Comments inside quotations. {lu ... [sei ...se'u] ... li'u}. No solution?

[la gleki]

{sei ... se'u} inside  {lu ...li'u} must be a part of the quote however xorxe's Alice in Wonderland uses that to translate quotes split into several parts. I'm not the only person who thinks that this is wrong.

IMO {sei} has at least three different meanings.

1. As an alternative to UI ({sei mi gleki ~= .ui})

2. As an alternative to moving the outer bridi into the inner bridi ({do melbi sei mi jinvi}={mi jinvi lo du'u do melbi})

3. To translate partitioned quotations.

Some time ago i proposed {xoi} to replace the second meaning of {sei}. And now here is my solution for the third meaning.

Proposal.

The same FA two times in a bridi should mean {je} according i.e.

{fe lo barda ku mi pu viska fe lo gerku}={mi pu viska lo barda je gerku}.

Needless to say that "it's a big dog" is rather {ko'a barda je gerku} rather than {ko'a barda gerku} as natlangish tanru i.e. metaphors i.e. noun phrases with adjectives are not necessary in a logical style of lojban.

Now such proposal allows us to express divided quotations

xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

gleki's solution:  {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (26 syllables)

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:54 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

{sei ... se'u} inside  {lu ...li'u} must be a part of the quote however xorxe's Alice in Wonderland uses that to translate quotes split into several parts. I'm not the only person who thinks that this is wrong.

IMO {sei} has at least three different meanings.

1. As an alternative to UI ({sei mi gleki ~= .ui})

2. As an alternative to moving the outer bridi into the inner bridi ({do melbi sei mi jinvi}={mi jinvi lo du'u do melbi})

3. To translate partitioned quotations.

Some time ago i proposed {xoi} to replace the second meaning of {sei}. And now here is my solution for the third meaning.

Proposal.

The same FA two times in a bridi should mean {je} according i.e.

{fe lo barda ku mi pu viska fe lo gerku}={mi pu viska lo barda je gerku}.

No. IT's currently equivalent to {ju'e}, and should remain so.

Needless to say that "it's a big dog" is rather {ko'a barda je gerku} rather than {ko'a barda gerku} as natlangish tanru i.e. metaphors i.e. noun phrases with adjectives are not necessary in a logical style of lojban.

DISAGREE. It's a big type of dog because it's big for a dog. It's certainly not big for a house, or a plane, or an elephant- unless it's Clifford. "Big" is a relative term, not an absolute.

Now such proposal allows us to express divided quotations

xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

gleki's solution:  {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (26 syllables)

That could work WITHOUT changing the meaning of anything, i.e., with the language AS IS.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/zxejrcR3jCYJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?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 )

[Jacob Errington]

On 24 December 2012 11:54, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

{sei ... se'u} inside  {lu ...li'u} must be a part of the quote however xorxe's Alice in Wonderland uses that to translate quotes split into several parts. I'm not the only person who thinks that this is wrong.

IMO {sei} has at least three different meanings.

1. As an alternative to UI ({sei mi gleki ~= .ui})

2. As an alternative to moving the outer bridi into the inner bridi ({do melbi sei mi jinvi}={mi jinvi lo du'u do melbi})

3. To translate partitioned quotations.

All of these meanings are actually the same. In every case, it's "meaning #2".

{.i do melbi sei mi cusku} -> {.i mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}

{.i ui do cinba mi} -> {.i sei mi gleki do cinba mi} -> {.i mi gleki lo nu do cinba mi}

Personally, I disapprove of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the simple reason that one can't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause is actually spoken, unless {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).

 

Some time ago i proposed {xoi} to replace the second meaning of {sei}. And now here is my solution for the third meaning.

Replacing any meanings of sei with another word is unnecessary because {sei} only really has one meaning.

 

Proposal.

The same FA two times in a bridi should mean {je} according i.e.

