order of Seltau/Tertau

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search

Nov 30 16:46:34 <ksion> .i lo jakne cu sutra klama be lo terdi be'o lo lunra -- The rocket quickly takes off from the Earth and heads to the moon.

Nov 30 16:50:01 <lindar> 1. klama sutra

Nov 30 16:50:18 <lindar> 2. be on the tertau doesn't mean anything, you could remove it completely and it would mean the same thing.

Nov 30 16:50:36 <latros> how is it klama sutra

Nov 30 16:50:43 <latros> for the second part lindar has a point, though

Nov 30 16:51:02 <lindar> sutra klama = klama lo sutra ???

Nov 30 16:51:09 <lindar> klama sutra = sutra lo nu klama

Nov 30 16:51:16 <@xalbo> sutra klama = sutra je klama

Nov 30 16:51:24 <ksion> lindar: sutra klama is whatever you want that involves both sutra and klama.

Nov 30 16:51:28 <lindar> xalbo: That's terrible.

Nov 30 16:51:40 <latros> there has to be a going

Nov 30 16:51:43 <latros> with all that that implies

Nov 30 16:51:54 <latros> (assuming no zi'o ofc)

Nov 30 16:52:03 <lindar> Okay {sutra klama}... What is fast about the going?

Nov 30 16:52:09 <lindar> sutra be ma klama

Nov 30 16:52:24 <lindar> sutra ... LO NU KLAMA maybe? Then why not just fucking say that?

Nov 30 16:52:43 <latros> point.

Nov 30 16:52:49 <latros> malgli strikes again

Nov 30 16:52:51 <latros> "quickly"

Nov 30 16:52:55 <latros> instead of

Nov 30 16:52:57 <latros> "is fast in attaining"

Nov 30 16:53:12 <latros> which is clunky as hell in english but sorta standard idiom in lojban

Nov 30 16:53:20 <lindar> Exactly.

Nov 30 16:53:38 <lindar> I would like to cite xorxes vs. mutce for this case.

Nov 30 16:53:51 <lindar> It's broda mutce, not mutce broda.

Nov 30 16:54:25 <lindar> You could easily say {mi sutra co klama le zarci} though.

Nov 30 16:54:36 <ksion> I'm mutce in brodaing, not brodaing in my mutce.

Nov 30 16:54:36 <@xalbo> I still think both work, and if you want to fill the places of {klama} instead of {sutra}, {sutra klama} is just absolutely fine.

Nov 30 16:55:00 <zort-> .i mi'u xu lu broda xamgu go'a lu xamgu broda li'u

Nov 30 16:55:01 <lindar> I'm inclined to disagree with you because:

Nov 30 16:55:03 <lindar> 1. You're stupid.

Nov 30 16:55:05 <lindar> 2. You smell funny.

Nov 30 16:55:08 <lindar> 3. You're wrong.

Nov 30 16:55:16 <ksion> Oh here comes the part when lindar runs out of arguments.

Nov 30 16:55:26 <ksion> Go on kids, nothing to see here.

Nov 30 16:55:40 <latros> but

Nov 30 16:55:42 <latros> for that example

Nov 30 16:55:51 <latros> where you sutra klama in one case and klama in another

Nov 30 16:55:57 <@xalbo> .i mi sutra .i mi klama .i lo kama sutra kei se ckaji lo gletu be lo mamta be do

Nov 30 16:56:00 <latros> thinking of it the other way illustrates why there should be two predicates

Nov 30 16:56:11 <latros> in that statement

Nov 30 16:56:43 <lindar> The problem is that when you say {sutra klama} you invariably mean {sutra lo nu klama}.

Nov 30 16:56:45 <latros> .i lo jakne cu sutra lo nu klama fi lo terdi .i le go'i cu klama lo lunra

Nov 30 16:57:21 <latros> is really what's going on, under it all

Nov 30 16:57:39 <lindar> Yes.

Nov 30 16:57:42 <ksion> .i mi na spaji lo me lu ka ma sutra li'u xamselsku be do doi la xalbo

Nov 30 16:58:12 <lindar> Yes, the joke has been made over 9000!!! times in the history of lojban.

Nov 30 16:58:12 <lindar> >_>

Nov 30 16:58:41 <ksion> Although mixing it with {gletu lo mamta} is some novelty.

Nov 30 16:58:46 <@xalbo> But only 7000 times by me, and only 5000 of them today. Give me a break, new material is *hard*.

