implied co'e and Multiple-Question Questions

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
vensa xalbo: the desk at the office is the place one is at
short for mi de'a zvati lo jibni be lo skami :)
xalbo je'e
vensa you think mi de'a jibni would also be understandable?
xalbo probably, yeah
vensa hmm, aparently a list of sumti with no selbri is also a gramatical utterance
probably in order to be able to answer questions like ma zvati ma
xalbo Exactly.
vensa :)
Volatile Hm, is no "omitted selbri" cmavu implictly involved somewhere?
co'e
vensa volatile:im not sure, but I can think of cases where it shouldnt be
e.g.: ma djica lonu ma cliva
the answer to that does not involve a single co'e relation between the two mas
Volatile Hm. And the answer does not have to have the relationship pointed out?
xalbo I think there's some debate on whether one can omit co'e or not.
vensa IMO: no. the order of the sumti defines which ma each one is answering...
Volatile Is zo'e zo'e a legit answer, or do you have to do zo'e co'e lonu zo'e co'e  ? :)
xalbo zo'e zo'e is absolutely a legit answer.
And there's also a bu'a such that mi ti bu'a is the same as mi djica lo nu mi ti cliva, it's just a complicated one :)
vensa xalbo: how do you define that bu'a?
(using cei)
xalbo I'm not sure, actually. With one place free, I can use ckaji, but there needs to be something for more variables.
Volatile Is it always possible to interpret the answers as full structures omitting a lot of relation words?
xalbo That is, ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva is almost it, but not quite.
vensa xalbo: I dont follow. but I gather that's the argument "for" including co'e. i.e. saying that there IS "some" selbri that relates the two sumti, so that selbri can be co'e even if its unclear what co'e actually is...?
wow! that was beautifuly complicated
I think I understood the "gist" of it
xalbo djica co cliva is pretty darn close, of course :)
vensa yes
but an exact selbri is possible? because ckaji isnt exactly the same.... even if it were gramaticaly standardised to use all those xis
xalbo So, absent a question we're answering, mi lo mensi be do is a grammatical utterance, and mi co'e lo mensi be do is a grammatical and sensible utterance. The question is whether the former has the same meaning/interpretation as the latter.
vensa also: I misunderstand ce'uxipa ce'uxire. y not just ce'uxire
xalbo I wanted mi ti cliva, not ti cliva
vensa oh "I leave here".. ok
xalbo And I'm not even sure what your question about an exact selbri means.
vensa xalbo: but still: mi ti ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva puts ti in the x2 of ckaji. not in the ce'uxire
I think that mi co'e lo mensi be do means that there is an expressable relationship between me and your sister. wether we want to allow using co'e even in cases where that relationship cannot be exactly expressed (in the same form as it were expressed in the question) is what the debate is about (I reckon )
kribacr .i li'a si'a ji'a mi co'e lo mamta be do
vensa doi kribacr xa'a'a
xalbo I assert that it means there is a relationship that is relevant to the conversation, not that it can necessarily be expressed simply.
vensa xalbo: can it be expressed AT ALL?
xalbo (and I knew the ckaji was wrong, I was complaining about it at the time)
If there is a relationship that cannot be expressed, then lojban is utterly broken. I do not believe that is the case, though.
vensa xalbo: expressed with a single selbri. how? you cant even express a simple ma broda lonu brode ma with a single selbri, so what will you do with a huge number of mas?
xalbo Anyway, I'd love to have a word that means "x1 (relation with an arbitrary number of empty spots marked by ce'u) is true with x2 filling ce'u1, x3 filling ce'u2, etc"
vensa xalbo: that would probably solve it
but as of currently, it seems that lojban is broken
IF you add the implied co'e
xalbo vensa: The point is that that's a content word (it's just a selbri), and that the class of selbri is wide open. I could coin a fu'ivla that means just that, and there you go.
vensa but the original question did not use the fu'ivla. so is it still the same thing?
xalbo There's nothing fundamentally unexpressible about that.
vensa yeah. I suppose I could/should be accepted (an implied co'e)
so, whats the main argument AGAINST?
xalbo I'm not sure. And I was previously somewhat against it. But I really don't have a good argument against it.
vensa this is exactly what my discussion topics log is for
xalbo I tend to include explicit co'e, but I'm not sure there's a reason to do so.
kribacr I think the problem with implied co'e is when people just speak vocatives.
vensa kribacr: what does that mean?
example?
kribacr Well...