{fe lo barda ku mi pu viska fe lo gerku}={mi pu viska lo barda je gerku}.

This system seems inconsistent: a sumti operation, namely the use of FA, causes a selbri effect.

 

Needless to say that "it's a big dog" is rather {ko'a barda je gerku} rather than {ko'a barda gerku} as natlangish tanru i.e. metaphors i.e. noun phrases with adjectives are not necessary in a logical style of lojban.

Now such proposal allows us to express divided quotations

xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

gleki's solution:  {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (26 syllables)

As I mentioned  above, where's the {je} ? What selbri is it connecting? Furthermore, if double-FA should have some connective implication, it should certainly not be a logical connective. I propose something far more vague, like {ju'e}.

 

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

..I propose something far more vague, like {ju'e}....

Your proposal is what it currently is. :)

[Jacob Errington]

On 24 December 2012 12:18, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

..I propose something far more vague, like {ju'e}....

Your proposal is what it currently is. :)

Haha, although to be honest, practically no one (talking about IRC usage here) uses double FA, so I wouldn't quite call it "what it currently is". Also, I didn't think that any official decisions had been made with regards to double FA. If you can provide a link to a record of the decision, that'd be really great.

[la gleki]

On Monday, December 24, 2012 9:05:53 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

On 24 December 2012 11:54, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

{sei ... se'u} inside  {lu ...li'u} must be a part of the quote however xorxe's Alice in Wonderland uses that to translate quotes split into several parts. I'm not the only person who thinks that this is wrong.

IMO {sei} has at least three different meanings.

1. As an alternative to UI ({sei mi gleki ~= .ui})

2. As an alternative to moving the outer bridi into the inner bridi ({do melbi sei mi jinvi}={mi jinvi lo du'u do melbi})

3. To translate partitioned quotations.

All of these meanings are actually the same. In every case, it's "meaning #2".

{.i do melbi sei mi cusku} -> {.i mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}

{.i ui do cinba mi} -> {.i sei mi gleki do cinba mi} -> {.i mi gleki lo nu do cinba mi}

Personally, I disapprove of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the simple reason that one can't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause is actually spoken, unless {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).

 

Some time ago i proposed {xoi} to replace the second meaning of {sei}. And now here is my solution for the third meaning.

Replacing any meanings of sei with another word is unnecessary because {sei} only really has one meaning.

How can you distinguish between

{do cusku lu do klama mi li'u}

and  

{do cusku lo nu do klama mi}

using {sei}?

 

Proposal.

The same FA two times in a bridi should mean {je} according i.e.

{fe lo barda ku mi pu viska fe lo gerku}={mi pu viska lo barda je gerku}.

This system seems inconsistent: a sumti operation, namely the use of FA, causes a selbri effect.

 

Needless to say that "it's a big dog" is rather {ko'a barda je gerku} rather than {ko'a barda gerku} as natlangish tanru i.e. metaphors i.e. noun phrases with adjectives are not necessary in a logical style of lojban.

Now such proposal allows us to express divided quotations

xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

gleki's solution:  {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (26 syllables)

As I mentioned  above, where's the {je} ? What selbri is it connecting?

Oh sorry. The rule  is {li'u je lu} annihilates itself. The order is important.

{lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} =>

{fa lu ko klama mi li'u fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u se cusku la alis} =>

{fa lu ko klama mi [li'u fa lu] i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u se cusku la alis} =>
{lu ko klama mi i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u se cusku la alis}

[Jonathan Jones]

Specifically because I am tired, I don't really care all that much, and I don't think it matters mainly due to it's lack of use, I'm not going to.

I will tell you that this has come up before, was discussed, and it was determined that "(FA) <sumti> FA <sumti>" is equivalent to "(FA) <sumti> ju'e <sumti>", and that I'm fairly certain the discussion is in the Google Group archives- although it is possible that the discussion predates the move to GG, I doubt it does. It's also more likely to be in the main group than the beginners.
 

