la lojbo kurji

[.alyn.post.]

I've written an oath for myself regarding Lojban. This stretched my
fluency a bit, so I'd like some feedback on how I might make it
better.

ni'o mi me la lojbo kurji
.i mi ca nupre lo za'i go'o kei mi .e la lojbo kurji
.i mi ba tavla fo la lobjan. de'i lo ro djedi
.i mi ba jmina lo cnino nupre lo vi nupre
.i ganai mi tavla fi no da de'i lo cabdei gi mi tavla fi lo vi nupre

Any obvious and glaring problems? What about subtle ones?

-Alan
--
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM, .alyn.post.
<alyn...@lodockikumazvati.org> wrote:
> I've written an oath for myself regarding Lojban.  This stretched my
> fluency a bit, so I'd like some feedback on how I might make it
> better.
>
>  ni'o mi me la lojbo kurji
>  .i mi ca nupre lo za'i go'o kei mi .e la lojbo kurji

For an oath "nu'e" is better than "mi ca nupre". You are not reporting
that someone (in this case yourself) is making a promise. You are
actually making the promise.
So "nu'e mi .e la lojbo kurji do'u go'o".

>  .i mi ba tavla fo la lobjan. de'i lo ro djedi

"lo ro djedi" is not a date, you want "ca" not "de'i".

And "ca ro (lo) djedi", unless you are content to do it at some single
point in time valid for all days.

>  .i mi ba jmina lo cnino nupre lo vi nupre

"Add a new oath-taker to this here oath-taker"?

If you mean "a new commitment to this commitment" then its "lo cnino
se nupre lo dei se nupre", but maybe you are promising to add adepts,
I don't know.

>  .i ganai mi tavla fi no da de'i lo cabdei gi mi tavla fi lo vi nupre

"ca lo cabdei"

So, either you talk about something, or you talk about yourself?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Luke Bergen]

Can the objects of COI be {.e}'ed together like that?

2010/10/7 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

--
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]

2010/10/7 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM, .alyn.post.
<alyn...@lodockikumazvati.org> wrote:
> I've written an oath for myself regarding Lojban.  This stretched my
> fluency a bit, so I'd like some feedback on how I might make it
> better.
>
>  ni'o mi me la lojbo kurji
>  .i mi ca nupre lo za'i go'o kei mi .e la lojbo kurji

For an oath "nu'e" is better than "mi ca nupre". You are not reporting
that someone (in this case yourself) is making a promise. You are
actually making the promise.
So "nu'e mi .e la lojbo kurji do'u go'o".

>  .i mi ba tavla fo la lobjan. de'i lo ro djedi

"lo ro djedi" is not a date, you want "ca" not "de'i".

And "ca ro (lo) djedi", unless you are content to do it at some single
point in time valid for all days.

"A side effect of the above is that in xorlo, if you mean "one bear", consider actually saying "pa cribe". It's ever so much more specific. xorxes points out that to refer to one bear, "lo pa cribe" is actually a bit better; "pa cribe cu broda" means that exactly one cribe in the whole world brodas, which is often not what you want. We (those of us that have actually been using xorlo for the last few months; there are at least half a dozen active users on #lojban now) have found that context is almost always sufficient, however."
 

>  .i mi ba jmina lo cnino nupre lo vi nupre

"Add a new oath-taker to this here oath-taker"?

If you mean "a new commitment to this commitment" then its "lo cnino
se nupre lo dei se nupre", but maybe you are promising to add adepts,
I don't know.

>  .i ganai mi tavla fi no da de'i lo cabdei gi mi tavla fi lo vi nupre

"ca lo cabdei"

So, either you talk about something, or you talk about yourself?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

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

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/7 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM, .alyn.post.
>> <alyn...@lodockikumazvati.org> wrote:
>>
>> >  .i mi ba tavla fo la lobjan. de'i lo ro djedi
>>
>> "lo ro djedi" is not a date, you want "ca" not "de'i".
>>
>> And "ca ro (lo) djedi", unless you are content to do it at some single
>> point in time valid for all days.
>
> "A side effect of the above is that in xorlo, if you mean "one bear",
> consider actually saying "pa cribe". It's ever so much more specific. xorxes
> points out that to refer to one bear, "lo pa cribe" is actually a bit
> better; "pa cribe cu broda" means that exactly one cribe in the whole world
> brodas, which is often not what you want. We (those of us that have actually
> been using xorlo for the last few months; there are at least half a dozen
> active users on #lojban now) have found that context is almost always
> sufficient, however."

