Why no "about" brivla?

[la gleki]

cfika

  x1 is a work of fiction about plot or theme x2 by author x3

ciksi

x1 explains x2 to x3 with explanation x4

cilre

x1 learns x2 about x3 from x4 by method

ctuca

x1 teaches to x2 ideas x3 about subject x4 by method x5

djuno

x1 knows fact x2 about x3 by epistemology x4

draci

x1 is a drama or play about x2 by x3 for audience x4 with actors x4

facki

x1 discovers x2 about x3

jdice

x1 makes decision x2 about x3

jimpe

x1 understands x2 about x3

morji

x1 remembers x2 about subject x3

And my question is

Why memorising so many places when they could be replaced by a BAI formed from a hypothetical brivla

broda = x1 is the theme/topic of x2; x2 is about x1

[ianek]

This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 1 Gru, 08:13, la gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cfika

>   x1 is a work of fiction *about plot or theme x2* by author x3
> ciksi
> x1 explains *x2* to x3 with explanation x4
> cilre
> x1 learns x2 *about x3* from x4 by method
> ctuca
> x1 teaches to x2 ideas x3 *about subject x4* by method x5
> djuno
> x1 knows fact x2 *about x*3 by epistemology x4
> draci
> x1 is a drama or play* about x2* by x3 for audience x4 with actors x4
> facki
> x1 discovers x2 *about x3*
> jdice
> x1 makes decision x2 *about x3*
> jimpe
> x1 understands x2 *about x3*
> morji
> x1 remembers x2 *about subject x3*

[ianek]

And the BAI is of course {sera'a}.

[la gleki]

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 4:09:16 PM UTC+4, ianek wrote:

This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

mi na birti.

srana - x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is related/associated with/is about x2.

Where is "topic/theme"  here?

[tijlan]

On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for
instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
other things). Consider:

la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli

This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl --
it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.


mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.
 

mu'o

--
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 .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 )

[Annie]

I don't understand. What's a cfika?his

Sent from my iPod

*** This Email was sent by a student at School for the Blind.

[Annie]

What's the difference between teaching a certain idea and a certain subject?

Sent from my iPod

--
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/-/3vlYgCwqkegJ.

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 Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Annie <park....@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:

I don't understand. What's a cfika?his

http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/cfika
 

[la gleki]

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for
instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
other things). Consider:

la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli

This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl --
it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.

I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.

Well, may be it's not that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana} but rather wrong usage and/or glossing.

srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is related/associated with/is about x2.

ckini  x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationship x3.

If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get
  srana x1 is relevant to x2
  ckini  x1 is relevant to x2

which is nonsense.

If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for
instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
other things). Consider:

la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli

This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl --
it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.

I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.

Well, may be it's not that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana} but rather wrong usage and/or glossing.

srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is related/associated with/is about x2.

ckini  x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationship x3.

If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get
  srana x1 is relevant to x2
  ckini  x1 is relevant to x2

which is nonsense.

ckini wouldn't be that. For one thing, you left out the x3, and for another, it isn't "relevant", it's "related". The Cold War isn't relevant to WWII, but it is related (by being a direct result of it).
 

If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.

 

mu'o

--
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 .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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/Nur4CHZZaiAJ.

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 Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for
instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
other things). Consider:

la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli

This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl --
it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.

I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.

Well, may be it's not that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana} but rather wrong usage and/or glossing.

srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is related/associated with/is about x2.

ckini  x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationship x3.

If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get
  srana x1 is relevant to x2
  ckini  x1 is relevant to x2

which is nonsense.

ckini wouldn't be that. For one thing, you left out the x3, and for another, it isn't "relevant", it's "related". The Cold War isn't relevant to WWII, but it is related (by being a direct result of it).
 

If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.

Furthermore, your response does not show how one can get "dedicated to" out of srana.

[la gleki]

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:50:42 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for
instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
other things). Consider:

la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli

This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl --
it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.

I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.

Well, may be it's not that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana} but rather wrong usage and/or glossing.

srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is related/associated with/is about x2.

ckini  x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationship x3.

If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get
  srana x1 is relevant to x2
  ckini  x1 is relevant to x2

which is nonsense.

ckini wouldn't be that. For one thing, you left out the x3, and for another, it isn't "relevant", it's "related". The Cold War isn't relevant to WWII, but it is related (by being a direct result of it).

Sorry, it should be 

  srana x1 is releted to x2

  ckini  x1 is related to x2 by relationship x3

[la gleki]

I can't explain tijlan's views.

For me "dedicated to..." is {tecu'u}, may be with a shade of {sinma} (i.e. fi'o sia'rtersku)

{finfriti} from jvs doesn't sound right for me (probably due to polysemy of "to dedicqte").

[Jonathan Jones]

Well, by that definition, srana is {ckini fi zi'o}, which makes them synonyms in the same way that litru is to klama (litru = {klama zi'o zi'o}).

(Btw, in my view, zi'o doesn't say that there is no such thing as whatever place it's in, but just that it's not important. For example, {ko'a klama zi'o zi'o ...} doesn't mean there /isn't/ an origin or destination, it just means that they don't matter. Dissenters should use zo'e instead.)
 

 

If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.

[la gleki]

Haven't you read my previous post? I mean that choosing words from full definitions ARBITRARILY can lead to this result which is nonsense.

ju'o it's all bad glossing.

I suggest that srana refers to topic and ckini means "to be associated with".

to dedicate is {finfriti}, {tecu'u} etc.

(Btw, in my view, zi'o doesn't say that there is no such thing as whatever place it's in, but just that it's not important. For example, {ko'a klama zi'o zi'o ...} doesn't mean there /isn't/ an origin or destination, it just means that they don't matter. Dissenters should use zo'e instead.)

I think the CLL says almost the same.

[Jonathan Jones]

No, ko'a srana ko'e means that ko'a is relevant to ko'e, i.e. ko'a has something to do with ko'e.