Is there an implied co'e there?
vensa dunno. and if there is. what harm does it do?
kribacr If there is, is it harmless?
Right.
vensa I think its harmless
kribacr I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
vensa obviously, if I am addressing you, I am telling you something
perhasp coi la kribacr zo'e co'e zo'e is coi la kribacr mi rinsa do
btw: you could say the same thing about bare UI
xalbo Answering questions is weird anyway. .i ma fanta lo nu do mo, for instance, naïvely produces an aswer that doesn't seem right at all.
vensa but there too I believe there is an implied co'e
xalbo: I think it's like the difference between "a complete answer" and fragments
xalbo Yeah.
vensa I would reply do fanta lonu mi surla to be clear
but is do surla a valid answer???
that seems wrong
UukGoblin I'd just reply go'i ;-]
vensa because e.g. broda pa is ungramatical
but I could have asked: do mo xo gerku?
xalbo ke'u Answering questions is weird anyway.
vensa I think full answers should be mandatory for questions with more than one question word
or perhaps: .i-seperated answers
UukGoblin does go'i re-ask a ma/mo question?
vensa do .i. surla
broda .i pa
uuk: yes IMO
you are repeating the question, leaving it in question form.
you could be asking yourself aloud
or asking the listener to answer instead of you
xalbo There may be a case to be made for a I to separate answer words. It would also give an unambiguous way to answer a question instead of making a new, unrelated statement.
vensa .iesai
UukGoblin why 'unrelated'? ;-]
  • vensa is so happy he's archiving these new ideas
UukGoblin definitely related, although repeating a lot of what was said
xalbo Maybe not "unrelated", but "dodging the question"
vensa uuk: the statement do surla answers the question ma fanta lonu do mo but it makes an unrelated statement
xalbo "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
UukGoblin oh, I see
vensa xalbo: "dodging questions should still be allowed"... just frowned upon :)
UukGoblin I thought replying with a full sentence made an unrelated statement
vensa no
xalbo Yes. But the point is that if you ask a question with mo, I need a way to not answer it, and any bridi I saw will answer it.
UukGoblin mhm
vensa xalbo: example?
tcatipax mi na djuno?
xalbo ke'u "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
UukGoblin like, "What are you doing?" "Nice weather, isn't it?"
vensa xalbo: how would that be in lojban? simpler version
xalbo: whats wrong with answering do mo with lo tcima cu pluka
?
xalbo .i do mo le mi mensi / .i .yy lo tcima ku melbi
vensa yeah. so whats the problem?
xalbo Well, it probably carries over the x2, at least.
vensa wha?!
why does it carry stuff over?
xalbo Think about it. Is not cinba a valid answer there?
vensa you said melbi. not go'i. not co'e
yes. cinba is valid but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
xalbo The answer to mo is some relationship such that its x1, x2, whatever other places were given to the mo make it true.
vensa but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
xalbo I don't see where you get that from.
vensa common sense
x1 or any other x
kribacr Tuesday's coming. Did you bring your coat?
vensa kribacr: is "Tuesday's coming" the answer?
kribacr I live in a giant bucket.
vensa kribacr: that is a y/n question.
so unless I answered go'i or na go'i I dodged your question
xalbo Well in .i do mo / citka lo badna, we're replacing in lo badna for the x2. Or is this new interpretive convention only for sumti that were previously explicitly filled?
vensa hmmm
xalbo: in that example, you only ADDED X's. you didnt OVERRIDE any
IMO when you OVERRIDE one of them, it becomes a "dodging" statement
UukGoblin well
vensa xalbo: also, I dont understand how my proposition about i seperating answers to a multiple-question question "solves" this for you
UukGoblin let my put my question into the discussion, which is probably what xalbo already mentioned: say someone asks do mo, and you want to make an observative about a rain that's just started so you want to say carvi, but that'll make /you/ rain
xalbo My idea was to make a new I that would do nothing but separate/precede answers. Then .i would always be dodging, and the new I would be for answering.
kribacr .i but for answers?