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

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

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

[Jonathan Jones]

Not going to search for it, that is.

[Jacob Errington]

On 24 December 2012 12:42, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 24, 2012 9:05:53 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

On 24 December 2012 11:54, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

{sei ... se'u} inside  {lu ...li'u} must be a part of the quote however xorxe's Alice in Wonderland uses that to translate quotes split into several parts. I'm not the only person who thinks that this is wrong.

IMO {sei} has at least three different meanings.

1. As an alternative to UI ({sei mi gleki ~= .ui})

2. As an alternative to moving the outer bridi into the inner bridi ({do melbi sei mi jinvi}={mi jinvi lo du'u do melbi})

3. To translate partitioned quotations.

All of these meanings are actually the same. In every case, it's "meaning #2".

{.i do melbi sei mi cusku} -> {.i mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}

{.i ui do cinba mi} -> {.i sei mi gleki do cinba mi} -> {.i mi gleki lo nu do cinba mi}

Personally, I disapprove of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the simple reason that one can't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause is actually spoken, unless {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).

 

Some time ago i proposed {xoi} to replace the second meaning of {sei}. And now here is my solution for the third meaning.

Replacing any meanings of sei with another word is unnecessary because {sei} only really has one meaning.

How can you distinguish between

{do cusku lu do klama mi li'u}

and  

{do cusku lo nu do klama mi}

using {sei}?

That's a non-problem, because fasnu1 (assuming nu produces a fasnu1) can't be cusku2.

Distinguishing between sedu'u and lu is a bit more subtle, and I've seen variant uses of sei for this. The CLL's example dialogue about some people getting announcing a future marriage uses sei on the top level, without lu, but also uses "direct anaphora", which means {lu} is being indirectly used.

e.g. {.i mi'a ba spesimbi'o doi rodo sei la bab cusku} would imply lu, because the anaphora are those that Bob himself would be using.

-> {.i la bab cusku lu mi'a ba spesimbi'o doi rodo}

The contrary usage would use "indirect anaphora" and would imply sedu'u:

e.g. {.i la bab joi lo spenu'e cu spesimbi'o sei la bab cusku be fi loi ro zvati be lo kafybarja}

-> {.i la bab cusku lo sedu'u by joi lo spenu'e cu spesimbi'o kei loi ro zvati be lo kafybarja}

The doi in this case, being a free modifier, can't be carried into the sedu'u correctly, but seeing as COI too can be transformed into sei-clauses, we can move it to the outer bridi.

Deciding which is correct would simply require an authoritative decision to be made, but both at this rate are possibilities, and as it stands, there is some inconsistency in usage.

 

 

Proposal.

The same FA two times in a bridi should mean {je} according i.e.

{fe lo barda ku mi pu viska fe lo gerku}={mi pu viska lo barda je gerku}.

This system seems inconsistent: a sumti operation, namely the use of FA, causes a selbri effect.

 

Needless to say that "it's a big dog" is rather {ko'a barda je gerku} rather than {ko'a barda gerku} as natlangish tanru i.e. metaphors i.e. noun phrases with adjectives are not necessary in a logical style of lojban.

Now such proposal allows us to express divided quotations

xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

gleki's solution:  {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (26 syllables)

As I mentioned  above, where's the {je} ? What selbri is it connecting?

Oh sorry. The rule  is {li'u je lu} annihilates itself. The order is important.

Okay... it's good to know that we're using the experimental JA-works-on-sumti proposal. Equally, {lo broda je lo brode} is not equal to {lo broda je broda}; the former causes distribution by virtue of the logical connection. {lu li'o li'u je lu li'o li'u} does not annihilate itself because it's a logical connective (unless your je is not sugar for .e, in which case I don't at all follow what you're trying to say.)

