lo do ckiku ma zvati
Alan Post
working on a lojban website:
"lo do ckiku ma zvati" is "Where are your Keys?" in Lojban. "Where
are your Keys?" is a language learning game I've been involved with
the past 6 months. I host regular WAYK Spanish sessions, and play
WAYK solo in teaching myself Lojban.
Yesterday Willem & Evan linked to my site from the "Where are your
Keys?" website:
http://whereareyourkeys.org/2010/03/01/wayk-lojban/
I think it is probably time to mention it here as well! I've had a
lot of help doing translation from the fine folks on #lojban, and
this project has rapidly accelerated the rate at which I'm learning
Lojban.
I'd love you to have a look at the website, and if this game seems
interesting, I'm looking for help.
1) If you're interested in learning the game in person, there are
clusters of players in Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico,
both in the United States. If you happen to be proximate to those
areas and find this game interesting, I'd really like to put you in
touch with Willem & Evan, or myself. I play WAYK Lojban solo, and
want to find someone to play with!
2) I'd love translation help. The "Universal Speed Curriculum" (in
English:
http://whereareyourkeys.org/2009/09/12/the-wayk-universal-speed-curriculum/,
and in Lojban: http://lodockikumazvati.org/le_vajrai_se_tadni/) is
simple enough that a beginning student of Lojban (like myself) can
make a decent attempt at translation. Both playing "lo do ckiku ma
zvati" and doing meta-work for the game itself is friendly to low-fluency
speakers.
Failing either of those two things, your encouragement, feedback,
and thoughts are most welcome. Talk to me!
-Alan
--
Every place a riddle,
every riddle a poem,
every poem a spirit,
every spirit a place.
Robin Lee Powell
> For as many moments as I could spare in the last month, I've been
> working on a lojban website:
>
> http://lodockikumazvati.org/
>
> "lo do ckiku ma zvati" is "Where are your Keys?" in Lojban.
> "Where are your Keys?" is a language learning game I've been
> involved with the past 6 months. I host regular WAYK Spanish
> sessions, and play WAYK solo in teaching myself Lojban.
This did not get the response it deserved.
Stephen Weeks has been talking to me about a local (San Francisco
bay area) WAYK group that has met ... once? twice? ... and
apparently went quite well.
I'm *very* impressed by
http://lodockikumazvati.org/se_tadni/le_vajrai_se_tadni_20100524.pdf
, in particular by the use of signwriting.
Go you!
A general question about WAYK, which I find difficult to learn from
the website: I notice that your version of the universal speed
curriculum has signs in it, but
http://whereareyourkeys.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/usc-wayk-espanol.pdf
, for example, does not. Is the game always played with ASL as part
of it? I mean, do you basically *have* to learn ASL to play WAYK?
(this wouldn't bother me; I want to learn ASL anyways, just want
clarification)
Some minor comments:
1. You say that the signs are "what that", but it's actually "that
what".
2. ASL "question" is a bit more complicated than that:
http://www.signbank.org/SignPuddle1.5/searchsign.php?ui=1&sgn=4&sid=2789
3. Is this:
http://www.signbank.org/SignPuddle1.5/searchsign.php?ui=1&sgn=4&sid=8529
what you're using for ja'a? Yeah, looks like. Not sure what you're
going to do when you get to {nu'e}, but other than that I like it.
:)
4. What's with all the {cu} and {vau}? Seems unnecessarily
complicated.
-Robin
--
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/
Michael Turniansky
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Alan Post wrote:
>> For as many moments as I could spare in the last month, I've been
>> working on a lojban website:
>>
>> http://lodockikumazvati.org/
>>
>> "lo do ckiku ma zvati" is "Where are your Keys?" in Lojban.
>> "Where are your Keys?" is a language learning game I've been
>> involved with the past 6 months. I host regular WAYK Spanish
>> sessions, and play WAYK solo in teaching myself Lojban.
>
> This did not get the response it deserved.
