--- Log opened Mon Jun 01 00:00:19 2015
00:02 < noncomcinse> cy. mo
00:06 < gleki> sinxa lo cacra
00:07 < noncomcinse> je'e
00:20 < noncomcinse> co'o
04:00  * nuzba @uitki: Sandbox - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Sandbox by Guskant - reset [http://bit.ly/1GR3SKr]
04:30  * nuzba @whigbot: Lojban只能玩玩，语法上消歧义没多大意思，因为歧义的主要来源是词汇，况且，都人工成那样了，还非得伪装成自然语言，好像没必要 //tertio: 我以为就算不考虑英语的使用者众多，大家从零开始竞争的话，英语还是要比世界语，逻辑语这些人工语言强太多，就算拿效率，精确性来衡量也是… [http://bit.ly/1FXjJGv]
04:36 < zipcpi> Actually it actually might be possible for xorxes suggestion to still work without touching LI, although I don't know how he philosophically feels about that
04:36 < zipcpi> D'oh I used actually twice x.x
04:37 < zipcpi> We will definitely lose xy pa though
04:37 < zipcpi> And have to use xy xipa
04:39 < gocti> ju'o lo nu curmi va'o tau ma'oi LI je na curmi va'o lo drata cu nu zukte lo fatne be lo ro pu se zukte
04:40 < zipcpi> Or we could revert to my idea of defining new PA :p
04:42 < zipcpi> de'i li *nai'a renopamu *mai'i xa *dei'i pa *cai'a paso *mei'u vopa *sei'u cino
04:42 < gocti> ko kurti gi fau bo finti ci'i cnino cmavo be ma'oi vu'u
04:43 < zipcpi> u'i
04:43 < zipcpi> xu la .kurtis. ba cmibi'o BSFK
04:43 < gocti> .a'o ca da K vitke lo se .irci ja lo mriste vu'o li'o
04:55 < zipcpi> doi gocti xu do me la selckiku
04:56 < gocti> na ku
04:56 < zipcpi> mi na djuno tu'a loi alta cmene pe lo jbopre
04:57 < gocti> lo nu junbi'o cu barda nunli'u
04:57 < gocti> .i za'a la selckiku cu canci la jbosnu ku ji'a
04:58 < gocti> .i .a'o ca da jungau ma'a lo du'u mo kau no'oi .a'o na dukse co se badri
05:04 < zipcpi> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/orHtMsNO8Sc zau BSFK
05:05 < gleki> lo alta cmene cu mo
05:06 < zipcpi> la .kurtis. ku noi velcki tcelujgau i'au zo'o
05:06 < gocti> alternativa ru'a
05:06  * gocti de'a
05:07 < gleki> ma'imi zo alta sinxa lo sraji clani
05:15 < zipcpi> I always thought that is why la alta was called la alta; because it's an alternative dialect
05:15 < gleki> it's high dialect in that it is at higher level of tinkering
05:16 < zipcpi> pe'i nitcu tau lo gentufa be tau la .cekitaujaus.
05:16 < zipcpi> That's funny. In linguistics "high" dialects tend to mean the opposite :p
05:18 < gleki> it's spoken ni high mountains on the border between the two parts of the island
05:18 < zipcpi> je'e
05:22  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Gleki - /* Names. Choosing a name */ [http://bit.ly/1FoMckO]
05:35 < zipcpi> Oh, doi gocti, I have an idea about BSFK's anthem, based on Voltaire's "When Your Evil"
05:35 < zipcpi> Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with Lojbanic memes
05:35 < zipcpi> Also it won't really be a translation, but a new thing set to the tune
05:36 < zipcpi> So it will require just a little bit more creativity than I can muster at the moment :p
05:36 < zipcpi> Also, it has to be in cekitaujau. But I'm not too familiar with that dialect :p
05:37 < zipcpi> Maybe we can talk to la selpahi
05:50 < zipcpi> Some of us might need alternate villainous BSFK personas since they're already part of the BPFK. So maybe la selpa'i can be la selxei. Or maybe he'd prefer to use la omni for that :p
06:31 < gleki> xypa and xyxipa mean different things
06:31 < Christa627> So, if everything I say in Lojban is logged, does that mean that if I speak English it's not?