Nov 30 16:59:20 <lindar> So, I'm right, you're wrong.


Nov 30 17:00:18 <zort-> But {klama sutra} has the same place structure as {sutra}.

Nov 30 17:00:29 <lindar> zort-: Exactly. It's shorthand.

Nov 30 17:00:40 <latros> so {sutra klama co ko'a}

Nov 30 17:00:51 <@xalbo> Do you assert that {ko'a sutra lo nu ko'a klama ko'e} is not among the possible meanings of {ko'a sutra klama ko'e}?

Nov 30 17:00:51 <ksion> lo klama sutra cu me ji'i gletu cukta

Nov 30 17:00:52 <latros> or

Nov 30 17:00:53 <latros> better

Nov 30 17:00:54 <lindar> latros: That's not how {co} is used.

Nov 30 17:01:00 <latros> e

Nov 30 17:01:01 <latros> *er

Nov 30 17:01:02 <latros> sorry

Nov 30 17:01:04 <latros> I knew how it was used

Nov 30 17:01:06 <latros> just botched it

Nov 30 17:01:10 <latros> {sutra co klama ko'a}

Nov 30 17:01:20 <latros> brain fail

Nov 30 17:01:22 <lindar> xalbo: I assert that it should be the absolute least likely meaning.

Nov 30 17:01:41 <zort-> .oi the x2 place os {sutra} is an event.

Nov 30 17:01:43 <ksion> what

Nov 30 17:01:48 <@xalbo> What do you think is a *more* likely meaning?

Nov 30 17:01:48 <zort-> *of

Nov 30 17:02:18 <lindar> xalbo: Retarded. That's what. I'm not going for single interpretation, I'm going for a -consistent rule- of tanru.

Nov 30 17:02:24 <latros> zort, why wouldn't it be?

Nov 30 17:02:33 <latros> you are fast at bringing about an event

Nov 30 17:02:37 <latros> it's like kakne

Nov 30 17:02:38 <lindar> sutra be ma klama

Nov 30 17:02:57 <zort-> You can't say {sutra le zdani le briju}

Nov 30 17:03:08 <lindar> -_-

Nov 30 17:03:10 <lindar> I know.

Nov 30 17:03:13 <lindar> I'm not retarded.

Nov 30 17:03:16 <@xalbo> There is no consistent rule. There are many different common patterns, but there is no one rule.

Nov 30 17:03:18 <zort-> Explain!

Nov 30 17:03:22 <ksion> .i ru'a {ko'a sanga ca lonu lo mensi be ko'e klama lo sutra be fi ko'a} is among the meanings of {ko'a sutra klama ko'e}

Nov 30 17:03:42 <ksion> Ruling something out as impossible interpretation is totally againts the spirit of tanru.

Nov 30 17:03:56 <latros> it's not that it's WRONG, it's more along the lines of bad practice

Nov 30 17:04:01 <lindar> Sure.

Nov 30 17:04:02 <latros> or rather

Nov 30 17:04:06 <latros> bad practice for being standard

Nov 30 17:04:22 <latros> making {sutra klama} the USUAL way of saying {sutra lo nu klama}

Nov 30 17:04:30 <latros> is...not a good thing

Nov 30 17:04:32 <ksion> .i ca'e zo'oi drata tu'a la lindar

Nov 30 17:04:35 <lindar> The point is {sutra klama} to me means that there's some obvious value of the x2 of the seltau, or that the seltau should be one of the places of the tertau.

Nov 30 17:04:39 <ksion> zo'oi bad*

Nov 30 17:04:58 <latros> ksion

Nov 30 17:05:01 <latros> that's just two sumti

Nov 30 17:05:02 <lindar> So to mean {sutra lo nu klama} for {sutra klama} is bad practice.

Nov 30 17:05:05 <latros> and an attitudinal

Nov 30 17:05:09 <latros> oh

Nov 30 17:05:10 <latros> nvm

Nov 30 17:05:14 <@xalbo> There is an obvious value of the x2 of {sutra}, and you yourself have said it a dozen times already. It's the whole bridi.

Nov 30 17:05:15 <latros> I thought bad was replacing drata

Nov 30 17:05:23 <lindar> It shouldn't be, though.

Nov 30 17:05:27 <latros> this is why we have lo'ai ... sa'ai ... le'ai, btw

Nov 30 17:05:29 <latros> instead of *

Nov 30 17:05:39 <latros> :p

Nov 30 17:05:57 <ksion> xalbo: Are places of seltau even relevant? It's just the modifier, it's semantic is just "smeared over" tertau.