>
> Stephen Weeks has been talking to me about a local (San Francisco
> bay area) WAYK group that has met ... once? twice? ... and
> apparently went quite well.
>
> I'm *very* impressed by
> http://lodockikumazvati.org/se_tadni/le_vajrai_se_tadni_20100524.pdf
> , in particular by the use of signwriting.
>
> Go you!
<digression>
ooh... signwriting. I installed that on my computer some 17 years
ago or so. I used it on my (now defunct) homepage. I'm even
mentioned on their website a few times.... Ah, brings back memories...
</digression>
--gejyspa
Alan Post
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Alan Post wrote:
> > For as many moments as I could spare in the last month, I've been
> > working on a lojban website:
> >
> > http://lodockikumazvati.org/
> >
> > "lo do ckiku ma zvati" is "Where are your Keys?" in Lojban.
> > "Where are your Keys?" is a language learning game I've been
> > involved with the past 6 months. I host regular WAYK Spanish
> > sessions, and play WAYK solo in teaching myself Lojban.
>
> This did not get the response it deserved.
>
> Stephen Weeks has been talking to me about a local (San Francisco
> bay area) WAYK group that has met ... once? twice? ... and
> apparently went quite well.
>
> I'm *very* impressed by
> http://lodockikumazvati.org/se_tadni/le_vajrai_se_tadni_20100524.pdf
> , in particular by the use of signwriting.
>
> Go you!
>
Thank you so much Robin.
> A general question about WAYK, which I find difficult to learn from
> the website: I notice that your version of the universal speed
> curriculum has signs in it, but
> http://whereareyourkeys.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/usc-wayk-espanol.pdf
> , for example, does not. Is the game always played with ASL as part
> of it? I mean, do you basically *have* to learn ASL to play WAYK?
> (this wouldn't bother me; I want to learn ASL anyways, just want
> clarification)
>
The game is always played with ASL. You have to learn at least as
much ASL as you have proficiency in your target spoken language.
My adding the signs to the USC (Universal Speed Curriculum) was a
technical innovation on my part that hasn't made it's way back to
the USC Espa�ol, USC Engilsh, or USC Chinuk Wawa.
The USC Espa�ol was translated by Billy and Walter for my WAYK
group. I didn't know about SignWriting at the time, and only came
to use it after I started working on WAYK Lojban material.
> Some minor comments:
>
> 1. You say that the signs are "what that", but it's actually "that
> what".
>
I have fixed this in my repository and it will go out in the next
update:
http://github.com/alanpost/lodockikumazvati/commit/caa6e2793d2f39ceb46dccc9b47e11306ee1b9b1
> 2. ASL "question" is a bit more complicated than that:
> http://www.signbank.org/SignPuddle1.5/searchsign.php?ui=1&sgn=4&sid=2789
>
Indeed so. I need to update the website to swis 2010 before I can
fix this bug, but I'll get it fixed.
> 3. Is this:
> http://www.signbank.org/SignPuddle1.5/searchsign.php?ui=1&sgn=4&sid=8529
> what you're using for ja'a? Yeah, looks like. Not sure what you're
> going to do when you get to {nu'e}, but other than that I like it.
> :)
>
I've had to make a policy of not worrying too much about what I'll
be doing next or I'd never get the current step done...
In general, I think the further along I get translating things into
Lojban, the more frustrating it will be to translate the ASL. I've
been brainstorming some coping strategies for this, but haven't had
to use them yet.
It does make me wish for Signed Exact Lojban. ;-)
> 4. What's with all the {cu} and {vau}? Seems unnecessarily
> complicated.
>
On IRC, I was told (I think by xorxes) that it is standard procedure
to teach newbies all the elidable terminators and only after
practicing with them begin to practice without them.
It didn't quite fit my own intuition, but I was trying to adopt the
best practice we've discovered for teaching Lojban. I'm happy to
discuss this. It may turn out there isn't concensus on which is
best.