While it is true that the topic of something is pertinent, something which is pertinent is not necessarily the topic.

Roosevelt is pertinent to the Great Depression, but he is most certainly /not/ the topic of it.
 

(Btw, in my view, zi'o doesn't say that there is no such thing as whatever place it's in, but just that it's not important. For example, {ko'a klama zi'o zi'o ...} doesn't mean there /isn't/ an origin or destination, it just means that they don't matter. Dissenters should use zo'e instead.)

I think the CLL says almost the same.

 

 

 

If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/UZopTp21hiIJ.

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.

[la gleki]

Then what is your opinion about my first post? Is it true that "topic" brivla has right to exist on it's own?

[Jonathan Jones]

My opinion is that sera'a serves the purpose. As I said, "that which is pertinent to A" is a superset of "the topic of A".
 

Roosevelt is pertinent to the Great Depression, but he is most certainly /not/ the topic of it.
 

(Btw, in my view, zi'o doesn't say that there is no such thing as whatever place it's in, but just that it's not important. For example, {ko'a klama zi'o zi'o ...} doesn't mean there /isn't/ an origin or destination, it just means that they don't matter. Dissenters should use zo'e instead.)

I think the CLL says almost the same.

 

 

 

If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/UZopTp21hiIJ.

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 .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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/kQJ2iFS5UZ4J.

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.

[Jacob Errington]

FWIW, I define {srana} in lojban as follows:

{.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u bu'a ce'u}

And actually being able to say *what* that bu'a is is what led me to a post much earlier about "srana3", which indeed, I now realise, would make {srana} essentially identical to {ckini}.

(With a srana3, the definition becomes {.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u ce'u me'au ce'u})

Thus, I currently believe that srana can be defined in terms of ckini as such:

{.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u ce'u ckini lo ka co'e}

Things that are relevant to each other are simply related by an obvious relationship.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[ianek]

While having antonyms ({citno} = {to'e laldo} etc.) is okay and
synonyms with switched places ({xabju} = {ze zdani} etc.) are
acceptable, having two gismu where one's terbri is a prefix of the
other's is just plain silly. Why not add all the new gismu for other
prefixes too? Like "x1 is a book", "x1 is a book containing work x2"
etc.
The gismu keywords/definitions aren't sacred, there are many known
misleading ones. I guess this applies to {srana} too.

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 2 Gru, 16:47, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I define {srana} in lojban as follows:
> {.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u bu'a ce'u}
> And actually being able to say *what* that bu'a is is what led me to a post
> much earlier about "srana3", which indeed, I now realise, would make
> {srana} essentially identical to {ckini}.
> (With a srana3, the definition becomes {.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u
> ce'u me'au ce'u})
>
> Thus, I currently believe that srana can be defined in terms of ckini as
> such:
> {.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u ce'u ckini lo ka co'e}
> Things that are relevant to each other are simply related by an obvious
> relationship.
>
> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>

> On 2 December 2012 08:02, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>>> *srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is
> >>>>>>>> related/associated with/is about x2.*
> >>>>>>>> *ckini  x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by
> >>>>>>>> relationship x3.*

>
> >>>>>>>> If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get

> >>>>>>>> *  srana x1 is relevant to x2

> >>>>>>>>   ckini  x1 is relevant to x2

> >>>>>>>> *

> >>>>>>>> which is nonsense.
>
> >>>>>>> ckini wouldn't be that. For one thing, you left out the x3, and for
> >>>>>>> another, it isn't "relevant", it's "related". The Cold War isn't relevant
> >>>>>>> to WWII, but it is related (by being a direct result of it).
>
> >>>>>> Sorry, it should be

> >>>>>> *  srana x1 is releted to x2*
> >>>>>> *  ckini  x1 is related to x2 by relationship x3*

> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/**
> >>>> msg/lojban-beginners/-/**UZopTp21hiIJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/UZopTp21hiIJ>
> >>>> .
>
> >>>> 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 athttp://groups.google.com/**
> >>>> group/lojban-beginners?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en>

> >>>> .
>
> >>> --
> >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit

[ianek]

On 2 Gru, 14:02, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:48 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:03 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 11:15:01 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:50:42 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> > This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.
>
> >>>>>>>>> An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for
> >>>>>>>>> instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a
> >>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>> of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
> >>>>>>>>> other things). Consider:
>
> >>>>>>>>> la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli
>
> >>>>>>>>> This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.
>
> >>>>>>>> I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly
> >>>>>>>> mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.
>
> >>>>>>> Well, may be it's not that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana}
> >>>>>>> but rather wrong usage and/or glossing.
>

> >>>>>>> *srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is
> >>>>>>> related/associated with/is about x2.*
> >>>>>>> *ckini  x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationship
> >>>>>>> x3.*

>
> >>>>>>> If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get

> >>>>>>> *  srana x1 is relevant to x2

> >>>>>>>   ckini  x1 is relevant to x2

> >>>>>>> *

> >>>>>>> which is nonsense.
>
> >>>>>> ckini wouldn't be that. For one thing, you left out the x3, and for
> >>>>>> another, it isn't "relevant", it's "related". The Cold War isn't relevant
> >>>>>> to WWII, but it is related (by being a direct result of it).
>
> >>>>> Sorry, it should be

> >>>>> *  srana x1 is releted to x2*
> >>>>> *  ckini  x1 is related to x2 by relationship x3*

>
> >>>> Well, by that definition, srana is {ckini fi zi'o}, which makes them
> >>>> synonyms in the same way that litru is to klama (litru = {klama zi'o zi'o}).
>
> >>> Haven't you read my previous post? I mean that choosing words from full
> >>> definitions ARBITRARILY can lead to this result which is nonsense.
> >>> ju'o it's all bad glossing.
> >>> I suggest that srana refers to topic and ckini means "to be associated
> >>> with".
> >>> to dedicate is {finfriti}, {tecu'u} etc.
>
> >> No, ko'a srana ko'e means that ko'a is relevant to ko'e, i.e. ko'a has
> >> something to do with ko'e.
>
> >> While it is true that the topic of something is pertinent, something
> >> which is pertinent is not necessarily the topic.
>
> > Then what is your opinion about my first post? Is it true that "topic"
> > brivla has right to exist on it's own?
>
> My opinion is that sera'a serves the purpose. As I said, "that which is
> pertinent to A" is a superset of "the topic of A".