Nov 30 17:07:07 <@xalbo> Well, I think there's something that fills all the places of the seltau, and that bridi is somehow semantically relevant.

Nov 30 17:07:56 <@xalbo> That is, {ko'a sutra klama} isn't true if {.i sutra} isn't. But what all the places are is entirely context dependant.

Nov 30 17:12:47 <lindar> I think that if the tertau is one of the places of the seltau, it should be inverted or just used correctly.

Nov 30 17:13:16 <lindar> Obviously {klama} is one of the places of {sutra}, so why make it ambiguous just to spare two syllables?

Nov 30 17:14:08 <lindar> Cos I'm thinking "Quickly what? Quickly walking? Quickly speaking?".

Nov 30 17:16:40 <lindar> Just like for {.i mi mutce nelci} I'm wondering "Very what?". It seems to be that {broda brode} is either {brode lo (nu) broda} or {broda be *something implied* be'o broda} and never ever (because it's really bad practice) {broda lo (nu) brode}.

Nov 30 17:16:49 <lindar> *seems to me that

Nov 30 17:16:50 <@xalbo> lindar: If it is actually misleading you, then you're dumb.

Nov 30 17:17:30 <@xalbo> More likely, you know *exactly* what it means, but you have some aversion to admitting it.

Nov 30 17:19:08 <lindar> I can obviously figure it out from context, but I figure it out from context the same way that I figure out from context that "Yatta no demz mines." means "You ought to know that those belong to me." or "He be runnin' down the street." means either "He is running down the street." or, "Habitually, he'll be running down the street..." as part of a whole thought.

Nov 30 17:20:05 <lindar> ...or "libary" or "verticie" or "axises" or any of the modern fucked conjugations...

Nov 30 17:20:19 <lindar> Yeah, I know what was meant, but it still looks bad/is wrong/is bad practice.

Nov 30 17:20:28 <@xalbo> The thing that {sutra}, {mutce}, etc have is that the tertau is also true. So {mi sutra klama ko'a} is just adding information to {mi klama ko'a}.

Nov 30 17:20:49 <@xalbo> {mi klama ko'a} is still the central claim. I'm not primarily saying anything about speed, I'm saying something about going.

Nov 30 17:21:00 <@xalbo> And incidentally adding into that the idea that it was quickly done.

Nov 30 17:22:14 <lindar> Okay, and why not say {mi sutra lo nu klama} so I always know exactly what you mean, and not that you mean {mi sutra be lo nu cadzu be'o klama le zarci}.

Nov 30 17:23:06 <lindar> ...or some weird permutation of that?

Nov 30 17:23:48 <latros> this gets into a little maxim

Nov 30 17:23:55 <latros> that I think people get thrown off about with lojban

Nov 30 17:24:08 <latros> lojban isn't unambiguous

Nov 30 17:24:12 <latros> it's ambiguous to a precise extent

Nov 30 17:24:43 <latros> whatever the listener isn't told by an utterance, the speaker knows what it is

Nov 30 17:24:50 <latros> (in theory, anyway)

Nov 30 17:25:06 <latros> but it's not that the speaker must always say everything

Nov 30 17:26:01 <lindar> latros, I've been here for nearly two years. =D

Nov 30 17:26:14 <lindar> People really need to stop talking to me like I'm one of the grip of newbies around here.

Nov 30 17:26:26 »» lindar doesn't mean this defencively or rudely.

Nov 30 17:26:34 <@xalbo> re'i nai

Nov 30 17:26:40 <zort-> Would {da poi vei ro je mu bakni cu bevri lo pipno} mean all-the-5-cows thing?

Nov 30 17:27:15 <latros> no, I'm not trying to talk to you as if you're a newbie

Nov 30 17:27:58 <latros> I think insisting on {sutra lo nu klama} always (and I did see the word always somewhere) is an example of this

Nov 30 17:28:12 <latros> on the other hand, making {sutra klama} standard is also bad practice

Nov 30 17:28:17 <latros> there are pros and cons to each

Nov 30 17:29:05 <lindar> Hey, lovely argument, document it for the BPFK please.

Nov 30 17:29:09 <lindar> I'll be back much later today.

Nov 30 17:38:25 »» ChanServ gives channel operator status to kpreid