I like that.
.i ma gletu ma
vensa xalbo: ohhhh
kribacr new-I la .kribacr. new-I lo mamta be do
.i'e
vensa .u'isai
kribacr Hmm.
selpa`i Seems unnecessary
vensa and new-I la kribacr .i lo tcima would be a partial answer
kribacr Are there any CVV or CV'V that could be derived from ... danfu is it?
vensa you could change paunai to mean "answer follows" :P
kribacr Eww... no.
xalbo .i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo.
vensa uuk: in the carvi case I would just say ti carvi thereby overriding hte x1 do and making it into a statement not a question
valsi nolraitru = t1=n1 is a regent/monarch of t2 by standard n2.
xalbo Just try and change the topic on that one. Note that there are no places to override.
vensa xalbo: ooohhh
you got me
kribacr D'oh, dau is taken.
Stupid hex.
vensa how about mi na catra .i do bebna :P
UukGoblin there was this meta-negator
metalinguistic negator
na'i
vensa yes! good point Uk
it seems very handy here
.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo. na'i
I wanted to say also that the "new i" should be for cases where you DONT intend to answer becuz those are the less frequent cases
so using na'i for that purpose exactly seems brilliant. (and the intended way)
so the answer to the carvi problem would be. .i na'i carvi
UukGoblin hm.
I kinda thought na'i would mean "your question is wrong" rather than "I don't feel like answering it"
xalbo vensa: That says it's not raining.
xalbo (could also be noi instead of poi)
dbrock I too would like to have �a word that indicates that something is an answer
the opposite of pau
kribacr Hmm. I wish there was more CVV and CV'V space available. ._.
vensa xalbo: so, na'i .i carvi
dbrock if I got to choose, pau nai would mean "answer follows", pau cu'i would mean "question does not follow", and pau nai cu'i would mean "answer does not follow"
vensa I still think maybe the word should be for "this is NOT an answer". I would hate to be required to utter another syllable for 99% of the time
xalbo dbrock: Then I'm glad you don't get to choose.
xalbo Sorry, had to go there, but I don't think that's a natural scale at all, and it changes way too much.
kribacr da'au
vensa dbrock: does pau currently have a cu'i?
dbrock yeah, I think of UI nai as being a separate scale
but that's not how most people think of it
xalbo I just don't like .i between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
vensa xalbo: what was that an answer to?
dbrock to me, the pau scale would be "how much of a question is this", whereas the pau nai scale would be "how much of an answer is this"
so you could have pau pau nai for "answering with a question"
vensa how about pauna'i for "I dont intent to answer you"? :P
dbrock well, pau nai pau would be a more natural order, I guess
xalbo vensa: What was what an answer to?
(ge'i, for instance, I don't think can be answered except with a whole sentence)
dbrock fu'e pau nai i broda i brode i brodi fu'o?
vensa xalbo: the statement you said above the statement I said that asked that
dbrock for a three-part-answer
xalbo vensa: Just quote the mabla sentence.
valsi ge'i = logical connective: forethought all but tanru-internal connective question (with gi).
vensa <@xalbo> I just don't like .i between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
gerna ge
gerna not grammatical: ge ⚠
gerna (0e)0
vensa hmmm.. geks alone seem to be ungramatical
gerna </nowiki>(0[ge co'e VAU gi co'e VAU VAU])0</nowiki>
vensa gerna ge gi
gerna not grammatical: ge _gi_ ⚠
dbrock what's the problem with that?
vensa yeah, xalbo?
xalbo Means that a question with ge'i is harder to answer.
vensa not if we add implied gi to the grammar parser
dbrock true
xalbo At least, the only way to answer it is to make an entire bridi, not just fill in the blank.
dbrock I guess you could answer with an afterthought connective?
vensa de'a
xalbo Um, *ge gi isn't legal either.
dbrock see any problem with answering with afterthoughts, xalbo?
xalbo Don't know. In general it's odd to answer with something other than the form of the question.
vensa dbrock: a question could contain both ge'i AND ji so that answering in a diff form would be confusing
xalbo: add implied co'es too and you'll get ge co'e gi co'e
xalbo If you try to answer out of order, though, you really screw things up, so I don't think that's a problem.
