo mi'a zdani

lo go'i cu se cmene zo.grin. .e zo.salis.

For this one, would "zo.grin. fa'u zo.salis." work as I expect?
 

Are the other ones I found that might be misusing ".e". Off the top of your head, do they seem to be all the ones you saw?

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

So,

mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. kans'iu xabju lo vu cmalu zdani

mi .e dy. kansi'u citka

lo go'i .e mi'a kans'iu xabju lo mi'a zdani

lo go'i cu se cmene zo.grin. .e zo.salis.

Are the other ones I found that might be misusing ".e". Off the top of your head, do they seem to be all the ones you saw?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are the other ones I found that might be misusing ".e". Off the top of your
> head, do they seem to be all the ones you saw?

I spotted this one:

54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
   by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli

I think that expands as "noi me pa nanla gi'e me re nixli".

I looked at that one, and in both camxes and jboski it parses as "me (pa nanla .e re nixli)".

changing it to "... me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" (or "... je...") results in it not parsing in either, so I'm pretty sure my usage is correct in this case.
 

I also saw some ungrammatical sentences in:

65. ji'a la.baluz. .e la.djin. se bersa la.jos. .i la.jos. bruna mi
.iji'a la.jos. famti ci mi'a panzi .iji'a jy. se panzi la.stiv. .e
la.teris. .i la.stiv. .e la.teris. se famti mi .iji'a lo go'i cu tamne
ci mi'a panzi .ije ci mi'a panzi cu tamne lo go'i

I think you want "lo ci panzi be mi'a", or "lo mi'a ci panzi".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Yes. "ci mi'a panzi" is a jufra of it's own. My mistake.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> lo go'i cu se cmene zo.grin. .e zo.salis.
>
> For this one, would "zo.grin. fa'u zo.salis." work as I expect?

Since we don't have the corresponding gadri for "fa'u", I would say yes.

What do you mean by "corresponding gadri"?
 

(But the sentence preceding that one has an error.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Yes, the same error as "ci mi'a panzi".

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
>>    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli
>>
>> I think that expands as "noi me pa nanla gi'e me re nixli".
>
> I looked at that one, and in both camxes and jboski it parses as "me (pa
> nanla .e re nixli)".

Of course. And "broda ko'a .e ko'e" also parses as "broda (ko'a .e
ko'e)". I'm talking about what the ".e" short form expands to. It
always expands to a bridi connective.

> changing it to "... me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" (or "... je...") results in
> it not parsing in either, so I'm pretty sure my usage is correct in this
> case.

I don't understand what you mean.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>

>> 54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
>>    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli
>>
>> I think that expands as "noi me pa nanla gi'e me re nixli".
>
> I looked at that one, and in both camxes and jboski it parses as "me (pa
> nanla .e re nixli)".

Of course. And "broda ko'a .e ko'e" also parses as "broda (ko'a .e
ko'e)". I'm talking about what the ".e" short form expands to. It
always expands to a bridi connective.

I don't understand what you mean by this expansion thing, especially since you seem to be contradicting yourself, as you previously said that ".e" expands to ".ije".

Is there perhaps some site I can be directed to that explains this?
 

> changing it to "... me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" (or "... je...") results in
> it not parsing in either, so I'm pretty sure my usage is correct in this
> case.

I don't understand what you mean.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Neither "me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" nor "mi pa nanla je re nixli" parses in camxes or jboski.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>

>> 54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
>>    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli
>>
>> I think that expands as "noi me pa nanla gi'e me re nixli".
>
> I looked at that one, and in both camxes and jboski it parses as "me (pa
> nanla .e re nixli)".

Of course. And "broda ko'a .e ko'e" also parses as "broda (ko'a .e
ko'e)". I'm talking about what the ".e" short form expands to. It
always expands to a bridi connective.

I don't understand what you mean by this expansion thing, especially since you seem to be contradicting yourself, as you previously said that ".e" expands to ".ije".

Is there perhaps some site I can be directed to that explains this?
 

> changing it to "... me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" (or "... je...") results in
> it not parsing in either, so I'm pretty sure my usage is correct in this
> case.

I don't understand what you mean.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Neither "me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" nor "me pa nanla je re nixli" parses in camxes or jboski.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
>> >>    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli
>> >>
>> >> I think that expands as "noi me pa nanla gi'e me re nixli".
>> >
>> > I looked at that one, and in both camxes and jboski it parses as "me (pa
>> > nanla .e re nixli)".
>>
>> Of course. And "broda ko'a .e ko'e" also parses as "broda (ko'a .e
>> ko'e)". I'm talking about what the ".e" short form expands to. It
>> always expands to a bridi connective.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by this expansion thing, especially since
> you seem to be contradicting yourself, as you previously said that ".e"
> expands to ".ije".