-Alan
--
ko djuno fi le do sevzi
Jorge Llambías
Definitely not by me. I don't really have any insights as to what is
best for teaching, but text with elidable terminators not elided
always strikes me as very weird.
> It didn't quite fit my own intuition, but I was trying to adopt the
> best practice we've discovered for teaching Lojban. I'm happy to
> discuss this. It may turn out there isn't concensus on which is
> best.
That's probably the case.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Jonathan Jones
{lo gerku cu jersi lo ractu}
(a) dog (begin selbri) chase (a) rabbit
vs
{lo gerku ku cu jersi lo ractu ku vau}
(a) dog (end sumti) (begin selbri) chase (a) rabbit (end sumti) (end bridi)
Not eliding those terminators makes even the simplest statements seem horribly complicated. I believe that the best way to teach elidable terminators is to teach them in such constructs as they are NOT elidable. To tell someone "This word means this, but is hardly ever used for this reason", likely tells that person "This isn't important, don't bother remembering it". But to say instead, "This new word here, which means this, is required in the sentence for this reason", seems to myself to have more, um, staying power.
--
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.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu
Lindar
> horribly complicated. I believe that the best way to teach elidable
> terminators is to teach them in such constructs as they are NOT elidable. To
> tell someone "This word means this, but is hardly ever used for this
> reason", likely tells that person "This isn't important, don't bother
> remembering it". But to say instead, "This new word here, which means this,
> is required in the sentence for this reason", seems to myself to have more,
> um, staying power.
In my experience I know this, and all of the newest teaching material
reflects this. Teach terminators as if they're required, and don't
even mention that {cu} exists. It's possible to go for months without
using {cu}, so why teach it until it's necessary (namely when
sentences start to sound like "kei ku kei ku kei kui *selbri*")?
Which do you think is easier?
1. "Yeah, in this one particular circumstance you need this thing
called "ku" that you just have to use because you can't use "cu"
there, but you still have to have something there... cos... I said
so...
2. "Well, now here's a cute trick. Right here, we don't actually need
"ku", because it reads the same either way."
Sometimes you need it for random strange reasons with convoluted
rules, or you learn that you always need it and sometimes it can be
left off.
For pedagogical reasons, option 2 has proven time and time again to be
the better alternative that results in much better diction/word-choice/
phrasing. Please don't teach or use {cu} until you've gotten well past
things like abstractions, and even then, don't use it unless it's
absolutely necessary for the sake of brevity (ex: {.i lo nu mi broda
be lo brode be lo brodi bei lo brodo be lo brodu cu co'e} instead of
{.i lo nu mi broda be lo brode be lo brodi ku bei lo brodo be lo brodu
ku be'o ku be'o ku be'o ku kei ku co'e}).
Jonathan Jones
--
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
Really? You think avoiding "cu" is better than avoiding "ku"? My
Berenstain Bears has 49 "cu"'s, and only 16 "ku"s, so you better darn
well know what cu means before you read this beginner book.
-gejyspa
Robin Lee Powell
> > Not eliding those terminators makes even the simplest statements
> > seem horribly complicated. I believe that the best way to teach
> > elidable terminators is to teach them in such constructs as they
> > are NOT elidable. To tell someone "This word means this, but is
> > hardly ever used for this reason", likely tells that person
> > "This isn't important, don't bother remembering it". But to say
> > instead, "This new word here, which means this, is required in
> > the sentence for this reason", seems to myself to have more, um,
> > staying power.
>
> I'm sorry, this is a horrible idea.
>
> In my experience I know this, and all of the newest teaching
> material reflects this. Teach terminators as if they're required,
That seems amazingly obnoxious to me; I doubt I'd have learned the
language in that case.
[snip]
> 2. "Well, now here's a cute trick. Right here, we don't actually
> need "ku", because it reads the same either way."
>
> Sometimes you need it for random strange reasons with convoluted
> rules, or you learn that you always need it and sometimes it can
> be left off.
