[All threads]
There are two comments (that may be found in "all threads") that I would like to be answered (I have the same question). I cannot bump them up the line (a flood keeps being detected), so can someone just look back and respond? Sorry to be a burden and I am not trying to sound rude, but it would help.
>>450 I think that I bumped the ones that you were talking about. I too realized that I had the same question (I did not think about it until then; but once I did, I wanted to know).
>>450
I think that I bumped the ones that you were talking about. I too realized that I had the same question (I did not think about it until then; but once I did, I wanted to know).
... is it possible? If so, what is the modificand?
Yes, attitudinals can go practically anywhere. (The only places where they can't go are things like between "zo" and its word, or between a word and "bu", for obvious reasons.)When the word they modify is purely structural, like "cu", they apply to the full structure corresponding to that word, in this case to the whole selbri introduced by "cu".
Yes, attitudinals can go practically anywhere.
(The only places where they can't go are things like between "zo" and its word, or between a word and "bu", for obvious reasons.)
When the word they modify is purely structural, like "cu", they apply to the full structure corresponding to that word, in this case to the whole selbri introduced by "cu".
Is it grammatical if a sentence contains nothing but a sumti or {lu ... li'u}, without a main selbri?
Yes, it's grammatical, but it's not a full sentence. It can't be used for example as the whole thing after NU or after NOI. But it can be separated from full sentences with {.i}
in Lojban?
I say "re ji'i ci prenu", but there are others that would take that as meaning "twenty approximately three".
Is there any shorter way to say "from top to bottom" other than {lo galtu ku bi'i lo dizlo}? Perhaps something with {ga'u/ni'a}?
{lo galtu ku bi'i lo dizlo} is "between the high one and the low one".{mo'i ni'a}, "downwards", may work in some contexts. Also {fa'a ni'a [to'o ga'u]} if no movement is required.A very literal translation might be {fe'e co'a lo gapru fe'e co'u lo cnita}, "spatial starting at the above spatial ending at the below".
{lo galtu ku bi'i lo dizlo} is "between the high one and the low one".
{mo'i ni'a}, "downwards", may work in some contexts. Also {fa'a ni'a [to'o ga'u]} if no movement is required.
A very literal translation might be {fe'e co'a lo gapru fe'e co'u lo cnita}, "spatial starting at the above spatial ending at the below".
In a narrative, to whom does the use of an attitudinal apply? The narrator? The author (if there is a difference)? The nearest reasonable character?
The narrator.With an omniscient narrator, it may be reasonable that they sometimes express themselves as if they were the characters, with or without "dai". That's more a matter of style, I think.
The narrator.
With an omniscient narrator, it may be reasonable that they sometimes express themselves as if they were the characters, with or without "dai". That's more a matter of style, I think.
>>444[mu'a] In Huckleberry Finn, the use of [zo .ui] would be Huck's expression of sentiment.
>>444
[mu'a] In Huckleberry Finn, the use of [zo .ui] would be Huck's expression of sentiment.
wtfchan
se cfipu nanmu
the form {lo ji'a nanba}, {lo po'o nanba} etc. be?
{la ji'a nanba}, {la po'o nanba}.UIs can also be used after LA when it is followed by a cmevla.
{la ji'a nanba}, {la po'o nanba}.
UIs can also be used after LA when it is followed by a cmevla.
>>430How can we figure out whether or not {ji'a} in {la ji'a nanba} is part of the name?
>>430
How can we figure out whether or not {ji'a} in {la ji'a nanba} is part of the name?
>>434 It is not part of the name, because the UI indicator is a modifier of LA, not part of its argument.More tricky is the question of inner quantifiers or sumti modifiers as in {la ci nanba} or {la mi nanba}. In the case of inner quantifiers, the convention is that it is part of the name. In the case of the sumti modifier, or relative clauses, maybe not.
>>434
It is not part of the name, because the UI indicator is a modifier of LA, not part of its argument.