vensa xalbo: why do you think .i between multiple parts of a fragmented answer cant be a complete reply?
xalbo .i separates bridi by the same speaker. That seems pretty different from separating fragments that are all used to fill parts of a single bridi.
vensa why?
ma tavla ma -> .i mi .i do
means: .i mi tavla .i do se tavla
(remeber the implied co'e)
xalbo That seems very different from mi tavla do.
vensa why? context welds them together IMO
how do you solve the do surla bug with something other than a seperating i?
dbrock xalbo has already proposed the addition of new I
vensa oh.
so newI mi newI do is acceptable xalbo?
dbrock danfu ze'ei i mi danfu ze'ei i do
xalbo Seems much more so, yes.
vensa i c
fine we need the newI for other things too (specifying dodging answers)
xalbo (I'd still probably just answer mi do, but for more complicated ones, yes)
dbrock I don't really see why we need a new I
xalbo The point is that if newI is for answering, then oldI (spelled .i) keeps its completely normal function, which just happens to work out to question dodging.
dbrock well, it's not a matter of need, of course
vensa in that case I am "for" dbrock's paunai def
dbrock but I mean other similar things are solved using UI
xalbo (and in most cases, you start speaking without either, so there's no problem)
vensa xalbo: isnt there an implied oldI at the start?
xalbo I strongly oppose changing pau nai. You can argue for a UI, but you can't have that one.
dbrock I don't propose changing pau nai
you can't do things like that
vensa paucu'i is currently undefined
dbrock it's impossible, so debating it is a waste of time
vensa dbrock: 1. anything is posible
2. didn't you suggest that earlier?
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Discursives
UukGoblin hm.
dbrock I have long been an advocate of thinking of UI ja'ai and UI nai as completely separate scales
vensa so you did suggest to change paunai
UukGoblin with stuff like 'paunai', what is there to distinguish between definitions like 'answer follows', 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'?
dbrock that's why I said "if I got to choose, pau nai would mean "answer follows" "
UukGoblin :-]
dbrock I didn't say "I propose we change the meaning of pau nai"
vensa oh
I read that as that
who cares about the old meaning of paunai its probably rarely been used
dbrock yeah, I can see how you'd read it as a proposal
xalbo (Note that I also didn't say "we need a new I" but "a case could be made for a new I"
dbrock pau nai has seen significant enough use that people will just say "NO"
vensa uuk: what you mean by 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'
dbrock and the only effect of trying to change its meaning will be to cement the old meaning even further
vensa xalbo :)
"cement"?
UukGoblin vensa, "the following is not meant to be intepreted as a question" and "the following is meant to cancel the question in question"
vensa I am very much an advocate of changing the old for the benefit of the future. as an answer to the nay-saying conservatives I have proposed the "version\scripting" system
UukGoblin cementing is a popular technique of postponing trouble with blown up nuclear reactors for later
vensa uuk: regular i is the first. and you cant obliterate a question once it was asked. you can just choose to not answer it with regular i

UukGoblin vensa, nah, it's kinda not my question... my problem is pau nai is a cluster, but because pau can be negated in different ways, doesn't it make pau nai a bit ambiguous?

vensa xalbo: how does i'au sound to you as the "newI"? (from i + danfu)
vensa Volatile: zo'oi is for one word quote only
Volatile vensa: well, that was one word quoted. Then, I kinda changed language.
vensa Volatile: you can translate word by word using valsi. it still wont help you understand the grammar
Volatile: that doesnt parse
xalbo vensa: Feels like an attitudinal to me.
vensa you need zoi .gy. bla bla bla .gy
xalbo: does i feel like an attitudinal?
are there experimental-cmavo attitudinals?
I guess ur right tho
xalbo I'm used to single vowels being connectives, and multiple vowels being UI1. It's not set in stone of course, but probably not good to mess with.
Volatile vensa: I meant to just quote one word, but then I realize that I don't really know the correct grammar (modals, no?) to express what I wanted anyhow...
vensa V: fine
xalbo: da'au?
xalbo Better.
vensa or: ni'au (ni'o + danfu)
kribacr .u'i sai coi jungo
vensa yeah it does sound a bit chinese
kribacr: did you hear about our idea?
kribacr Yes.