So what? By analogy: why would we have {mlatu} when it's clearly a
subset of {danlu}, so danlu serves the purpose of "x1 is a cat"?

mu'o mi'e ianek

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Roosevelt is pertinent to the Great Depression, but he is most certainly
> >> /not/ the topic of it.
>
> >>>  (Btw, in my view, zi'o doesn't say that there is no such thing as
> >>>> whatever place it's in, but just that it's not important. For example,
> >>>> {ko'a klama zi'o zi'o ...} doesn't mean there /isn't/ an origin or
> >>>> destination, it just means that they don't matter. Dissenters should use
> >>>> zo'e instead.)
>
> >>> I think the CLL says almost the same.
>
> >>>>>>> If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is
> >>>>>>> relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/**
> >>> msg/lojban-beginners/-/**UZopTp21hiIJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/UZopTp21hiIJ>
> >>> .
>
> >>> 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 athttp://groups.google.com/**
> >>> group/lojban-beginners?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en>

> >>> .
>
> >> --
> >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit

[la gleki]

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 7:47:51 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

FWIW, I define {srana} in lojban as follows:

{.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u bu'a ce'u}

And actually being able to say *what* that bu'a is is what led me to a post much earlier about "srana3", which indeed, I now realise, would make {srana} essentially identical to {ckini}.

(With a srana3, the definition becomes {.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u ce'u me'au ce'u})

Thus, I currently believe that srana can be defined in terms of ckini as such:

{.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u ce'u ckini lo ka co'e}

Things that are relevant to each other are simply related by an obvious relationship.

That's what I was afraid of. And I don't like it. Then we don't have a gismu for "topic", do we?

If {srana} is about topic then ckini makes sense with all it's three places.

Then {srana} is not just a subset of {ckini}. It gives us topicalisation in the form of a predicate (which is very nice) but which is still poorly understood (remember recent discussions on {kau} acting as a topic marker etc.) 

[Annie]

What is danlu? How can mlatu be a subset of anything? I honestly think the whole thing is crazy.

Sent from my iPod

[ianek]

"danlu" means "x1 is an animal of species x2". I meant that the set of
cats is a subset of the set of all animals. Is vlasisku not usable by
blind people? I suppose so. vlasisku.lojban.org

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 2 Gru, 18:22, Annie <park.an...@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
> What is danlu? How can mlatu be a subset of anything? I honestly think the whole thing is crazy.
>
> Sent from my iPod
>

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

[Annie]

How do you get "is dedicated to" out of "is related to"? Besides, someone was trying to say that a more-than-five-letter word meaos "dedicate". How is that possible, when it's not a gismu? Why do you need  two words that mean practically the same in Lojbanhis Isn't that illogicalhis

Sent from my iPod

--
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/-/x2tg50HGg-oJ.

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 Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park....@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:

How do you get "is dedicated to" out of "is related to"?

I'd like to know that myself.
 

Besides, someone was trying to say that a more-than-five-letter word meaos "dedicate". How is that possible, when it's not a gismu?

I think you're confusing "brivla" and "gismu" here. Firstly, gismu are not the only words in Lojban that mean something. Every native and most borrowed words have some kind of meaning. Secondly, there are many different kinds of brivla besides gismu, tanru, lujvo, and fu'ivla being the most common, but there are other types I don't feel like getting into (, like the kind that use {me}).

selra'a is a lujvo formed from the rafsi of {se} (sel-) and {srana} (ra'a). {se} is a word meaning to switch the first and second places of the immediately following gismu.

So, if {srana} means "x₁ pertains to/.../is about x₂.", than {se srana} (which is the same thing as {selra'a}) means "x₁ is what x₂ pertains to/.../is about."

Again, vlasisku (http://vlasisku.lojban.org) is extremely useful when it comes to the meanings of words- that's its entire purpose for existence, actually.

As for {si'artersku}, that's formed from the rafsi for, respectively, sinma, te, and cusku, with the 'r' placed in there for grammatical reasons. I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what it means, which is not at all difficult to do, as all you need to do is look up the meaning of the words.
 

[ianek]

On 3 Gru, 05:15, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park.an...@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
> > How do you get "is dedicated to" out of "is related to"?
>
> I'd like to know that myself.
>
> > Besides, someone was trying to say that a more-than-five-letter word meaos
> > "dedicate". How is that possible, when it's not a gismu?
>
> I think you're confusing "brivla" and "gismu" here. Firstly, gismu are not
> the only words in Lojban that mean something. Every native and most
> borrowed words have some kind of meaning. Secondly, there are many
> different kinds of brivla besides gismu, tanru, lujvo, and fu'ivla being
> the most common, but there are other types I don't feel like getting into
> (, like the kind that use {me}).

I think you're confusing "brivla" and "selbri" here. There are no
brivla besides gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla. tanru is not a word, so it's
not a predicate word.

