Difference between revisions of "sei'a"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
  
Page in UTF-8
+
* Egad. Do you really think people will refuse to interpret text some other way if they don't see [[jbocre: sei'a|sei'a]]? Giving this the grammar of SEI is especially horrific. Just explain your conventions in a ''to'i...toi''.
  
----
+
The idea of it being in SEI -- & I confess that in choosing to I was working solely from memory -- is so as to be able to indicate the scope of the conventions, i.e. the span of text over which the conventions operate. I assume that if people don't see ''sei'a'' they will interpret text in the standard way rather than in any nonstandard way (exception in so far as the speaker does so unintentionally or the hearer assumes the speaker was being nonstandard). --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
  
* Would someone like to take the credit for this :-) ?
+
* That assumption would be very reasonable to make if the speaker says "to'i I'm going to use this nonstandard convention... toi".
  
'  - (zasti bau le vukro gi'e mapti loi rusko me'o gy)
+
If you want to indicate scope, SEI is the wrong selma'o.  SEI is (.iape'i) basically a way to make a bridi into a UI.  For scope, we have scope words: tu'e/tu'u ''--mi'e [[User:Mark Shoulson|.mark.]]''
  
a m'''a'''ssa масса
+
* Yes, that was the motive for choosing SEI: it is a metalinguistic UI and,
  
e  '''e'''to это
+
as with other UI, its scope can be indicated by tu'e/tu'u. [[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
 
 
i  ch'''i'''slo число
 
 
 
o  t'''o'''m том
 
 
 
u  sh'''u'''m шум
 
 
 
y  kol'''o'''kol колокол
 
 
 
ai  chit'''ai''' читай
 
 
 
au  - (zasti bau le labru'o, sei a'o drani morji)
 
 
 
ei  d'''ei'''stvo действо
 
 
 
oi  tolst'''oi''' Толстой
 
 
 
ia  '''ia''' iavl'''ia'''iu я являю
 
 
 
ie  '''e'''vreiski еврейский
 
 
 
ii  ?
 
 
 
io  uzna'''io'''te узна�те
 
 
 
iu  u'''iu'''tnu'''iu''' уютную
 
 
 
ua  - (ji'a labru'obau ja'aru'e)
 
 
 
ue  -
 
 
 
ui  -
 
 
 
uo  -
 
 
 
uu  -
 
 
 
b  '''b'''yt' быть
 
 
 
c  '''sh'''ar шар
 
 
 
d  '''d'''at' дать
 
 
 
f  tele'''f'''on телефон
 
 
 
g  '''g'''ora гора
 
 
 
j  '''zh'''enshchina женщина
 
 
 
k  '''k'''ot кот
 
 
 
l  '''l'''una луна
 
 
 
m  '''m'''at' мать
 
 
 
n  '''n'''os нос
 
 
 
p  za'''p'''ad запад
 
 
 
r  '''r'''ubl' рубль
 
 
 
s  '''s'''o'''s'''ed сосед
 
 
 
t  '''t'''u'''t''' тут
 
 
 
v  '''v'''otum вотум
 
 
 
z  '''z'''loi злой
 

Revision as of 17:12, 4 November 2013

  • Egad. Do you really think people will refuse to interpret text some other way if they don't see sei'a? Giving this the grammar of SEI is especially horrific. Just explain your conventions in a to'i...toi.

The idea of it being in SEI -- & I confess that in choosing to I was working solely from memory -- is so as to be able to indicate the scope of the conventions, i.e. the span of text over which the conventions operate. I assume that if people don't see sei'a they will interpret text in the standard way rather than in any nonstandard way (exception in so far as the speaker does so unintentionally or the hearer assumes the speaker was being nonstandard). --And Rosta

  • That assumption would be very reasonable to make if the speaker says "to'i I'm going to use this nonstandard convention... toi".

If you want to indicate scope, SEI is the wrong selma'o. SEI is (.iape'i) basically a way to make a bridi into a UI. For scope, we have scope words: tu'e/tu'u --mi'e .mark.

  • Yes, that was the motive for choosing SEI: it is a metalinguistic UI and,

as with other UI, its scope can be indicated by tu'e/tu'u. And Rosta