06:31 < gleki> officially no
06:31 < gleki> well, publicly it'snot logged
06:31 < Ilmen> coi
06:32 < Ilmen> Christa627: English discussions aren't recorded publicly (although it may be recorded by the client of various IRC users)
06:33 < Christa627> I don't know what xypa or xyxipa mean, so that observation doesn't do much for me.
06:33 < gocti> fhjakhfkjdshfakjdshfkjasdhfakjslakdsahfkjdshfkjdsshkjfffkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkfj
06:33 < gocti> su
06:33 < Christa627> gocti : Profound.
06:34 < gocti> PC freezes up, mash on keyboard, see own stupidity
06:34 < Christa627> Ilmen : Thanks.
06:35 < Christa627> gocti : oh, I see. Understandable.
06:37 < Christa627> I am pondering deeply the first three chapters of "Lojban for Beginners"
06:37 < gocti> mensi: doi zipcpi mi za'o troci tau lo nu pa da gentufa ge lo fadni jbobau gi CKTJ .i la'a va'o lo nu fliba cu zbasu lo drata poi gentufa CKTJ po'o
06:37 < mensi> gocti: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.zipcpi.gy. di'a cusku da
06:37 < Christa627> I just got started the day before yesterday.
06:39 < Christa627> Obviously, my name ends with a vowel, and that won't do at all...
06:40 < gleki> well, it depends on morphology.
06:40 < gleki> Something like {la krista} might work
06:41 <@Broca> I suppose taking away the final vowel isn't an option ...
06:41 < Christa627> @Broca  : No...
06:42 < Christa627> The book recommends adding s, but I don't really like how that sounds.
06:43 < Christa627> @Broca : not in this case, anyway.
06:43 < gleki> other words like lujvo and gismu and fu'ivla can also work as names
06:43 < Christa627> like, "gleki"?
06:44 < gleki> yep
06:44 <@Broca> But if you're using brivla names only for their sound, I find it a bit jocular.
06:45 <@Broca> That is, I'd expect "la krista" only for someone you might also call Believe-Stay.
06:47 < Christa627> Well, anyway, I was thinking of going by "kristan."; would that sound normal?
06:47 < gleki> fine
06:47 < Christa627> "la kristan.", more precisely ...
06:49 <@Broca> That would sound very normal; n is the second choice as an arbitrarily added final consonant.
06:50 < Christa627> @Broca : Good, now I can move on to other concerns.
06:51 < Steffmeistro> Considering what the name Christa derives from you may event want an s there;)
06:51 < Steffmeistro> even*
06:51 < Christa627> but apparently one can't have a period in one's IRC name...
06:52 < Steffmeistro> i.e. Christos
06:53 <@Broca> You can't have an apostrophe either, so it's kind of inconvenient.
06:53 <@Broca> It's not obligatory to write periods in any case.
06:53 < Christa627> Steffmeistro: But I'm not Christos, so...
06:54 < Steffmeistro> Well not Christ
06:54 < Christa627> Steffmeistro : far from it.
06:54 < Steffmeistro> Christa is from Christos meaning "anointed/chosen one"
06:55 < Steffmeistro> Ah you thought I meant the name derived from Jesus Christ directly
06:56 < Christa627> @Broca : The people who made the rules about what characters you can have in an IRC nick must not like Lojbanists. :-(
06:58 < la_kristan> Steffmeistro: If I'm a "chosen one", I must be chosen for a pretty odd niche...
06:58 < Steffmeistro> Do you really want the "la" as part of your name?
06:59 < la_kristan> Well, if I do /me it might be useful.
07:00 < Steffmeistro> Well what I meant is that Christa derives from the greek word Christos, so I was thinking adding an s to get kristas would make it closer to its "origin". But that's just me;)
07:01 < Steffmeistro> Well true
07:02  * la_kristan tavla fo le glico
07:02 < la_kristan> Is that sentence correct?