>
> For pedagogical reasons, option 2 has proven time and time again
> to be the better alternative that results in much better
> diction/word-choice/ phrasing. Please don't teach or use {cu}
> until you've gotten well past things like abstractions, and even
> then, don't use it unless it's absolutely necessary for the sake
> of brevity (ex: {.i lo nu mi broda be lo brode be lo brodi bei lo
> brodo be lo brodu cu co'e} instead of {.i lo nu mi broda be lo
> brode be lo brodi ku bei lo brodo be lo brodu ku be'o ku be'o ku
> be'o ku kei ku co'e}).
You forgot {vau}. The correctly terminated version of that
sentence, according to jbofihe, is:
.i lo nu mi broda be lo brode be lo brodi ku bei lo brodo be lo
brodu ku be'o ku be'o ku be'o vau kei ku co'e vau
Placing {ku} after every sumti is absolutely insane to me, let alone
placing {vau} everywhere it's required (which you're clearly not
doing, so you're not following your own advice).
If you think teaching that is resulting in better learning of the
language, I'm going to want some significant evidence, because as
far as I know almost all of the best speakers learned Lojban from
the CLL, which introduces {cu} almost immediately (chapter 2,
section 5) but not {ku} until much later (chapter 6, section 2).
The first elidable terminator I can find mentioned is {ke'e}, in
5.5.
Having said all that, there's lots of activity in #lojban I'm not on
top of today; if there are a bunch of people who are great with the
language and learned with "all elidable terminators required (except
vau, I guess)", please have them speak up here.
Luke Bergen
Robin Lee Powell
> I think starting out with elidable terminators not elided would probably be
> confusing to beginners.
>
> {lo gerku cu jersi lo ractu}
> (a) dog (begin selbri) chase (a) rabbit
>
> vs
>
> {lo gerku ku cu jersi lo ractu ku vau}
> (a) dog (end sumti) (begin selbri) chase (a) rabbit (end sumti) (end bridi)
>
> Not eliding those terminators makes even the simplest statements seem
> horribly complicated.
Exactly. The second version is *horrible* for beginners, IMO. Even
without the unnecessary {cu}. It just adds huge complexity and
verbosity for no useful gain.
The *vast* majority of beginner sentences need exactly one {cu}, and
no other terminators. Teaching them in that context is pointless.
Robin Lee Powell
> Yes, {cu} is far more common than {ku} but the point is that it's
> easier to learn that "you sometimes don't need {ku} and here's a
> handy word {cu}" than "you mostly just need to use {cu}.... well,
> unless you have an abstraction followed by... well I guess you
> never really NEED it, but it's useful when you would have
> otherwise had a whole bunch of terminators"
>
> Better to teach the rule and then show shortcuts than to teach
> shortcuts as the rule.
If that was all it was, I would agree, but you also need to teach
the requirement for {vau} and {kei} and {ku'o} and how to order them
and on and on and on.
Or you could just say "put {cu} in front of all your selbri. you
don't know how to talk about more than one event or relative clause
per sentence yet", and that will give a beginner the abillity to say
90% of normal "Where is the bathroom?" sentences, and you're done.
Robin Lee Powell
> On IRC, I was told (I think by xorxes) that it is standard
> procedure to teach newbies all the elidable terminators and only
> after practicing with them begin to practice without them.
>
> It didn't quite fit my own intuition, but I was trying to adopt
> the best practice we've discovered for teaching Lojban. I'm happy
> to discuss this. It may turn out there isn't concensus on which
> is best.
On the one hand, I utterly disagree that teching even the
*existance* of terminators to a beginner is a good idea. 90+% of
all conversational WAYK-type sentences can be said with exactly on
{cu} and no terminators, and so they should be taught that way.
On the other hand, I haven't done any active teaching of Lojban to
anyone from scratch in 8+ years, except at jbonunsla.
At jbonunsla, where we usually have a live class for 1-3 students,
My recollection is that confuse the hell out of people, and we avoid
them like the plague. OTOH, it never occured to use to teach them
as required and then drop them later.