I also think that lojban-beginners is an awful place to start learning
Lojban. L4B or wave lessons would be much better, but I don't know
about their accessibility for blind people.

mu'o mi'e ianek

>

> selra'a is a lujvo formed from the rafsi of {se} (sel-) and {srana} (ra'a).
> {se} is a word meaning to switch the first and second places of the
> immediately following gismu.
>
> So, if {srana} means "x1 pertains to/.../is about x2.", than {se srana}
> (which is the same thing as {selra'a}) means "x1 is what x2 pertains
> to/.../is about."
>
> Again, vlasisku (http://vlasisku.lojban.org) is extremely useful when it
> comes to the meanings of words- that's its entire purpose for existence,
> actually.
>
> As for {si'artersku}, that's formed from the rafsi for, respectively,
> sinma, te, and cusku, with the 'r' placed in there for grammatical reasons.
> I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what it means, which is not
> at all difficult to do, as all you need to do is look up the meaning of the
> words.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why do you need  two words that mean practically the same in Lojbanhis
> > Isn't that illogicalhis
>
> > Sent from my iPod
>

> > On Dec 2, 2012, at 1:05 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:52:54 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> > This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.
>
> >>>>>> An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for
> >>>>>> instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
> >>>>>> of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
> >>>>>> other things). Consider:
>
> >>>>>> la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli
>
> >>>>>> This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl --
> >>>>>> it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.
>
> >>>>> I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly
> >>>>> mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.
>
> >>>> Well, may be it's not that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana}
> >>>> but rather wrong usage and/or glossing.
>

> >>>> *srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is
> >>>> related/associated with/is about x2.*
> >>>> *ckini  x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationship x3.
> >>>> *

>
> >>>> If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get

> >>>> *  srana x1 is relevant to x2

> >>>>   ckini  x1 is relevant to x2

> >>>> *

[la gleki]

No textbooks adapted for blind people? Might be true. But what about Mumble and/or Skype?

Can't we organise voice lessons there? It would be awesome to have blind lojbanists as well.

[ianek]

Or maybe IRC #ckule. IRC has been around for quite a long while, it
would be very strange if it hasn't adapted for blind people.

> > > > To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>.

>
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.

> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>
> > > > *** This Email was sent by a student at School for the Blind.
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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<javascript:>.

>
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:17 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3 Gru, 05:15, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park.an...@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
> > How do you get "is dedicated to" out of "is related to"?
>
> I'd like to know that myself.
>
> > Besides, someone was trying to say that a more-than-five-letter word meaos
> > "dedicate". How is that possible, when it's not a gismu?
>
> I think you're confusing "brivla" and "gismu" here. Firstly, gismu are not
> the only words in Lojban that mean something. Every native and most
> borrowed words have some kind of meaning. Secondly, there are many
> different kinds of brivla besides gismu, tanru, lujvo, and fu'ivla being
> the most common, but there are other types I don't feel like getting into
> (, like the kind that use {me}).

I think you're confusing "brivla" and "selbri" here. There are no
brivla besides gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla. tanru is not a word, so it's
not a predicate word.

Aye.
 

I also think that lojban-beginners is an awful place to start learning
Lojban. L4B or wave lessons would be much better, but I don't know
about their accessibility for blind people.

She said previously that she's found as is reading L4B, but based on her questions I don't think I believe her.
 

[tijlan]

On 3 December 2012 04:15, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park....@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
>>
>> How do you get "is dedicated to" out of "is related to"?
>
>
> I'd like to know that myself.

If I wrote a book in dedication to koha and made that explicit on a
page, a link would have been created between the book and koha.
Suppose koha is a high-profile celebrity and my book happens to be
monumentally controversial for its own content; koha's manager doesn't
appreciate the publicized unduly link and calls me demanding that {lo
cukta co'u srana ko'a tai zo'e}, where {zo'e} refers to the fact that
koha's name is on the book's particular page unrelated to the book's
topic itself.


mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

Not only is that example extremely contrived, it is also not an example of srana being "dedicated to", and I highly doubt any manager would say "A book is completed pertinent to ko'a in the obvious form" to yell at someone for putting a name in a book. More likely they'd just say "Why is {name}'s name in you book? I want it out, NOW!"

[Annie]

What do you mean you don't believe me "the questions I ask? BESIDES, can you elaborate on brivla?rivla?

Sent from my iPod

[Annie]

Skype would be awesome, and it would be much quicker.

Sent from my iPod

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/HKv8bmO69eMJ.

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.

[tijlan]

On 4 December 2012 10:12, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3 December 2012 04:15, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park....@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How do you get "is dedicated to" out of "is related to"?
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd like to know that myself.
>>
>> If I wrote a book in dedication to koha and made that explicit on a
>> page, a link would have been created between the book and koha.
>> Suppose koha is a high-profile celebrity and my book happens to be
>> monumentally controversial for its own content; koha's manager doesn't
>> appreciate the publicized unduly link and calls me demanding that {lo
>> cukta co'u srana ko'a tai zo'e}, where {zo'e} refers to the fact that
>> koha's name is on the book's particular page unrelated to the book's
>> topic itself.
>>
>> mu'o
>
>
> Not only is that example extremely contrived, it is also not an example of
> srana being "dedicated to", and I highly doubt any manager would say "A book
> is completed pertinent to ko'a in the obvious form" to yell at someone for
> putting a name in a book. More likely they'd just say "Why is {name}'s name
> in you book? I want it out, NOW!"

Still, "x1 is dedicated to x2" is a kind of relation, just as "x1
plans x2 for process x3" (platu) is.


mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

Yes, but neither of those are srana.
 

mu'o

--
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]

  In my opinion the discussion here defines ckini too broadly.  srana has a broad meaning, and it's basically the relationship that "pe/ne" has with the two sumti have.  ckini, on the other hand, is more specifically a kinship relationship.  The x1 and x2 would basically have to belong to the same set, or at best one being a member of the superset of the other.  For example, I don't think that "la djan" and "lo zdani be la djan" would properly be described as being a ckini relationship, despite the fact you could argue  that "la djan ckini lo zdani be la djan lo nu se zdani" is valid and true.  But I could say something like "lo mlatu cu ckini lo cinfo lo nu jutsi".  The preceding is just my opinion. YMMV

     --gejyspa

[la gleki]

Annie, please write down your free hours throughout the week when you are available for voice chatting.

[ianek]

I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}.
When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu}
is somewhat overused.

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 5 Gru, 04:33, Michael Turniansky <mturnian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 4 December 2012 10:12, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> On 3 December 2012 04:15, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park.an...@asb.gaggle.net>

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}.
When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu}
is somewhat overused.