So, if I get this right, you're saying two different things:

#1 {.i lu broda li'u selsku mi fa lu .ije brode li'u} -> {.i lu broda li'u je lu .ije brode li'u selsku mi} -/> {.i lu broda li'u selsku mi .ije lu .ije brode li'u selsku mi}

#2 {.i lo barda fa lo gerku cu xunre} -> {.i lo barda je gerku cu xunre}

You do realize that these are very different things: in the first you get a pseudo-logical connective that doesn't expand into two bridi and in the second you a tanru-internal logical connective.

Again, this is inconsistent.

[Jacob Errington]

Specifically because I am tired, I don't really care all that much, and I don't think it matters mainly due to it's lack of use, I'm not going to.

I will tell you that this has come up before, was discussed, and it was determined that "(FA) <sumti> FA <sumti>" is equivalent to "(FA) <sumti> ju'e <sumti>", and that I'm fairly certain the discussion is in the Google Group archives- although it is possible that the discussion predates the move to GG, I doubt it does. It's also more likely to be in the main group than the beginners.
   

That's fine. It's so rare that it doesn't really matter all that much, and I do recall xalbo saying in #lojban at some time that the "rule" was indeed involving {ju'e}. 

[Michael Everson]

On 24 Dec 2012, at 17:05, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Personally, I disapprove of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the simple reason that one can't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause is actually spoken, unless {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).

I have also found it troublesome in texts with quotation marks. The comment is certainly the narrator's, and that is not the quotation.

Michael Everson

[v4hn]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:55:41AM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I will tell you that this has come up before, was discussed, and it was
> determined that "(FA) <sumti> FA <sumti>" is equivalent to "(FA) <sumti>
> ju'e <sumti>", and that I'm fairly certain the discussion is in the Google
> Group archives- although it is possible that the discussion predates the
> move to GG, I doubt it does. It's also more likely to be in the main group
> than the beginners.
>

The discussion I can remember was three month ago and is quite short.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/c7Wrov6u8vIJ.

There was not really a decision reached there as far as I can see.


v4hn

[v4hn]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:05:53PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:
> #2".
> {.i do melbi sei mi cusku} -> {.i mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}
> {.i ui do cinba mi} -> {.i sei mi gleki do cinba mi} -> {.i mi gleki lo nu
> do cinba mi}
>
> Personally, I disapprove of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the
> simple reason that one can't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause
> is actually spoken, unless {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).

Would {sa'a} be used like this?

{.i lu mi gleki sei ko'a cusku se'usa'a zo'e li'u}, i.e. {sei ... se'usa'a}

This looks rather clumsy to me as a usable solution to ", he said,",
because you need to manually close the {sei} construct in order to attach the sa'a.


v4hn

[Jacob Errington]

You *could* attach it to the se'u, but the simpler solution is to attach it to the sei itself.

{.i lu do seisa'a by cusku se'u melbi li'u}

[la gleki]

doi la tsani, let's start from the beginning.

Do you believe that

{lu broda sei sa'a ko'a cusku se'u lo brode li'u} is a right way of splitting the quotation {lu broda lo brode li'u se cusku ko'a}?

In my opinion everything is quoted, even {sa'a} otherwise how can we quote {sa'a}?

My next replies will depend on your answer.

[Jonathan Jones]

Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 5:39:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.

I'll wait until tsani replies. I'm not a legislative power in Lojbanistan.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 7:01 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 5:39:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.

I'll wait until tsani replies. I'm not a legislative power in Lojbanistan.

Who said anything about legislation? I was merely stating my opinion that I like the idea of using {FAlu} to split quotes over {sei...se'u}.

That said, excepting of course .camgusmis., NO individual has legislative power. The BPFK as a whole does, of course, but it's power is exercised via the votes of it's participating members- which, as far as I'm concerned, means anyone subscribed to the BPFK list.

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 6:21:18 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 7:01 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 5:39:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.

I'll wait until tsani replies. I'm not a legislative power in Lojbanistan.