More tricky is the question of inner quantifiers or sumti modifiers as in {la ci nanba} or {la mi nanba}. In the case of inner quantifiers, the convention is that it is part of the name. In the case of the sumti modifier, or relative clauses, maybe not.
I do not understand any of the members of selma'o LA; except li and la. Could someone explain to me what they mean? Logical (and possibly mathematic) terminology would be helpful, but iff "plain English" is included with each discription as well.ki'e
I do not understand any of the members of selma'o LA; except li and la. Could someone explain to me what they mean? Logical (and possibly mathematic) terminology would be helpful, but iff "plain English" is included with each discription as well.
ki'e
>>194> *Is it "ro lo __" or "lo ro __"? Also, would that be the same as "ro loi __"/"loi ro __"?I don't understand this part of Lojban. CLL doesn't help much. See what you make of it:http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c16/s7.html#e7d6I suspect {ro lo ...} would mean "all of the one(s) that really is/are ..." and {lo ro ...} would mean "the one(s) that really is/are all of ...". However, unless the "lo ro" means "the set of" or "the mass of", it doesn't seem to make sense to say "the one that is all". If, indeed, it does mean mass or set, then it may be interchangeable with {lo'i} and {loi}. {lo'i} refers to the set, e.g. "the set of humans is large", whereas {loi} refers to the mass of individuals themselves, e.g. "the mass of humans are irrational and utterly insane". If it is interchangeable, that does not sound very good. In this case I would hope {ro lo} is correct and {lo ro} is incorrect.
>>194
> *Is it "ro lo __" or "lo ro __"? Also, would that be the same as "ro loi __"/"loi ro __"?
I don't understand this part of Lojban. CLL doesn't help much.
See what you make of it:
http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c16/s7.html#e7d6
I suspect {ro lo ...} would mean "all of the one(s) that really is/are ..." and {lo ro ...} would mean "the one(s) that really is/are all of ...". However, unless the "lo ro" means "the set of" or "the mass of", it doesn't seem to make sense to say "the one that is all". If, indeed, it does mean mass or set, then it may be interchangeable with {lo'i} and {loi}. {lo'i} refers to the set, e.g. "the set of humans is large", whereas {loi} refers to the mass of individuals themselves, e.g. "the mass of humans are irrational and utterly insane". If it is interchangeable, that does not sound very good. In this case I would hope {ro lo} is correct and {lo ro} is incorrect.
From http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Conlang+Test+Sentences&bl# The tallest and smallest men in the world both joined the circus.* lo clarai e lo toryrai be lo ro nanmu pe le munje cu cmibi'o le tigbe'e It would seem that {lo ro} is correct from this example, and that it means the same as {loi}, where {loi} may be more precise. I'm not sure.
From http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Conlang+Test+Sentences&bl
# The tallest and smallest men in the world both joined the circus.
* lo clarai e lo toryrai be lo ro nanmu pe le munje cu cmibi'o le tigbe'e
It would seem that {lo ro} is correct from this example, and that it means the same as {loi}, where {loi} may be more precise. I'm not sure.
>>204 Perhaps [lo ro] means that there are all (whatevers), treated individually, such that they do (blank).It would kind of be like the mass interpretation except that the members are not treated as anything other than individual, integral units (use for quantum physics, maybe?).
>>204
Perhaps [lo ro] means that there are all (whatevers), treated individually, such that they do (blank).
It would kind of be like the mass interpretation except that the members are not treated as anything other than individual, integral units (use for quantum physics, maybe?).
... is it possible?
>>435 There currently is no officially endorced method as to how to do this, or even if it can/should be done. This is a bad time, so can I answer it later?>>435 >>435
>>435 Okay, so this is a little better of a time.I will answer any further questions (or attempt to!), but I would look up post 343 in the English-side of Jbotcan. It is under a post without a topic by [la .jbob.].Sorry, got to go again.
>>435
Okay, so this is a little better of a time.
I will answer any further questions (or attempt to!), but I would look up post 343 in the English-side of Jbotcan. It is under a post without a topic by [la .jbob.].
Sorry, got to go again.
- wakaba 3.0.7 + futaba + futallaby -