Just having trouble putting a sentence together in general... Think I figured it out

[RexScientiarum]

I am a little confused as to how I can make this sentence:

I use a microscope to look at the microbe.


I guess this is the best way to say this:

.i mi cu zgana lo jurme le cmactatci

At first I used pilno to say that I would use the microscope more like
I had originally envisioned the sentence in English but then I
couldn't figure out I could use that to say I 'used' the microscope to
'look' at the microbe. There aren't enough sumti x spaces for that or
any direct way to relate that x1(I) am using x2(microscope) in manner
x3(to look at)....... a microbe..... right?

[.arpis.]

I'd say {mi catlu lo jurme sepi'o lo cmactatci} if you want to
emphasize the looking portion (possibly use {lanli} instead of
{catlu}) and {mi pilno lo cmactatci lo nu catlu lo jurme} if you want
to emphasize the use of the microscope. Alternatively, {mi pilno lo
cmactatci tu'a lo jurme} if you are okay with losing some precision
(it's pretty clear what you're using a microscope to do to bacteria
anyway.

You could even say {cmactatci mi lo jurme} if you wanted to be
particularly terse.

> --
> 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.
>

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM, RexScientiarum <amt...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am a little confused as to how I can make this sentence:

I use a microscope to look at the microbe.


I guess this is the best way to say this:

.i mi cu zgana lo jurme le cmactatci

That is exactly right, although you don't need cu in that sentence- mi cannot form tanru.
 

At first I used pilno to say that I would use the microscope more like
I had originally envisioned the sentence in English but then I
couldn't figure out I could use that to say I 'used' the microscope to
'look' at the microbe.  There aren't enough sumti x spaces for that or
any direct way to relate that x1(I) am using x2(microscope) in manner
x3(to look at)....... a microbe..... right?

If you really want to use pilno as your selbri:

pilno: x₁ uses/employs x₂ for purpose x₃.
The x3 of pilno is what the x2 is being used by x1 for. This is usually an event, such as the event of looking at microbes.

I use a-microscope for-purpose an-event-of observing a-microbe
mi pilno lo cmactatci lonu zgana lo jurme

--
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 )

[RexScientiarum]

Okay thanks.

.i mi cu pilno lo cmactatci lo nu catlu lo jurme

was very similar to what I came up with first but I didn't know to use
nu (so it was wrong). Wow, abstractors are super useful then it seems.
I'll have to read up on them, but ".i mi cu zgana lo jurme le
cmactatci" is still acceptable right?

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM, RexScientiarum <amt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay thanks.

.i mi cu pilno lo cmactatci lo nu catlu lo jurme

was very similar to what I came up with first but I didn't know to use
nu (so it was wrong). Wow, abstractors are super useful then it seems.
I'll have to read up on them, but ".i mi cu zgana lo jurme le
cmactatci" is still acceptable right?

Yes. And again, you don't need cu after mi.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

--

[.arpis.]

You also probably don't want to use {le}.

My heuristic is that any time you would use an infinitive in English
(or another similar natlang) you probably want to consider using an
abstractor in lojban.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[RexScientiarum]

If I was was talking about a specific microbe I was observing I could
use {le} right?

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, March 05, 2012 21:49:33 RexScientiarum wrote:
> If I was was talking about a specific microbe I was observing I could
> use {le} right?

Yes, and likewise if you're using a specific microscope. Use of articles in
Lojban is somewhat different from use of articles in English (or French or any
other language that has articles).

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

[.arpis.]

I haven't heard of a good consensus of when to use {le}.

My impression is that {lo} should be the default unless you have
reason stronger than specificity. *ba'e* {le} is not "the".

I personally only use it when I want to emphasize the fact that the
sumti may not technically fit the selbri, mu'i {le cribe} to refer to
a teddy-bear; unlike pre-xorlo, however, {lo cribe} is unquestionably
still correct in that case.

I guess I might also use it to clarify/emphasize subjectivity: {lo
xagrai cmaxi'a} might not have a clear referent, but if I say {le
xagrai cmaxi'a}, I'm clearly talking about Rainbow Dash.

> --
> 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]

Use {le} when you are referring to something you specifically have in mind.

[.arpis.]

doi .aionys. Can you justify that prescription?

pe'i That's malgli, but I speak Russian fluently, and that my account
for my opinion.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:56 PM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

doi .aionys. Can you justify that prescription?

It's not a prescription. It's not a position. It's the definition of le.

le as mentioned in the following documents:

jbovlaste : "non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ..." {gadri lo selbri fo le du'u sinxa ro se skicu be le cusku bei le te cusku bei la'e vo'e}

CLL 6.2 : "le LE the, the one(s) described as"
le zarci
one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-as being-a-market
the market

xorlo : "le is used for particular things you have in mind."

pe'i That's malgli, but I speak Russian fluently, and that my account
for my opinion.

It certainly does, since that is the definition of le.
 

[.arpis.]

In the past, I've found the "How to use xorlo" page misleading at
best, and incorrect at worst. I recall xorxes contradicting it.

As I understand, the BPFK section on gadri is the most accurate
reference to do with {lo} and {le}:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri

{lo broda} is defined as {zo'e noi ke'a broda}
{le broda} is defined as {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda}

So (ignoring quantifiers, since they're not relevant here) {lo broda}
refers to something that is {broda}, and {le broda} refers to
something which I describe to you as being {broda}.

So far we're in agreement, right?

Now, let's say I have a specific dog in mind: is it incorrect to refer
to it as {lo gerku}? I argue not, and I think you agree.