Who said anything about legislation? I was merely stating my opinion that I like the idea of using {FAlu} to split quotes over {sei...se'u}.

That said, excepting of course .camgusmis., NO individual has legislative power. The BPFK as a whole does, of course, but it's power is exercised via the votes of it's participating members- which, as far as I'm concerned, means anyone subscribed to the BPFK list.

IMO off topics must be held exclusively in Lojban but ok. I disagree. I'm subscribed to the bpfk-list (and I want to be subsribed to it further) but i don't want to be it's member.

The BPFK is dead and must be recreated of fluent lojbanic speakers of which i'm  familiar with camgusmis, gejyspa, tsani, selpa'i, latro'a, xalbo, tengo.

Others must be forbidden to cast any votes. Sorry if I forgot someone and of course i dont force anyone to be a member of BPFK. I just mean that linguists or programmers even the most prominent can't say anything worth listening to unless they know and use a language.

[Jonathan Jones]

And yet you do it all the time. :)
 

--
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" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/pdP7jBMYUZAJ.

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

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 6:38:51 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 7:36 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 6:21:18 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 7:01 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 5:39:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.

I'll wait until tsani replies. I'm not a legislative power in Lojbanistan.

Who said anything about legislation? I was merely stating my opinion that I like the idea of using {FAlu} to split quotes over {sei...se'u}.

That said, excepting of course .camgusmis., NO individual has legislative power. The BPFK as a whole does, of course, but it's power is exercised via the votes of it's participating members- which, as far as I'm concerned, means anyone subscribed to the BPFK list.

IMO off topics must be held exclusively in Lojban but ok. I disagree. I'm subscribed to the bpfk-list (and I want to be subsribed to it further) but i don't want to be it's member.

The BPFK is dead and must be recreated of fluent lojbanic speakers of which i'm  familiar with camgusmis, gejyspa, tsani, selpa'i, latro'a, xalbo, tengo.

Others must be forbidden to cast any votes. Sorry if I forgot someone and of course i dont force anyone to be a member of BPFK. I just mean that linguists or programmers even the most prominent can't say anything worth listening to unless they know and use a language.

And yet you do it all the time. :)

Yes, I do. And will do. And I hope neither I nor anyone else without fluency will have any real voices to change the language.

[v4hn]

.uasai ki'e la tsani

[Jacob Errington]

On 25 December 2012 09:01, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 5:39:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.

I'll wait until tsani replies. I'm not a legislative power in Lojbanistan.

Haha, I'm glad to see people actually thinking that I have some voice around here. Regardless, I don't really, given the dictatorial nature of Lojbanistan.

To return to the main question, using sei to split quotes has some inherent ambiguity; using sa'a merely diminishes it, I think. That being said, I don't like the idea of split quotes at all. they seem unlojbanic, especially considering that the resulting sentence is not a bridi. It's just a free-floating sumti between two {.i}. I don't have any objections to using FAlu, but I think that it's stylistically poor.

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 10:22:54 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

On 25 December 2012 09:01, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 5:39:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.

I'll wait until tsani replies. I'm not a legislative power in Lojbanistan.

Haha, I'm glad to see people actually thinking that I have some voice around here. Regardless, I don't really, given the dictatorial nature of Lojbanistan.

It doesn't matter. Any dictator will lose their power in Lojbanistan. It's not that "controlled development" described by camgusmis in "Lojban you are doing it wrong" essay. Fluent speakers + logical thinking decide and I will ignore any dictators unless there are many of them.

 

To return to the main question, using sei to split quotes has some inherent ambiguity; using sa'a merely diminishes it, I think. That being said, I don't like the idea of split quotes at all. they seem unlojbanic, especially considering that the resulting sentence is not a bridi. It's just a free-floating sumti between two {.i}. I don't have any objections to using FAlu, but I think that it's stylistically poor.

Your reply appeared to be much easier  than i could expect.