There are other people who have done much more teaching more
recently than I have, though; if they've got students that are
conversationally fluent and have learned that way, I'd love to hear
about it.
Luke Bergen
--
Robin Lee Powell
You know, it occurs to me that *even if* that's the best pedagogical
solution, it's still wrong for WAYK.
The point of WAYK is to teach the language as it is actually spoken,
is it not? I have never said {le pendo ku klama le zarci ku vau} in
my life, and never will; that's not the language as it's actually
used, so WAYK shouldn't be teaching it.
Robin Lee Powell
> > A general question about WAYK, which I find difficult to learn
> > from the website: I notice that your version of the universal
> > speed curriculum has signs in it, but
> > http://whereareyourkeys.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/usc-wayk-espanol.pdf
> > , for example, does not. Is the game always played with ASL as
> > part of it? I mean, do you basically *have* to learn ASL to
> > play WAYK? (this wouldn't bother me; I want to learn ASL
> > anyways, just want clarification)
>
> The game is always played with ASL. You have to learn at least as
> much ASL as you have proficiency in your target spoken language.
That's fantastic. I've been wanting to learn a sign language
anyway.
I just wish there was more universalism to them than there is to
spoken languages. Oh well.
Alan Post
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:42:24AM -0600, Alan Post wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 05:48:32PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > 4. What's with all the {cu} and {vau}? Seems unnecessarily
> > > complicated.
> >
> > On IRC, I was told (I think by xorxes) that it is standard
> > procedure to teach newbies all the elidable terminators and only
> > after practicing with them begin to practice without them.
> >
> > It didn't quite fit my own intuition, but I was trying to adopt
> > the best practice we've discovered for teaching Lojban. I'm happy
> > to discuss this. It may turn out there isn't concensus on which
> > is best.
>
> You know, it occurs to me that *even if* that's the best pedagogical
> solution, it's still wrong for WAYK.
>
> The point of WAYK is to teach the language as it is actually spoken,
> is it not? I have never said {le pendo ku klama le zarci ku vau} in
> my life, and never will; that's not the language as it's actually
> used, so WAYK shouldn't be teaching it.
>
This makes perfect sense to me. I will revert the use of all
elidable terminators in the Lojban USC.
Lindar
is actively involved in teaching (ask tomoj, kribacr, maybe even
vensa, any of the new blood) is teaching {.i lo brode ku broda} for
that very reason. It's easier to teach "you need these now and here's
a handy shortcut" rather than "here's the shortcut and later we're
going to teach you the weird exceptions when you can't use that
shortcut". It's been proven through a lot of teaching that terminators
are easier to learn when {cu} is introduced later, and for 90% of
examples, one doesn't even need it unless an abstraction is in the x1
place.
In fact, most of the new generation -does- speak that way ({.i lo
brode ku broda}) just so the newer students will see terminators being
used. We tend to actively discourage the use of {cu} unless it's
allowing elision of two or more terminators, because then students
start to internalise {cu} as English "is" or "am", and then you start
seeing confused newbies that don't actually know how to terminate that
say things like {mi cu dunda zo'e zo'e} (I have actually seen stuff
like this).
Besides, even if we -are- talking about brevity, it's the same thing.
There's no difference in length between {.i lo broda ku brode} and {.i
lo broda cu brode}, but the former develops better habits later on.
Luke Bergen
This is exactly why I can't stand the idea of teaching {cu} right at the beginning. I still catch myself thinking things like {ta cu gerku} because I got into the bad habbit of thinking of {cu} as being like "is"/"does".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" gr...
Robin Lee Powell
> It's been proven through a lot of teaching that terminators are
> easier to learn when {cu} is introduced later, and for 90% of
> examples, one doesn't even need it unless an abstraction is in the
> x1 place.
Please don't use "proven" unless you have actual evidence. I see
assertions with nothing to back them up, from you and everyone else
in this thread (including me, although I'll be happy to give you a
list of people who can hold a comfortable verbal convo in Lojban and
learned the opposite way if you like).
