The second one is ungrammatical. After gi'e, you need a selbri, and "baku" is a term. But "da broda gi'e brode baku" is grammatical.

The difference is small: "gi'ebabo" says that the event described by the second bridi happens after the event described by the first one. "baku" says that the event described by the bridi in which it appears happens after something unspecified. For example, but not necessarily, after the event described by the preceding bridi.

>>743

Well, it sounds like it would be more helpful in the former, and grouping seems like it would include the [zo <<nai] no matter what. Also, if [zo <<pei] follows a cnivla (the word is used loosely here, see a different post for why), it just asks "how do you feel on this scale"- so any modifiers are not even necessary, the response can include any appropriate ones. But if you said "[pei .uinai]", I could see the modifiers as being important (especially the categories of emotion).

>>743

".uinaipei" asks "How unhappy are you?", by asking you to fill in an intensity. You could respond "cu'i" to mean "I'm not unhappy." or "cai" for "I'm really unhappy."

"Are you unhappy?" would be "pei.uinai".

http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s10.html

AAAHHH!!! Many posts here have been deleted! Can someone provide a place where they have been saved to me? I actually have found them fairly helpful through reading back. Is there any record of what has gone on here?

>>745

It seems pretty meta to me for a [zo <<lai] to refer to the name of the group. I would make an analogy to [zo <<loi], so it would refer to some part of the mass of all individuals which are named something.

>>716

Hello. Wow, that is quite an age to begin learning a language (BotD). [.ui] But there is never a time too soon, I suppose.

Those type of words are known as "articles" in English. There is a definate article (the)- which refers to a specific (definate) example of the noun- and an indefinate one (a/an)- which refers to the noun in general (indefinately). Lojban has more (they are known as "[gadri]").

"[la]" says that the next word is the name of one or more things, thought of as individual units. Think of it as saying "the next letter or each word is capital". If you say "[re la .bob. klama le mi zdani]", you are saying that there are two things that are named "Bob" and that the each are going to my house separately.

"[le]" should be thought of as "the one or more things described as (the next word) each do (the selbri)". It generally functions as "the" in English, but you need to remember that, like all gadri, it may refer to an unspecified number of things (one or more)- and each of them is a separate unit performing the relationship.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>716

If you take any of the previously mentioned gadri (except [zo <<li]) and add an "i" to the end, it basically turns it into a mass.

The cool thing about masses is that not all of them have to do the activity (unlike with (multiple) individuals). Just at least one does. This means that you can say that a mass of zebra ran but only be talking about a member of the herd (notice: this is slightly misleading in wording). Or a mass can be both green and red at the same time because one of the members is all green and the other is all red, or both are part green and part red. It also could have members that are brown. (you would have to use [zo <<po'o] to avoid this and mean that there are only individuals that are green and/or red) You would also need to specify in a clause or additional bridi what the composition is of the group. But I am getting ahead of myself...

[zo <<lai] = the mass of things with individuals of the following name or title. They do not all have to have the same name (I think, based on analogy to [zo <<loi], below)- just at least one of them. If you say "[lai .kelsis. cu ninmu]" it means that there is a group of things, at least one of which is known as "Kelsey" (translating) such that at least one is a female-human.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>740

I would go with the former as well.

that's exactly how it acts. lu turns text into a sumti. zo and other quote-words have the very same effect.

po'o and pa'e: http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s12.html
pau: http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s13.html
ga'i through se'a: http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s7.html
pei, dai, and bu'o: http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s10.html

I think the main reason is so that when you see that {tuple} is a leg [body-part] of something, you realize it is an actual part of a body, and isn't appropriate for, say {te jubme} (a table leg).

>>731

.ua ki'e

>>721

I, for one, do not understand. Are you talking about both of the serieses being infinite?

But equally infinite.

>>723

Interesting. What did the conversation lead to?

How does one even access the IRC?