I also think it's a poor style. Nevetheless, if we apply {ju'e} then won't it be

xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

gleki's second solution:  {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables, splitting sumti implies {ju'e})

?

If so there are no extra syllables compared to the previous solution.

pei?

[v4hn]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:40:33PM -0800, la gleki wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 10:22:54 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
> xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo
> nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

The {se'u} is expendable, isn't it? So there is a difference in syllables then.

> gleki's second solution: {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu mi
> djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables, splitting sumti implies {ju'e})
>
> ?
>
> If so there are no extra syllables compared to the previous solution.

v4hn

[Jacob Errington]

On 26 December 2012 05:37, v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:40:33PM -0800, la gleki wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 10:22:54 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

> xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo
> nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

The {se'u} is expendable, isn't it? So there is a difference in syllables then.

Indeed, the se'u is extraneous here; so it the {cu}, due to the nature of cmevla as not being able to form tanru (with {cusku} in this case.)

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

 

> gleki's second solution:  {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu mi

> djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables, splitting sumti implies {ju'e})
>
> ?
>
> If so there are no extra syllables compared to the previous solution.

v4hn

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:40 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 10:22:54 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

On 25 December 2012 09:01, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 5:39:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

Just as my-two-cents comment, I would like to say that I too dislike the use of {sei ... se'u} for split quoting. As it stands right now, there isn't really any other option, although I think I like the idea of FAlu for that purpose, as gleki spoke of earlier.

I'll wait until tsani replies. I'm not a legislative power in Lojbanistan.

Haha, I'm glad to see people actually thinking that I have some voice around here. Regardless, I don't really, given the dictatorial nature of Lojbanistan.

It doesn't matter. Any dictator will lose their power in Lojbanistan.

How many years has .camgusmis. AKA Robin been the BDFL? Also, I think the "For Life" part of his title kind of disproves your statement.
 

It's not that "controlled development" described by camgusmis in "Lojban you are doing it wrong" essay. Fluent speakers + logical thinking decide and I will ignore any dictators unless there are many of them.

In that you're about half-wrong. Lojban is a proscribed language, meaning that the meanings of words, the grammar, etc. are decided by an official body. Only this official body, known, by the way, as the BPFK, and the BDFL, who is the head of the BPFK, are able to make changes of any kind to the language. While it is certainly hoped that these people are logical in their thinking and have a more than passing knowledge of Lojban, such is not guaranteed. For example, when Robin assumed the title of BDFL, he was not, at that time, fluent. Self-admittedly. Since the birth of his daughters, he had become very proficient in Lojban and may consider himself fluent /now/, but that fluency or its lack was never a hindrance to the performance of his job on the BPFK or as the BDFL, because though his /vocabulary/ was lacking such that he was nowhere near fluent, his understanding of how Lojban /works/ was and still is excellent- and that's the important part when it comes to decisions about Lojban.
 

To return to the main question, using sei to split quotes has some inherent ambiguity; using sa'a merely diminishes it, I think. That being said, I don't like the idea of split quotes at all. they seem unlojbanic, especially considering that the resulting sentence is not a bridi. It's just a free-floating sumti between two {.i}. I don't have any objections to using FAlu, but I think that it's stylistically poor.

Your reply appeared to be much easier  than i could expect.

I also think it's a poor style. Nevetheless, if we apply {ju'e} then won't it be

xorxe's solution: {lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables)

gleki's second solution:  {lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la alis fa lu mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (25 syllables, splitting sumti implies {ju'e})

?

If so there are no extra syllables compared to the previous solution.

pei?

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Uo7PX5vnJFAJ.

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

[Michael Everson]

On 26 Dec 2012, at 19:01, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In that you're about half-wrong. Lojban is a proscribed language, meaning that the meanings of words, the grammar, etc. are decided by an official body.

"Prescribed", you mean.

Michael Everson

[Jonathan Jones]

I get those two mixed up sometimes.
 

Michael Everson

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

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