> In fact, most of the new generation -does- speak that way
Who would these people be, and how good are they?
> Besides, even if we -are- talking about brevity, it's the same
> thing. There's no difference in length between {.i lo broda ku
> brode} and {.i lo broda cu brode},
It's the longer cases I'm worried about; poi and nu and such.
> but the former develops better habits later on.
I *utterly* disagree with that bit. It encourages people to say
things like {le nu broda kei ku brode}, which I consider a very bad
habit indeed.
Now, having said that, people have been suggesting in IRC that
thinking of sumti as bound on both sides (by le and ku) leads to a
better understanding of where to put the terminators when they're
actually needed, which is certainly interesting.
Robin Lee Powell
> brode ku broda}) just so the newer students will see terminators
> being used. We tend to actively discourage the use of {cu} unless
> it's allowing elision of two or more terminators, because then
> students start to internalise {cu} as English "is" or "am", and
> then you start seeing confused newbies
That's an interesting argument; missed that on my first read.
> that don't actually know how to terminate that say things like {mi
> cu dunda zo'e zo'e} (I have actually seen stuff like this).
1. I don't see how that use of {cu} has anything to do with
thinking of {cu} as the copula.
2. That example looks perfectly valid to me except for the extra
{cu}. Am I missing something?
Lindar
Not grammatically incorrect, but definitely wrong.
Whether or not we want to just give a student something to work with,
we have to consider what will set a foundation for speaking in a way
that's coherent with the style of speech that everyone else uses, and
what's considered 'good form'. It literally takes me 30-90 minutes to
get through selbri, sumti, SE, FA, and LE, and depending on the
student, I can work in NU in that time frame. You shouldn't have to
worry about losing students because everything is too complicated. I
have had one student since I started teaching that I couldn't get
through at least those first five items in an hour and retain all of
it. At the end of LE you can teach partial elision (i.e. don't have to
terminate between 'parallel' LE clauses or at the end of bridi), and
after fully teaching NU and BE, you teach total elision once the
student demonstrates an understanding of that material.
Minimiscience
> ... and then you start seeing confused newbies that don't actually know how
> to terminate that say things like {mi cu dunda zo'e zo'e} (I have actually
> seen stuff like this).
"{mi cu dunda}" is actually perfectly grammatically correct. (It's
unnecessarily verbose and arguably bad style, but if that's your sole objection
to it, you might want to look in the mirror.) "{cu}" means "the {bridi}'s main
{selbri} starts here," which implies the termination of anything before it,
rather than termination being the primary concept and the main {selbri} aspect
secondary. The only (non-obvious) grammatical restriction on "{cu}" is that it
must be preceded by at least one term in the sentence, where a "term" can be a
{sumti} (including descriptor {sumti} and pro-{sumti}), a termset, a {sumti}
tagged with a {sumti tcita}, a bare BAI KU, a NA KU, or even a FA KU.
mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
--
lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki
Ian Johnson
I'm newish but relatively comfortable. I came into the community after going through LFB (I can't guarantee I was done when I first came, but I was close). I worked some of the exercises in the chapters (maybe up to chapter 7 or so) but eventually I found myself trying to hack sentences together in a nonlinear fashion, and so I used it as a reference basically, until I felt comfortable enough and had sufficiently technical questions that I thought I should join the IRC and mailing lists.
So I learned {cu} first, terminators second. I didn't actually like this in the end (obviously at the time I didn't know any better). I think putting off terminators made them seem kinda intimidating. I got them, but they were one of the things that gave me more hesitation. On the other hand, I think that filling in every elidable terminator, and even more so using terminators AND {cu}, in sample sentences directed at beginners, is a horrible idea, much worse than starting with {cu}*. The sentences get horribly complicated, and a lot of the elidable terminators are very very rarely actually useful. I know a circumstance when {vau} is useful having to do with a certain construction involving GIhA but it's a pretty hard circumstance to run into, for example. And in this example, to me, that means that it is silly to teach {vau} to a newbie. If there were even remotely common circumstances when you needed it, it would be great to teach it, but with {vau} you have to go to quite a bit of effort to construct a relevant example, let alone incorporate a relevant example into a discussion of an actual topic.