07:02 < Ilmen> It is
07:03 < la_kristan> whew!
07:03 < la_kristan> my staying up till 2 am has paid off! :-P
07:04 < Steffmeistro> Studying lojban all night?;)
07:05 < la_kristan> Yeah.
07:06 < la_kristan> Crazy, I know.
07:06 < la_kristan> Now I'm going to be an emotional basketcase all day :-(
07:08 < Steffmeistro> .oidai
07:09 < Steffmeistro> (Aka, well that sucks)
07:11 < la_kristan> Steffmeistro : Yeah, I figured that's what that was.  "dai" was in one of the 7 lojban lessons I was reading in the middle of the night.
07:12 < la_kristan> But then I had to recall what it meant...
07:12 < Steffmeistro> Ah. Didn't know if you had learned it yet
07:13 < la_kristan> because when one reads seven lojban lessons in a row in the middle of the night, it's hard to remember it distinctly.
07:14 < la_kristan> I don't do very well unless I write it down; that helps a lot.
07:14 < gleki> la_kristan: you may also try other resources mw.lojban.org/papri/Learning
07:15 < Steffmeistro> I see. A question, do you write things down in your native language?
07:15 < Steffmeistro> I find it a lot more helpful to translate it to my own
07:15 < gleki> write down for what?
07:16 < gleki> ah, i see. yeah, you may even try translating the whole text into your native language.
07:16 < gleki> what is it your native language btw?
07:16 < la_kristan> Well, most of what I'm writing down right now are answers to exercises, and definitions copied from the pdf.
07:16 < la_kristan> American English.
07:16 < gleki> heh
07:17 < Steffmeistro> Ah heh
07:17 < la_kristan> heh?
07:17 < Steffmeistro> Well not much point in translating stuff then
07:18 < Steffmeistro> Like resources or example sentences
07:18 < la_kristan> Not from English, albeit British English...
07:19 < la_kristan> I also know toki pona; it seems to be having some propedeutic value.
07:19 < Steffmeistro> Well my native language being swedish is a bit more different;)
07:20 < gleki> one day i will write a convert from strict version toki pona to lojban
07:21 < la_kristan> lojban "cu" and toki pona "li" are quite similar, as far as I can tell.
07:22 < la_kristan> Oh, I did translate; I copied the word "coloured" as "colored" :-P
07:22 < gleki> sometimes "li" acts as {gi'e} in Lojban.
07:22 < Steffmeistro> What does "li" do in toki pona?
07:23 < gleki> ona li pona li lili = It is good and is small.
07:24 < la_kristan> Steffmeistro : It comes before the "verb" (for lack of a better word).
07:24 < la_kristan> gleki : I see. I haven't learned gi'e yet.
07:24 < gleki> it comes before each selbri except for pronouns like "mi" and "sina" (={do})
07:25 < gleki> ona li pona li lili = ra cu xamgu gi'e cmalu
07:25 < la_kristan> mi nasa tan ni: mi lape ala.
07:26 < gleki> this is what i cant translate to lojban because prepositions can't be separated from seltau in toki pona
07:26 < la_kristan> jan Kulisa li nasa tan ni: ona li lape ala.
07:28 < la_kristan> "jan Kulisa" is what I go by in toki pona.
07:29 < la_kristan> I have to collect a different spelling for my name for every language I learn...
07:31  * nuzba @nooyosh: @kigojun つ https://twitter.com/nooyosh/statuses/529505947429785600 [http://bit.ly/1HGPCA1]
07:31  * nuzba @nooyosh: @kigojun ｱｯ…… https://twitter.com/nooyosh/statuses/1127180264280064 [http://bit.ly/1SQpawn]
07:32 < la_kristan> Christa (English) , Krista (Esperanto), Crista (Spanish) , jan Kulisa (toki pona), Криста (Russian) , and now la kristan.
07:33 < la_kristan> And when I learn Korean, I'll probably have to add another one...
07:33 < gleki> i think "ku" was originally banned in toki pona
07:34 < b_jonas> gleki: how about {se}?