I for responses.
I was here yesterday.
vensa those are different I's in ur 2 sentences...
english ambiguity :P
kribacr I lamented the fact that dau was unavailable.
Indeed.
xalbo Right now I have my head in the huge bpfk thread from the weekend, about where "texts" begin and end with multiple speakers
ksion coi rodo .i ma lamji je fanza se stidi la vensa u'i
vensa thats also a big one
.u'iru'e .oiro'a doi ksion
xalbo Unfortunately, we don't have a convention for quoting selma'o names in running English text (since for all but I there's not much problem), nor even for talking about them in Lojban.
vensa doi ksion ni'au lo danfu valsi
ksion ue
xu do stidi tu'a lo cmavo pe lo danfu pe fi'o simsa zo pau
s/lo danfu pe/lo danfu zi'epe
vensa ksion: ni'au (sounds cooler) is the proposed cmavo which will act "like" an i but signal that the utterance is a "partial reply" to a question word, and not a full sentence
xalbo .i cmavo lo selma'o be zo .i
ksion And the need for having this is ...?
vensa imagine you are asked a multiple-question question, e.g.:
ma djica lonu do mo
ksion xalbo: I usually say zo'oi FAhA.
vensa if you want the full answer to be do djica lonu mi surla would you say do surla?
ksion No, do .i surla.
vensa becuz that seems to imply some other nonexistent bridi relationship
yes, that may be enough. but
then we got into decding how we are supposed to "avoid" a question
I ask you do mo but you dont want to answer. you want to point out that it's raininng so you say carvi
it "seems" as though you are claiming that mi carvi
ksion .i co'e .i carvi
selpa`i how bout ni'o
ksion ni'o or ta'o is fine too.
vensa xsion: what about if I ask xo and you dont want to answer?
ksion ji'i
vensa so basically the questioner forces the listener to respond to their question, even if its with a vague answer, get the question "out of the way" before he can say anything?
ksion (if you want a question type where I don't have a 'neutral' reply, try cu'e :) )
vensa IMO that is a little annoying
valsi cu'e
valsi cu'e = tense/modal question.
selpa`i I dont think its a problem
ksion Then .i .i <your stuff> works.
vensa do'e
selpa`i When I answer by saying something unrelated, then context will show that I didnt care to answer.
vensa do'e is vague of cu'e
but there is no vague for fi'a
valsi fi'a
selpa`i That happens all the time in natural languages too
valsi fi'a = sumti place tag: place structure number/tag question.
ksion faxiji'i
vensa selpa'i: but there can be unclear cases where it's not clear if you are answering or not
ksion: nice
selpa`i In such a case, the question asker will ask for clarification like normal
vensa still. y force the listener to "get the question out of the way".
ksion vensa: Question is not enforced grammatically. You don't have to escape it by grammatical means, really.
vensa if I ask you ma mo mo xo ma mo xu
selpa`i That's a stupid question
vensa selpa'i: it's just an example
ksion Then the correct answer is ko ko gletu :P
selpa`i yes
vensa I can fill it with other "meaning" words and leave the same number of Q words
selpa`i u'i
vensa xa'a
selpa`i If you ask me such a dumb question, you cant expect me to answer it
ksion Or ki'a, if you still want to be polite (I'd not be).
vensa ksion: you say I dont have to escape the question. so why do you propose the co'e .i broda approach?
selpa`i co'e is a polite evasion move
ksion vensa: Because it is customary to expect an answer after a question. It's not by-grammar though, but only by-semantics.
vensa IMO if you ask me a question I should be able to say whatever I want. but only if I want to ONLY "fill in the slots" of the question words, I need something like ni'au
selpa`i I agree.
timonator ni'au?
vensa ksion: I think this should be decided by grammar. much like the go'i answer is a gramatical mechanism
ksion ta'a ni'o ta'o a'anai -- Possible solutions.
go'i being answer is not grammatical mechanism. go'i being last bridi is.
vensa I think not defining this issue is leaving room for some sort of ambiguity
timonator right, go'i is by far not only for answers
vensa not only
timonator i za'a ta muvdu i do go'i gasnu i mi na go'i
vensa nm go'i
kribacr .i do ja'a go'i
ksion <vensa> I think not defining this issue is leaving room for some sort of ambiguity -- And?