Is that supposed to be related to what I was saying? I'm not sure if
you are quoting that as support or as disagreement.

[Jonathan Jones]

I was pointing out that you seemed to be disagreeing with yourself.

[Jorge Llambías]

No, I don't think so.

Your quote was not from me anyway, and I'm not sure I follow it all,
but what I was saying is that if he wants to commit to doing something
every day he should say "ca ro (lo) djedi", not "ca lo ro djedi",
which is hardly a very strong commitment.

[Jonathan Jones]

Okay, maybe you should explain to me, in your own words, the difference between {ro broda}, {ro lo broda}, and {lo ro broda}, becuase it seems to me I'm misunderstanding.

[Luke Bergen]

oo oo, me first.

re lo ci gerku is 2 of the 3 dogs.  the {re} is saying how many things and the {ci} is saying what the scope is for the things that we are talking about.  amirite?

--

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:

oo oo, me first.

re lo ci gerku is 2 of the 3 dogs.  the {re} is saying how many things and the {ci} is saying what the scope is for the things that we are talking about.  amirite?

As far as I understand quantified gadri, yes.
 

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, maybe you should explain to me, in your own words, the difference
> between {ro broda}, {ro lo broda},

Those are the same. "Each broda".

> and {lo ro broda}, becuase it seems to me
> I'm misunderstanding.

"All brodas". Could be all of them together.

"ca lo ro djedi" could be (doesn't have to be but could be) just once,
at some time overlapping with the time covered by whatever all days
are in the context.

"ca ro djedi" is each and every day, which is what I took the point of
the oath to be.

[Jonathan Jones]

2010/10/7 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

Ah, I see. Thank you.

[John E Clifford]

'ro' is a bad case to pick, because so many cases fall together, so let's work with 're'.  're gerku cu broda' says that exactly two of all the dogs in the operant universe broda.  'lo gerku cu broda' says that dogs (some overtly unspecified but possibly picked out in context  -- I want to say "bunch of dogs" but that, justifiably,  gives xorxes the fantods) broda.  're lo gerku cu broda' says that exactly two out of some (bunch of) dogs broda. 'lo re gerku cu broda' says that (a pack of) two dogs broda, with no commitment about any other dogs in the world.  Indeed, all the 'lo' expressions say nothing about other dogs, just this (some) bunch.  Well, 'lo ro broda' does talk about all the dogs in the operant universe, but that is why it is a bad case.

---

From: Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 3:05:02 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] la lojbo kurji

[Jonathan Jones]

I wasn't having trouble with quantifiers in general, just with {ro}. That is why I quoted that paragraph from the "How to use xorlo" page.

[John E Clifford]

Well, the problem is that 'ro gerku cu broda' and 'lo ro gerku cu broda' come close to the same thing, at least involve the same dogs.  The only clear difference is the possibility that those dogs broda collectively (all together or at least in such a way that all are involved in brodaing) whereas ro broda means each and every dog brodas individually.  Of course, if brodaing is something that can only be done individually, even that distinction disappears.  'ro lo gerku cu broda' just as that each and every one of some dogs (see previous conditions) brodas, saying nothing about all the other dogs not covered by the term.

---

From: Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 4:40:48 PM

[Michael Turniansky]

No one directly answered Luke, so I will tell him the answer is:
"Yes, absolutely. More than one sumti grouped together with logical
or nonlogical conenctives forms a sumti itself." That's why you can
say, "le mlatu .onai le gerku cu cadzu" (the cat walked if and only if
the dog didn't). "le mlatu onai le gerku" is filling up exactly one
sumti slot as the x1 of cadzu. All connectives do is squish more than
one thing in a given category (sumti, selbri, bridi-tail, bridi) into
one instance of that category.

--gejyspa