{nu} is the NU equivalent of {lo}. It's never wrong.
 

--
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.

[Jacob Errington]

On 5 December 2012 04:43, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}.
When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu}
is somewhat overused.

{nu} is the NU equivalent of {lo}. It's never wrong.

That's definitely not true when it comes to djuno.

As for relationships and {ka}, I've developed a system around this, but that would be far beyond the point of this thread for me to explain.

[Michael Turniansky]

  FWIW, I had originally written "ka", but decided it didn't look right.  It would be nice if the gismu definition had the proper NU in parentheses, as in many other words.

         --gejyspa

[ianek]

On 5 Gru, 10:43, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}.
> > When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu}
> > is somewhat overused.
>
> {nu} is the NU equivalent of {lo}. It's never wrong.

No. {su'u} is the NU equivalent of {lo}: generalized abstractor (how);
x1 is [bridi] as a non-specific abstraction of type x2

{nu} is "generalized event abstractor; x1 is state/process/achievement/
activity of [bridi]."
That means, {nu} can stand for each of: {za'i}, {pu'e}, {mu'u},
{zu'o}, maybe {li'i} (but I doubt that; experience is not an event),
but not for {du'u}, {jei}, {ka}, {ni}, {si'o} and of course {su'u},
which is more general.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:22 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5 Gru, 10:43, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}.
> > When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu}
> > is somewhat overused.
>
> {nu} is the NU equivalent of {lo}. It's never wrong.

No. {su'u} is the NU equivalent of {lo}: generalized abstractor (how);
x1 is [bridi] as a non-specific abstraction of type x2

{nu} is "generalized event abstractor; x1 is state/process/achievement/
activity of [bridi]."
That means, {nu} can stand for each of: {za'i}, {pu'e}, {mu'u},
{zu'o}, maybe {li'i} (but I doubt that; experience is not an event),
but not for {du'u}, {jei}, {ka}, {ni}, {si'o} and of course {su'u},
which is more general.

Hey, I'm just telling you how it is. I'm not saying that {nu} should be the default, it just happens to be that it IS.
 

[selpa'i]

la'o gy. Jonathan Jones .gy cu cusku di'e

> Hey, I'm just telling you how it is. I'm not saying that {nu} should be
> the default, it just happens to be that it IS.

No, it's not. You're wrong. Why can't you accept that even after several
people have shown you that you're wrong? You're providing the beginners
that this list is dedicated to with misinformation.

{nu} is not the default, so it's *not* always right. You can't djuno a
nu, nor can you zenba a nu.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo je nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi je sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo da'i pu cìtka lo gràna ku


.


.

[Jacob Errington]

On 5 December 2012 08:27, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:22 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5 Gru, 10:43, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}.
> > When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu}
> > is somewhat overused.
>
> {nu} is the NU equivalent of {lo}. It's never wrong.

No. {su'u} is the NU equivalent of {lo}: generalized abstractor (how);
x1 is [bridi] as a non-specific abstraction of type x2

{nu} is "generalized event abstractor; x1 is state/process/achievement/
activity of [bridi]."
That means, {nu} can stand for each of: {za'i}, {pu'e}, {mu'u},
{zu'o}, maybe {li'i} (but I doubt that; experience is not an event),
but not for {du'u}, {jei}, {ka}, {ni}, {si'o} and of course {su'u},
which is more general.

Hey, I'm just telling you how it is. I'm not saying that {nu} should be the default, it just happens to be that it IS.
 

Well, provided the extensive conversations *in* Lojban in IRC that I have done with other jbopre of very respectable proficiency, I feel obligated to mention (especially seeing as this is lojban-beginners, after all) that {nu} is not the default. A quick look in the CLL (or the dictionary, as ianek did, ki'e) will tell you that nu is the event abstractor. The CLL explicitly mentions that {nu} can't be used in djuno2, which clearly refutes that {nu} is the default abstractor.

Sure, {nu} is used in a lot of places where some might argue that {ka} is better, and that's fine; usage has spoken in favour of {nu} in those places. However, that *does not* make {nu} the "default" abstractor. It just so happens that it is probably the most *common* abstractor. Avoiding these types of confusion is important in a beginners list where members might actually believe that it is OK to use {nu} everywhere, which is what your message suggests.

ianek is correct, {su'u} is the default abstractor that is comparable to {zo'e} in that it is vague as to which real abstractor it represents.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:13 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

la'o gy. Jonathan Jones .gy cu cusku di'e

Hey, I'm just telling you how it is. I'm not saying that {nu} should be
the default, it just happens to be that it IS.

No, it's not. You're wrong. Why can't you accept that even after several people have shown you that you're wrong? You're providing the beginners that this list is dedicated to with misinformation.

{nu} is not the default, so it's *not* always right. You can't djuno a nu, nor can you zenba a nu.

As I said, I'm not saying that I agree with it, nor am I saying I think it's correct. What I AM saying is that that is how it is, regardless of whether it makes sense, regardless of what the definitions of the various NU are, and regardless of whether it should be something else.

That said, I do happen to agree with you. That, however, is not my point. This is not my opinion, it is the current state of the language. And I am not the first nor the last to find things about this language that could - or indeed, should- be changed for the better.
 

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo je nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
   .i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
   .i do tìnsa càrmi
gi je sìrji se tàrmi
   .i taị bo da'i pu cìtka lo gràna ku


.

.

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

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.

[selpa'i]

la Jonathan Jones cu cusku di'e

> As I said, I'm not saying that I agree with it, nor am I saying I think
> it's correct. What I AM saying is that that is how it is, regardless of
> whether it makes sense, regardless of what the definitions of the
> various NU are, and regardless of whether it should be something else.
>
> That said, I do happen to agree with you. That, however, is not my
> point. This is not my opinion, it is the current state of the language.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that it's the current state of
the language? What are you basing this claim on?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:48 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

la Jonathan Jones cu cusku di'e

As I said, I'm not saying that I agree with it, nor am I saying I think
it's correct. What I AM saying is that that is how it is, regardless of
whether it makes sense, regardless of what the definitions of the
various NU are, and regardless of whether it should be something else.