I should have said it expands to "ge [bridi] gi [bridi]", since in
subordinate bridi ".ije" doesn't work. Every logical connective

expands to a bridi connective.

> Is there perhaps some site I can be directed to that explains this?

I'm sure this is explained in the CLL chapter on connectives.

>> > changing it to "... me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" (or "... je...") results
>> > in
>> > it not parsing in either, so I'm pretty sure my usage is correct in this
>> > case.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean.
>

> Neither "me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" nor "mi pa nanla je re nixli" parses in
> camxes or jboski.

"noi ke'a me pa nanla .e re nixli
-> "noi ke'a me pa nanla gi'e _me_ re nixli"
-> "noi ge ke'a me pa nanla gi ke'a me re nixli"

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
>> >>    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me pa nanla .e re nixli
>> >>
>> >> I think that expands as "noi me pa nanla gi'e me re nixli".
>> >
>> > I looked at that one, and in both camxes and jboski it parses as "me (pa
>> > nanla .e re nixli)".
>>
>> Of course. And "broda ko'a .e ko'e" also parses as "broda (ko'a .e
>> ko'e)". I'm talking about what the ".e" short form expands to. It
>> always expands to a bridi connective.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by this expansion thing, especially since
> you seem to be contradicting yourself, as you previously said that ".e"
> expands to ".ije".

I should have said it expands to "ge [bridi] gi [bridi]", since in
subordinate bridi ".ije" doesn't work. Every logical connective

expands to a bridi connective.

> Is there perhaps some site I can be directed to that explains this?

I'm sure this is explained in the CLL chapter on connectives.

It's mentioned in passing but not explained.
 

>> > changing it to "... me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" (or "... je...") results
>> > in
>> > it not parsing in either, so I'm pretty sure my usage is correct in this
>> > case.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean.
>

> Neither "me pa nanla gi'e re nixli" nor "mi pa nanla je re nixli" parses in
> camxes or jboski.

"noi ke'a me pa nanla .e re nixli
-> "noi ke'a me pa nanla gi'e _me_ re nixli"
-> "noi ge ke'a me pa nanla gi ke'a me re nixli"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

Changes in bold:

#41. lo'i mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. ku kans'iu xabju lo vu cmalu zdani

#45. mi citka .i la.djan. citka .i mi joi dy. kansi'u citka

#54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me lo'i pa nanla .e re nixli

#56. lo mi'a bersa cu zvati ti .i lo go'i cu barda zmadu lo vu nanla .i se cmene zo.bil. .i la.bil. bersa mi'a .i by. joi mi'a kansi'u xabju lo mi'a zdani

#58. lo mi'a re tixnu cu nixli .i lo go'i cu se cmene zo.grin. fa'u zo.salis. .i la.salis. mensi la.grin. .ije la.grin. mensi la.salis. .i re nixli cu mensi la.bil.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "corresponding gadri"?

jo'u - lo
joi - loi
ce - lo'i
fa'u - ???

There's also quantifier correspondences for the symmetrical logical connectives:

.e - ro
.a - su'o
na.enai - no
na.anai - me'i
.onai - pa
.o - vei ro .a no ve'o

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Changes in bold:
>
> #41. lo'i mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. ku kans'iu xabju lo vu
> cmalu zdani
>

> #54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
>     by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me lo'i pa nanla .e re nixli

Grammatically you need "lu'i ... [lu'u]" in those, not "lo'i ... ku",
but I don't think sets live in houses or have (this kind of) parents.

BTW, I'm not sure it has ever been defined whether "lu'i ko'a .e ko'e"
is the set whose elements are ko'a and ko'e and nothing else, or any
set containing ko'a and ko'e.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Changes in bold:
>
> #41. lo'i mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. ku kans'iu xabju lo vu
> cmalu zdani
>

> #54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
>     by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me lo'i pa nanla .e re nixli

Grammatically you need "lu'i ... [lu'u]" in those, not "lo'i ... ku",
but I don't think sets live in houses or have (this kind of) parents.

I don't see why it needs to be "lu'i" and not "lo'i". Isn't "lo'i X" "the set of X"?