kribacr ko cikna binxo
vensa And? do you like ambiguity?
selpa`i lojban is hella ambiguous anyway
vensa says you
it's not supposed to be
ksion Semantically, I'm from neutral to positive.
selpa`i Semantically it is.
ksion Of course it is supposed to be.
selpa`i Grammatically, not so much.
ksion .i mi za'e firxance lo se cusku be la vensa
vensa is that an example of semantic ambiguity?
ksion Nope ;)
vensa but it is
ksion Well, nonce words are an example of it.
vensa xalbo: help me out here
ksion (firxance, as it's not-so-hard to figure out, is meant to mean "facepalm" :) )
vensa why did we think it was a good idea yesterday?
ksion: you want to go over the discussion and see if you agree with any of it?
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Implied+%7Bco%27e%7D+and+Multiple-Question+Questions
ksion Sure.
vensa gr8
xalbo .oi
ksion vensa: You can extract a place from any number of nested abstractions be using an appropriate number of jai and SE.
xalbo It seems wrong that we use the same cmavo (.i) for starting a new complete bridi, and for filling in sequential fragments of someone else's bridi.
Volatile "facepalm" sounds like some kind of tree to me. Guess it's some malglico...
vensa I think we should decide between 3 options: 1. you need to say co'e and ji'i for every question to get it out of the way first (i dont like this option) 2. you say ta'a or ni'o or something to imply that you are NOT answering the question 3. you use ni'au for cases when you want to indicate that you ARE answering
xalbo: "seems wrong" is a bit short of an argument IMO
selpa`i #3 seems terrible
ksion 4. You say what you want since question aren't grammatically binding.
vensa ksion: ki'e
selpa`i I like 4 the best.
vensa ksion: if 4, then who knows whether I'm answering you or not?
selpa`i Context.
vensa I can imagine cases where it's unclear from context
Volatile Volatile does not like "
Volatile argh
4
vensa so what if "natlangs get away with it"
selpa`i Sure, but in those cases, you can clarify.
ksion "What are you doing?" "Raining"
xalbo Well, 4 is always going to be the most common, and with good reason. But it still seems important (there's that "seems" again) to be able to specify one way or another.
Volatile I'd say that in this language more than others, specificity matters...
vensa wouldnt it be prettier if lojban had an elegent way to deal with it?
ksion <UukGoblin> na'i -- uasai, how could I forget it!
There you go, your miraculous "escape-all-questions" cmavo.
vensa selpa'i: calrifying with more sentences is exaclty the thing we want to avoid in lojban
xalbo The example I use before, I think, was .i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo. Answering co'e there is a bad idea.
selpa`i Is that so?
xalbo ksion: Problem is that na'i isn't avoiding an answer, it's specifically saying that there isn't one.
vensa xalbo: yes! thank you! the catra example
.ie on the na'i not working
na'i is something else
selpa`i Why did you kill the monarch?
xalbo If you ask the above catra question, I can't plead the fifth in Lojban. I can use na', or I can give a reason, but I can't just say "I want a lawyer!" without that being my answer for why I killed him.
ksion je'e
Then that's why we have na'i.
xalbo na'i doesn't do that, though. It says that the question itself is wrong (in this case, because I didn't kill him), not that I'm not going to answer it.
vensa ksion na'i catra .i mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer?
ksion vensa: na'i is UI. Thus .i go'i na'i
vensa xalbo: so why not i go'i na'i .i <what you want to say>
xalbo That means mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu no'a na'i, which sure seems b0rken to me.
ksion ...What?
xalbo I asked for a mo. You gave me a bridi.
vensa it says na'i mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu ma
ohhhh
ksion No, I gave you a selbri. Which is incidentally the same.
vensa wow - this raises another issue
xalbo But even without that, the na'i doesn't not answer the question. it asserts that the question is wrong. That's different.
vensa A says do djica lonu mo B wants to repeat the question to A. does go'i ra'o work?
ksion xalbo: It doesn't answer it.
labnytru coi rodo
vensa xalbo: legal differences. "I didnt say I didnt do it" :P

xalbo For whatever legal reason, I don't want to say that I didn't kill him, but I sure as Hell don't want to say I did. All I want to say is "I want a lawyer".
na'i does the first of those three, co'e the second.
labnytru So, folks.
ksion Congratulations. You made me use the biggest cannon.
labnytru How many of you know what SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is?
ksion Behold, sei! ... .i sei na pinka
xalbo labnytru: I only know of SEO as "Evil people trying to hijack Google to show me what they want instead of what I want."
ksion (Although I still think xalbo misunderstands na'i giving it less "power" than it really has)
labnytru Good enough answer, although it doesn't have to be that way.