That said, I do happen to agree with you. That, however, is not my
point. This is not my opinion, it is the current state of the language.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that it's the current state of the language? What are you basing this claim on?

Previous discussions on NU, one of which I've posted to the main list so as to keep the kind of discussions we DON'T have on the Beginner's list from happening on the Beginner's list. (Well, at least to remove this one from it, anyway.)
 

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo je nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
   .i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
   .i do tìnsa càrmi
gi je sìrji se tàrmi
   .i taị bo da'i pu cìtka lo gràna ku


.


.

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

[tijlan]

On 4 December 2012 22:45, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Still, "x1 is dedicated to x2" is a kind of relation, just as "x1
>> plans x2 for process x3" (platu) is.
>
>
> Yes, but neither of those are srana.

If "x1 is dedicated to x2" wasn't a subset of {srana}, of "x1 is
related to x2", then it couldn't be covered by {pe} either -- we
couldn't say {lo cukta pe lo nixli} to imply that the book is
dedicated to the girl. Do we actually have such a restriction?


mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

My opinion is yes, but I won't go so far as to say my opinion is the official one without agreement from a majority of jbocertu.
 

mu'o

--
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.

[Sebastian]

Could you say that {srana} is a gismu-equivalent of {pe}? But perhaps with a bit more asymmetrric relation between x1 and x2, as the note for {srana} suggest?

In either case I think it's not wrong to say that dedication is a form of "associated with". Still {srana} and {pe} is definitely vaguer than "dedication", so maybe a lujvo would be more approriate?

mu'omi'e jongausib

Skickat från min iPhone

[Jonathan Jones]

Here's a hypothetical example of why I don't agree that srana "x1 is pertinent/relevant to x2" could be used to mean "dedicated to":

Let us say that I wrote a book, and upon its being published, I gave it the dedication "To my wife, for putting up with me as I wrote this". Then is would be true that {lo mi cukta cu ckini lo mi speni lodu'u ca nu mi ciska ku sy. se fanza mi}. However, other than the dedication, my wife has nothing to do with the book- the story contained within has absolutely nothing to do with my wife in any way, except in that she may find it enjoyable to read, which has nothing to do with the decision to dedicate it to her, and so {lo mi cukta cu na srana lo mi speni}, it's in no way pertinent to/relevant to/concerning/about my wife.

[Jonathan Jones]

Sorry, forgot this was Beginner's for a second there. Translations:

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's a hypothetical example of why I don't agree that srana "x1 is pertinent/relevant to x2" could be used to mean "dedicated to":

Let us say that I wrote a book, and upon its being published, I gave it the dedication "To my wife, for putting up with me as I wrote this". Then is would be true that 

{lo mi cukta cu ckini lo mi speni lodu'u ca nu mi ciska ku sy. se fanza mi}.

"My book is related to my wife by the relation, when I was writing, she was annoyed by me."
 

However, other than the dedication, my wife has nothing to do with the book- the story contained within has absolutely nothing to do with my wife in any way, except in that she may find it enjoyable to read, which has nothing to do with the decision to dedicate it to her, and so 

{lo mi cukta cu na srana lo mi speni},

"My book is not pertinent to my wife."
 

it's in no way pertinent to/relevant to/concerning/about my wife.

--
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 )

[selpa'i]

la Jonathan Jones cu cusku di'e

> Here's a hypothetical example of why I don't agree that srana "x1 is
> pertinent/relevant to x2" could be used to mean "dedicated to":
>
> Let us say that I wrote a book, and upon its being published, I gave it
> the dedication "To my wife, for putting up with me as I wrote this".
> Then is would be true that {lo mi cukta cu ckini lo mi speni lodu'u ca
> nu mi ciska ku sy. se fanza mi}.

(You forgot a "lo" before after "ca".)

> However, other than the dedication, my
> wife has nothing to do with the book- the story contained within has
> absolutely nothing to do with my wife in any way, except in that she may
> find it enjoyable to read, which has nothing to do with the decision to
> dedicate it to her, and so {lo mi cukta cu na srana lo mi speni}, it's
> in no way pertinent to/relevant to/concerning/about my wife.

Here is a non-hypothetical example from my own experience: Whenever I
create something, for example when I compose a piece or when I write a
book or any such thing, I always dedicate it to someone (and it's always
a different person each time). If someone was familiar with my musical
pieces and wanted to refer to one of them, I would consider it entirely
correct to use srana/pe thus:

mi nelci lo do zgike se finti .i pu zi tinju'i lo do se finti pe la'o
me. Han Ga Eun .me

Or:

mi pu zi tinju'i lo srana be la'o me. Han Ga Eun .me

"I like your compositions. I just listened to your Han Ga Eun piece."

That's the easiest way to distinguish them, especially since I don't
give my pieces names. pe/ne/srana are by nature vague and rely on
context. And I think that's a good thing.

[la gleki]

In such cases I would use  seki'i/do'e.

[Sebastian Fröjd]

Because those places are an inherent quality of each concept?

Otherwise I'm not totally against a new BAI, but I think I would like to be able of saying things like "lo terjdi", lo "terctu", etc, now and then. Personally it doesn't matter if I have to learn a few more tersu'i.

What impact would glekis proposal have on usage btw?

mu'omi'e jongausib

2012/12/1 la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>

cfika

  x1 is a work of fiction about plot or theme x2 by author x3

ciksi

x1 explains x2 to x3 with explanation x4

cilre

x1 learns x2 about x3 from x4 by method

ctuca

x1 teaches to x2 ideas x3 about subject x4 by method x5

djuno

x1 knows fact x2 about x3 by epistemology x4

draci

x1 is a drama or play about x2 by x3 for audience x4 with actors x4

facki

x1 discovers x2 about x3

jdice

x1 makes decision x2 about x3

jimpe

x1 understands x2 about x3

morji

x1 remembers x2 about subject x3

And my question is

Why memorising so many places when they could be replaced by a BAI formed from a hypothetical brivla

broda = x1 is the theme/topic of x2; x2 is about x1

--
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/-/3vlYgCwqkegJ.