Since in many cases where {le} can be used, {lo} can be used just as
well, the speaker needs to make a choice between the two, and the
listener needs to infer what the speaker meant by the choice.

{le broda} is not defined to refer to "the thing which is a broda that
I have in mind", so I argue that "having a particular {broda} in mind"
is not enough of a reason to use {le} over {lo}. I think that this use
comes from taking too far the similarities of {le} to "the" and of
{lo} to "a".

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:10 AM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the past, I've found the "How to use xorlo" page misleading at
best, and incorrect at worst. I recall xorxes contradicting it.

As I understand, the BPFK section on gadri is the most accurate
reference to do with {lo} and {le}:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri

{lo broda} is defined as {zo'e noi ke'a broda}
{le broda} is defined as {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda}

So (ignoring quantifiers, since they're not relevant here) {lo broda}
refers to something that is {broda}, and {le broda} refers to
something which I describe to you as being {broda}.

So far we're in agreement, right?

Yes, as long as you agree that the thing referred to with le must be a specific something being described.
 

Now, let's say I have a specific dog in mind: is it incorrect to refer
to it as {lo gerku}? I argue not, and I think you agree.

I agree, but that point is moot. It doesn't matter when you can use lo- lo is the default gadri, it can always be used anywhere any gadri can be used, as long as lo broda actually is broda.
 

Since in many cases where {le} can be used, {lo} can be used just as
well, the speaker needs to make a choice between the two, and the
listener needs to infer what the speaker meant by the choice.

Many isn't the right word; "most" or "all" are more accurate.
 

{le broda} is not defined to refer to "the thing which is a broda that
I have in mind", so I argue that "having a particular {broda} in mind"
is not enough of a reason to use {le} over {lo}. I think that this use
comes from taking too far the similarities of {le} to "the" and of
{lo} to "a".

Well, considering the fact that the only time it /is/ appropriate to use le is when you have a particular broda in mind, your personal feelings as to the similarity between Lojban and English gadri isn't really pertinent.

Furthermore, le isn't used when you have a particular thing in mind because of a similarity with English the. It is used in that fashion because that is how it is /defined/. If you have issue with that, take it up with the people who created the gadri, whom were all English-native speakers, IIRC.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:10 AM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the past, I've found the "How to use xorlo" page misleading at
best, and incorrect at worst. I recall xorxes contradicting it.

As I understand, the BPFK section on gadri is the most accurate
reference to do with {lo} and {le}:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri

{lo broda} is defined as {zo'e noi ke'a broda}
{le broda} is defined as {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda

In this particular case, all three of the sources I quoted agree. In fact, every authoritative work on the meaning of Lojban {le} agrees, because the meaning of {le} has been exactly the same since the beginning of the language, or at the very least since before I joined the community back in the 90's. The relatively recent xorlo change only stripped the default quantifiers from {le}, it didn't in any way change it's meaning.

To illustrate the above fact, here's what your source says about the meaning of {le}:

"le (LE) Specific article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression refers specifically to an individual or individuals that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker describes as fitting the first argument of the selbri."

[.arpis.]

Hmm.

.ie ro'a .oi ru'e

It seems that you are right.

However, I think that I would not be wrong if I continued using {lo}
in all cases where it fits except to emphasize non-veridicality, and I
will continue to do so.

> --
> 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.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:37 AM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm.

.ie ro'a .oi ru'e

It seems that you are right.

However, I think that I would not be wrong if I continued using {lo}
in all cases where it fits except to emphasize non-veridicality, and I
will continue to do so.

You would not.
 

[selpa'i]

Am 06.03.2012 04:52, schrieb .arpis.:
> li'o sa'a

>
> I guess I might also use it to clarify/emphasize subjectivity: {lo
> xagrai cmaxi'a} might not have a clear referent, but if I say {le
> xagrai cmaxi'a}, I'm clearly talking about Rainbow Dash.

.u'i sai

(to zo'o ie nai sai .i li'a la. flatrcais. balrai cmaxi'a toi)

mu'o

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

[RexScientiarum]

Again, we come to the issue of {cu}.  My understanding is that it is still correct to use it as I did, just not necessary.  I don't care if I am being wordy at this point, I am more concerned with being flat out wrong.

Would it be 'necessary' to use {cu} if  there was something there that could be confused as a tanru (I mean assuming I didn't want to restructure the whole sentence)?

On Monday, March 5, 2012 7:51:45 PM UTC-6, aionys wrote:

[Jonathan Jones]

The short answer is yes. the long answer is, cu is never strictly necessary, as it is possible to use terminators to do the same thing, but it is very, very useful.

lo mlatu citka lo finpe does not mean "The cat eats fish". it means "The cat-type-of-eater the fish."

cu is needed between mlatu and citka to prevent tanru grouping, or the sumti terminator ku

These are both "The cat eats fish":
lo mlatu cu citka lo finpe
one-or-more-things-which-actually-is-cat <selbri is next word!> eats one-or-more-things-which-actually-is-fish

lo mlatu ku citka finpe
one-or-more-things-which-actually-is-cat <end sumti> eats one-or-more-things-which-actually-is-fish

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/lBsv7xZMH3EJ.

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.

[.arpis.]

For whatever my personal preferences are worth, I try to avoid {cu} in
favor of terminators (usually {ku} is the one that applies), but if
{cu} would shorten the sentence by at least two syllables, I use it.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[RexScientiarum]

Right okay, that is exactly what I thought.  Thanks.  I think I have a pretty good understanding of it now.

To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.