Ultimately, you could have a website with valuable information related to the keyword and not have it show up on Google because of it's lack of optimization.
ksion na'i is metalinguistic. It invalidates EVERYTHING linguistically associated with statement it marks. It does not only negate the "truth case", but also "false case".
xalbo Point.
vensa xalbo: why not go with option2? do pu catra lo nulraitru ki'u lonu mo -> ni'o mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer
labnytru Well, with that in mind...
vensa xalbo: does "point" mean you agree about na'i with ksion?
xalbo It means that ksion made a good point about na'i, and I'm stepping back to reconsider in light of that.
labnytru I've been working with an SEO forum to learn more...and I've been chosen to be the sole co-moderator of it.
vensa ok. so we're going with option2 and na'i?

ksion vensa: So, did we come to any conclusions regarding your question issues?
vensa selpa'i: i mi kakne lonu ca lonu sounded like you were correcting yourself
selpa`i *fai
I wasnt
kribacr Yes, exactly.
vensa ksion: I think we said to use na'i if you want to avoid answering a question
selpa`i or was I? It should be in the text
kribacr The x1 becomes the fai-tagged slot.
selpa`i Yes.
vensa you wasnt
kribacr Tagless jai basically implies a tu'a for the x1.
vensa but your voice sounded like you were
it confused me
selpa`i okay
kribacr You understand .i tu'a mi bandu do?
valsi bandu = x1 (event) defends/protects x2 (object/state) from threat/peril/potential x3 (event).
selpa`i Yes. I do.
ksion vensa: Okay. Thing is, I don't like it. xalbo was wrong about na'i invalidationg only the "truth variant" of the question but was right about it invalidating the question and not only expressing the desire to avoid answering it.
kribacr .i mi jai bandu do means pretty much the same thing.
selpa`i head explodes
tcatypatxu mi citka lo pitnanba be lo vo cilra
Guess!
ksion cilra ki'a
vensa ksion: "invalidating the question" gives you the option to say something else. you dont need to "express your desire to not answer it" IMO. you could do that with an additional attitudianl
selpa`i So jai bandu is the selbri?
kribacr Yes.
selpa`i Which has x1 = tu'a something
ksion vensa: True. But na'i also states that question is metalinguistically wrong regardless of you wanting or not to answer it.
selpa`i Okay
tcatypatxu I assume my sentence is correct since no one is telling me 101 ways I'm horribly wrong :D
kribacr With a place structure of "x1 defends/protects x2 (object/state) from threat/peril/potential x3 (event) with event of defending fai". Or something like that.
ksion vensa: And the other way around: you would have to invalidate a totally valid question if you didn't want to answer it and used na'i to express that unwillingness/
selpa`i uanai
kribacr Where am I losing you?
vensa ksion: ok. so do you feel better about ni'o instead of na'i?
selpa`i It's just so weird and confusing
Especially since it seems to double
fai and x2 are the same there or not?
ksion vensa: Yes.
selpa`i And in mi jai bandu do fai is not even used.
smajis .i coi
kribacr fai is just another spot.
vensa ksion: good. then let that be the new conclusion. except we'll need the BPFK to include that in the definition of ni'o
kribacr You don't have to fill every place.
Same with SE.
selpa`i I know.
kribacr You can easily just say .i mi te vecnu.
ksion vensa: Maybe. Not sure if it's needed. "New topic" being the key part of ni'o's definition is pretty clear.
vensa ksion: ok. then maybe in the second-layer guidelines
selpa`i It's confusing that tu'a mi bandu du = mi jai bandu do
ksion vensa: u'i You like the layers! :)
vensa yes :)