[Sebastian Fröjd]

Well, my last was a reply to glekis original post in this thread ta'o nai

2012/12/5 Sebastian Fröjd <so.co...@gmail.com>

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

la Jonathan Jones cu cusku di'e

Here's a hypothetical example of why I don't agree that srana "x1 is

pertinent/relevant to x2" could be used to mean "dedicated to":

Let us say that I wrote a book, and upon its being published, I gave it
the dedication "To my wife, for putting up with me as I wrote this".
Then is would be true that {lo mi cukta cu ckini lo mi speni lodu'u ca
nu mi ciska ku sy. se fanza mi}.

(You forgot a "lo" before after "ca".)

{lo mi cukta cu ckini lo mi speni lodu'u ca lonu mi ciska ku sy. se fanza mi}
 

However, other than the dedication, my

wife has nothing to do with the book- the story contained within has
absolutely nothing to do with my wife in any way, except in that she may
find it enjoyable to read, which has nothing to do with the decision to
dedicate it to her, and so {lo mi cukta cu na srana lo mi speni}, it's
in no way pertinent to/relevant to/concerning/about my wife.

Here is a non-hypothetical example from my own experience: Whenever I create something, for example when I compose a piece or when I write a book or any such thing, I always dedicate it to someone (and it's always a different person each time). If someone was familiar with my musical pieces and wanted to refer to one of them, I would consider it entirely correct to use srana/pe thus:

mi nelci lo do zgike se finti .i pu zi tinju'i lo do se finti pe la'o me. Han Ga Eun .me

Or:

mi pu zi tinju'i lo srana be la'o me. Han Ga Eun .me

"I like your compositions. I just listened to your Han Ga Eun piece."

That's the easiest way to distinguish them, especially since I don't give my pieces names. pe/ne/srana are by nature vague and rely on context. And I think that's a good thing.

In this instance, I concede the use of {pe}, but not {srana}. "Dedicated" is /not/ "pertinent". "Associated with" should not be part of the English definition of srana, since it is obviously misunderstood. {srana} is not the gismu equivalent of {pe}. {ckini} is.
 

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo je nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
   .i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
   .i do tìnsa càrmi
gi je sìrji se tàrmi
   .i taị bo da'i pu cìtka lo gràna ku


.


.

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

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.

[Annie]

Srana is a gismu, so why are you doubting that?

Sent from my iPod

[Sebastian Fröjd]

I first thought that ckini had something to do with being related to someone like fatherhood, brotherhood, auntness (?) etc.
Guess I was wrong then. So how do you say: "Are you related?" in lojban, as in relatives. Maybe something with lanzu? But family for my swedish ears is more like close relatives, your household or they who you share your life with, not your cousins wife or something similar.

{srana} seems to have an asymmetric relation of x1 and x2 as default, although not necessary, as expressed in it's note: "x₁ is conventionally more specific or constrained in scope than x<sub>2 .
I agree that the definitions of {srana} and {ckini} are a bit unclear, so hopefully this discussion will lead to some result, but I'm too tired right now to try to reason about it.

How official are the BPFK sections btw? Here I have read CLL, Lojban for beginners and vlasisku for over a year, and then this week I find out about BPFK, xorlo, PEG, fu'ivla-rafsi etc. I'm kind of stunned.

mu'omi'e jongausib</sub>

2012/12/2 ianek <jan...@gmail.com>

"danlu" means "x1 is an animal of species x2". I meant that the set of
cats is a subset of the set of all animals. Is vlasisku not usable by
blind people? I suppose so. vlasisku.lojban.org

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 2 Gru, 18:22, Annie <park.an...@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
> What is danlu? How can mlatu be a subset of anything? I honestly think the whole thing is crazy.
>
> Sent from my iPod
>

> On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:14 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Gru, 14:02, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:48 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:03 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 11:15:01 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:50:42 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
>

> >>>>>>> Sorry, it should be
> >>>>>>> *  srana x1 is releted to x2*
> >>>>>>> *  ckini  x1 is related to x2 by relationship x3*
>
> >>>>>> Well, by that definition, srana is {ckini fi zi'o}, which makes them
> >>>>>> synonyms in the same way that litru is to klama (litru = {klama zi'o zi'o}).
>
> >>>>> Haven't you read my previous post? I mean that choosing words from full
> >>>>> definitions ARBITRARILY can lead to this result which is nonsense.
> >>>>> ju'o it's all bad glossing.
> >>>>> I suggest that srana refers to topic and ckini means "to be associated
> >>>>> with".
> >>>>> to dedicate is {finfriti}, {tecu'u} etc.
>
> >>>> No, ko'a srana ko'e means that ko'a is relevant to ko'e, i.e. ko'a has
> >>>> something to do with ko'e.
>
> >>>> While it is true that the topic of something is pertinent, something
> >>>> which is pertinent is not necessarily the topic.
>
> >>> Then what is your opinion about my first post? Is it true that "topic"
> >>> brivla has right to exist on it's own?
>
> >> My opinion is that sera'a serves the purpose. As I said, "that which is
> >> pertinent to A" is a superset of "the topic of A".
>
> > So what? By analogy: why would we have {mlatu} when it's clearly a
> > subset of {danlu}, so danlu serves the purpose of "x1 is a cat"?

>
> > mu'o mi'e ianek
>

> >>> Roosevelt is pertinent to the Great Depression, but he is most certainly
> >>>> /not/ the topic of it.
>
> >>>>>  (Btw, in my view, zi'o doesn't say that there is no such thing as
> >>>>>> whatever place it's in, but just that it's not important. For example,
> >>>>>> {ko'a klama zi'o zi'o ...} doesn't mean there /isn't/ an origin or
> >>>>>> destination, it just means that they don't matter. Dissenters should use
> >>>>>> zo'e instead.)
>
> >>>>> I think the CLL says almost the same.