Does this have something to do with the difference between a "sumti6" and a "sumti2", and what do the # in "sumti#" mean in camxes anyway?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Changes in bold:
>
> #41. lo'i mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. ku kans'iu xabju lo vu
> cmalu zdani
>

> #54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
>     by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me lo'i pa nanla .e re nixli

Grammatically you need "lu'i ... [lu'u]" in those, not "lo'i ... ku",
but I don't think sets live in houses or have (this kind of) parents.

I don't see why it needs to be "lu'i" and not "lo'i". Isn't "lo'i X" "the set of X"?
 

BTW, I'm not sure it has ever been defined whether "lu'i ko'a .e ko'e"

is the set whose elements are ko'a and ko'e and nothing else, or any
set containing ko'a and ko'e.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

I have no idea, but I fail to see how the latter is useful, especially when held in comparison to the former. It also seems to me it would be easier to extend a set restricted by default than to restrict a set extended by default.

[Michael Turniansky]

  "lo'i mi .e la djan" is not grammatical because "lo'i"  (being a LE) can only take a brivla (with perhaps an inner qualifier).  If followed by a KOhA, it will assume it's a "pe"-type qualifier (e.g. like "lo me gerku").  lu'i on the otgher hand, specifically takes sumti and makes them into other sumti types.

          --gejyspa

[Jacob Errington]

#41 won't parse. [lo'i] is a LE, which expects a selbri (or a sumti, if the inner quantifier is specified), but here you've got this list of sumti, joined with [e]. 

simxu1 needs to be a set, which is probably why you tried lo'i, but you can simply illogically join the sumti in your list with [ce].

[mi ce la djan ce la snime ce la flyfis]

Also, sets can't be xabju1, but they can be simxu1. It turns out that the real main-selbri that you want is simxu, and not xabju.

[kansi'u co xabju lo vu cmalu zdani] but I'd probably just add xabju into the lujvo while I'm at it: [xa'urkansi'u] = x1 (set) live together at x2.

Same logic for [kansi'u citka] -> [ctikansi'u]

As for your predicament which #54, why not just use mei2 ? [mi'a se panzi lo cimei be pa nanla ce re nixli]

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

#41 won't parse. [lo'i] is a LE, which expects a selbri (or a sumti, if the inner quantifier is specified), but here you've got this list of sumti, joined with [e]. 

simxu1 needs to be a set, which is probably why you tried lo'i, but you can simply illogically join the sumti in your list with [ce].

[mi ce la djan ce la snime ce la flyfis]

Also, sets can't be xabju1, but they can be simxu1. It turns out that the real main-selbri that you want is simxu, and not xabju.

No, it turns out I want masses, not sets.
 

[kansi'u co xabju lo vu cmalu zdani] but I'd probably just add xabju into the lujvo while I'm at it: [xa'urkansi'u] = x1 (set) live together at x2.

Same logic for [kansi'u citka] -> [ctikansi'u]

I had those lujvo in those panels. They were in the last jufra. I deleted the last jufra in both those panels because I decided that those lujvo were ugly and unlikely to be used in real conversation, and furthermore that the jufra themselves contributed nothing meaningful. So, no, I won't be putting them back into the comic.
 

As for your predicament which #54, why not just use mei2 ? [mi'a se panzi lo cimei be pa nanla ce re nixli]

Because it doesn't fix the problem.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

  "lo'i mi .e la djan" is not grammatical because "lo'i"  (being a LE) can only take a brivla (with perhaps an inner qualifier).  If followed by a KOhA, it will assume it's a "pe"-type qualifier (e.g. like "lo me gerku").  lu'i on the otgher hand, specifically takes sumti and makes them into other sumti types.

          --gejyspa

 

I see. So lo'i doesn't eat the whole thing, just the first thing until .e, whereas lu'i does. It also turns out I didn't want lo'i because I wanted loi, which means I actually wanted lu'o, because I got sets and masses mixed up again.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

Changes in bold:

#41. lu'o mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. kansi'u xabju lo vu cmalu zdani

#54. cy: xu do'o se panzi

    by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me lu'o pa nanla .e re nixli

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

#41. lu'o mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. lu'u kansi'u xabju lo vu cmalu zdani

 

[Jonathan Jones]

No one has said anything in about half a day on this. So, I'm going to assume that no more corrections are needed. I'll wait another ~36 hours, and if no one's said anything by then, I'll upload the corrected comic as it is now.

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

On 11 May 2012 17:43, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> #41. lu'o mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. lu'u kansi'u xabju lo
>> vu cmalu zdani
>

I may have missed something, but, is there any specific reason for not using
plain {jo'u} (or {joi})?

[Jonathan Jones]

Not really, no. It was just easier to add two words than to change three.