So start with {ku}. When you get to abstractors, teach {kei}. When you get to {be}, teach {be'o}. When you get to {poi}/{noi}, teach {ku'o}. Around the time when you start needing two terminators (probably around the time that you get to abstractors), mention that there's a faster way that is usually used, and maybe teach it at that time. Or maybe wait until you run into three terminators (maybe around the time you hit {be} and then attempt to synthesize knowledge by putting sumti with internal sumti inside abstractors). But in short, don't teach {cu} first, imo. It can do too many things to be taught that early on, and so a person that starts with it will learn the ways that it fails in a much more hackish way, I think; by contrast, {ku}, {kei}, etc. all do pretty much one thing, and so if they are the foundation and {cu} is the icing, there won't tend to be confusion so much as inefficiency. (And people have already shown examples of {cu} causing inefficiency).
This all assumes the "learning Lojban to learn it, not to use it ASAP" hypothesis stated above, of course, which I think is probably pretty good here. This is also all based on conjecture, not data.
*I think that sentence is ungrammatical but I don't know how to fix it, sorry.
mu'oi mi'e latros.
--
Pierre Abbat
> This is exactly why I can't stand the idea of teaching {cu} right at the
> beginning. I still catch myself thinking things like {ta cu gerku} because
> I got into the bad habbit of thinking of {cu} as being like "is"/"does".
Nothing wrong with "ta cu gerku". "cu" is not a copula or auxiliary, it's a
predicate marker, a part of speech which does not exist in English, but does
in Tok Pisin (though the rules are different). Tok Pisin, unlike Lojban,
distinguishes common nouns, adjectives, and verbs, but uses "i" with all of
them.
ta (cu) gerku = em i dok
ta (cu) barda = em i bikpela
le gerku cu barda = dok i bikpela
le remna cu klama le tricu = man i go long diwai
do barda = yu bikpela (I think "yu i bikpela" is grammatical, but not said)
Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
Luke Bergen
Robin Lee Powell
way, it took about that long, and now I can hold a conversation in
Lojban".
-Robin
> >> lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com<lojban-beginners%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> .
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Lojban Beginners" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com<lojban-beginners%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>
--
Michael Turniansky
what you are saying here is that the concept of terminators isn't even
_introduced_ in L4B until much later? If so, I think that is just
wrong. I learned lojban by simply reading the CLL from beginning to
end (and asking lots of questions, while trying to dodge the
curmudgeons, in #lojban) That introduced terminators right at the
very beginnning, and at every step, explaining that most times they
could be elided, and how. So yes, I always thought of the concept of
e.g. a LE sumti being LE broda KU, but with KU usually elidable.
--gejyspa
Ian Johnson
mu'o mi'e latros.
Robin Lee Powell
(except {cu}) until chapter 5 as far as I can tell; where are you
seeing them?
-Robin
Jorge Llambías
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> I have no idea about L4B, but the CLL doesn't introduce terminators
> (except {cu}) until chapter 5 as far as I can tell; where are you
> seeing them?
Chapters 1, 3 and 4 are irrelevant, because they don't deal with
anything that could involve terminators.
In Chapter 2, Section 10, first example:
mi tavla do le tavla ku
Shortly followed by:
"In many cases the word ``ku'' may be omitted. In particular, it is
never necessary in a description at the end of a sentence, so:"
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Robin Lee Powell
Huh. Missed that.
-Robin
Ian Johnson
To clarify, my last post (quoted below) was about LFB, not the CLL.
Jonathan Jones
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu
Jonathan Jones
Okay, seriously, how do you play this game? I have no idea what I'm doing.