>
> >>>>>>>>> If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is
> >>>>>>>>> relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.
>

> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/**
> >>>>> msg/lojban-beginners/-/**UZopTp21hiIJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/UZopTp21hiIJ>
> >>>>> .
>
> >>>>> 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 athttp://groups.google.com/**
> >>>>> group/lojban-beginners?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en>

> >>>>> .
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit

> >>>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/kQJ2iFS5UZ4J.

>
> >>> 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 .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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

>
> *** This Email was sent by a student at School for the Blind.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Sebastian Fröjd <so.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

I first thought that ckini had something to do with being related to someone like fatherhood, brotherhood, auntness (?) etc.
Guess I was wrong then. So how do you say: "Are you related?" in lojban, as in relatives. Maybe something with lanzu?

Yes.
 

But family for my swedish ears is more like close relatives, your household or they who you share your life with, not your cousins wife or something similar.

Well, that's probably why lanzu has the "by bond" x3 place, so that you could say something like {lo mi lanzu cu lanzu mi .e lo mi bruna .e lo mi mamta fi lo ciblu pe'a}.
 

[la gleki]

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 7:47:51 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

FWIW, I define {srana} in lojban as follows:

{.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u bu'a ce'u}

And actually being able to say *what* that bu'a is is what led me to a post much earlier about "srana3", which indeed, I now realise, would make {srana} essentially identical to {ckini}.

(With a srana3, the definition becomes {.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u ce'u me'au ce'u})

Thus, I currently believe that srana can be defined in terms of ckini as such:

{.i lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu ka ce'u ce'u ckini lo ka co'e}

That's ok. But what is {co'e}  then?

co'e - elliptical/unspecified bridi relationship.

However, this definition of {srana} suggests that {lo ka co'e} is not just {zo'e}.
{co'e} looks like "obvious unspecified bridi relationship" here.

My further thoughts will depend on your reply to {co'e}.

Things that are relevant to each other are simply related by an obvious relationship.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

On 2 December 2012 08:02, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:48 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:32:48 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:03 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 11:15:01 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:00 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:50:42 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for
instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
other things). Consider:

la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli

This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl --
it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.

I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.

Well, may be it's not that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana} but rather wrong usage and/or glossing.

srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is related/associated with/is about x2.

ckini  x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationship x3.

If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get

  srana x1 is relevant to x2
  ckini  x1 is relevant to x2

which is nonsense.

ckini wouldn't be that. For one thing, you left out the x3, and for another, it isn't "relevant", it's "related". The Cold War isn't relevant to WWII, but it is related (by being a direct result of it).

Sorry, it should be 

  srana x1 is releted to x2

  ckini  x1 is related to x2 by relationship x3

Well, by that definition, srana is {ckini fi zi'o}, which makes them synonyms in the same way that litru is to klama (litru = {klama zi'o zi'o}).

Haven't you read my previous post? I mean that choosing words from full definitions ARBITRARILY can lead to this result which is nonsense.

ju'o it's all bad glossing.

I suggest that srana refers to topic and ckini means "to be associated with".

to dedicate is {finfriti}, {tecu'u} etc.

No, ko'a srana ko'e means that ko'a is relevant to ko'e, i.e. ko'a has something to do with ko'e.

While it is true that the topic of something is pertinent, something which is pertinent is not necessarily the topic.

Then what is your opinion about my first post? Is it true that "topic" brivla has right to exist on it's own?

My opinion is that sera'a serves the purpose. As I said, "that which is pertinent to A" is a superset of "the topic of A".
 

Roosevelt is pertinent to the Great Depression, but he is most certainly /not/ the topic of it.
 

(Btw, in my view, zi'o doesn't say that there is no such thing as whatever place it's in, but just that it's not important. For example, {ko'a klama zi'o zi'o ...} doesn't mean there /isn't/ an origin or destination, it just means that they don't matter. Dissenters should use zo'e instead.)

I think the CLL says almost the same.

 

 

 

If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/UZopTp21hiIJ.

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 .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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/kQJ2iFS5UZ4J.

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 Sunday, December 02, 2012 23:39:45 Sebastian Fröjd wrote:
> I first thought that ckini had something to do with being related to
> someone like fatherhood, brotherhood, auntness (?) etc.
> Guess I was wrong then. So how do you say: "Are you related?" in lojban, as
> in relatives. Maybe something with lanzu? But family for my swedish ears is
> more like close relatives, your household or they who you share your life
> with, not your cousins wife or something similar.

I haven't been following this discussion, but I would use "ckini" for that.
There are other ways things can be related.

lo fraso cu ckini lo spano .enai lo .olkola
French is related to Spanish but not to Olkola (an Australian Aboriginal
language closely related to Oykangand).

la'edi'u ckini lo jdima be lo jungo tcati ma
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? (if we were talking
about year-to-year variations in Asian rainfall, then it is indeed related.)

Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.

[tijlan]

On 1 December 2012 07:13, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> broda = x1 is the theme/topic of x2; x2 is about x1

That x2 would most likely be some sort of information (text, image,
audio, whatever), so I would consider "datni":

seldatni = x1 is what information x2 is about, gathered by method x3


mu'o

[Annie]

I'm confused. I've been told that NU is like parentheses, so what's the big deal? what do you guys mean when you talk about something being the default?

Sent from my iPod

--

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, December 10, 2012 18:30:58 Annie wrote:
> I'm confused. I've been told that NU is like parentheses, so what's the big
> deal? what do you guys mean when you talk about something being the
> default?

The parentheses are to ... toi (for parenthetical remarks), ke ... ke'e (in
tanru), and vei ... ve'o (in mathematical expressions). NU makes a subordinate
clause.

Pierre
--
sei do'anai mi'a djuno puze'e noroi nalselganse srera