07:34 < gleki> b_jonas: ?
07:35 < gleki> syllable "ku" was illegal in toki pona
07:35 < la_kristan> I've heard of "ko" in toki pona, but never "ku"...
07:35 < b_jonas> oh, you mean the syllable "ku", not the word
07:35 < la_kristan> so it must be...
07:35 < b_jonas> also, what, wasn't it "ti" that was banned in toki pona?
07:36 < la_kristan> Yeah, I think I heard about that...
07:36 < la_kristan> Because it was difficult for Koreans to say, or something.
07:38 < gleki> hm, true http://www.pineight.com/tokipona/tpreview.html
07:38 < la_kristan> Anyway, I have to go; my phone battery is dying, and I have to get out of bed...
07:39 < la_kristan> Thank you all!
07:40 < la_kristan> o//
07:57 < Ilmen> .o'u bu'o lo nu mi co'e la nu jansu cu tolcfa co'a .i la .xorxes. ca'o co'a jinga
07:58 < Ilmen> ŭe nai
08:34 < quintus> coi ro do
08:47 < gleki> quintus: coi
08:50 < quintus> .i lo mi gugypau cu glare .oi
08:52 < gleki> lo mi co'e cu ji'a glare
08:59 < quintus> .i lo crisa fi la .virginia. cu zmadu lo mi se bavykri
09:00 < quintus> .i go'i fi lo ka glare
09:02 < gleki> lo crisa be fi la virginiias cu na jai se kanpe
09:14 < Mateon1> Is it possible to omit a sumti that's in between what you want to specify? For example, I would like to use klama, and specify x1 - object, x2 - destination, and x5 - means of transport, but leave the rest out. How would I do that?
09:15 < quintus> you have two options: zo'e (and company) or skipping arguments explicitly
09:15 < gleki> yeah, e.g.
09:16 < gleki> {mi klama fi la paris} = I am coming from Paris.
09:16 < gleki> this solution with explicitly marking x1,x2,x3 ... is what is usually used.
09:19 < quintus> there's also the option to swap the x1 with some other place, which you can do with the cmavo in selma'o SE
09:20 < quintus> {la .paris. se klama} = (unspecified) goes to paris
09:20 < Mateon1> Ah, alright, I think I understand. So I would say: mi klama la paris fu la karce - right?
09:20 < quintus> {la .paris. cu se klama} rather
09:20 < quintus> Mateon1: indeed
09:30 <@xalbo> {lo karce}, not {la karce} (unless you mean the thing named "Car").
09:31 < zipcpi> Hi. Who's our student? :p
09:31 < mensi> zipcpi: cu'u la'o gy.gocti.gy.: mi za'o troci tau lo nu pa da gentufa ge lo fadni jbobau gi CKTJ .i la'a va'o lo nu
09:31 < mensi> fliba cu zbasu lo drata poi gentufa CKTJ po'o | 2015-06-01T13:37:07.886Z
09:31 <@xalbo> quintus
09:42 < ldlework> zipcpi: (ta'o xu troci tu'a la valsi vinju bu'u la jbogu'e)
09:43 < zipcpi> vinju ki'a
09:45 < zipcpi> coi durka
09:46 < zipcpi> coi me'o dy u'y ry ky a'y vo re jenai lo'u dy u'y ry ky a'y vo re le'u do'u zo'o
09:46 < zipcpi> .y. sa'ai la'e me'o le'ai
09:51 < ldlework> zipcpi: la valsi vinju se finti mi
09:51 < ldlework> cu
09:54 < zipcpi> ma smuni
09:56 < ldlework> ko catlu
09:58 < zipcpi> Can you see any chat messages from other "region"s?
10:00 < zipcpi> u'e i'e
10:04 < ldlework> zipcpi: I think I enabled the module that does that
10:07 < ldlework> zipcpi: do you like it?
10:08 < zipcpi> i'e
10:08 < zipcpi> mi nelci
10:09 < ldlework> ui
10:10 < ldlework> I need to create a tutorial on how to take an empty one and fill it with words/scenes
10:10 < ldlework> So other people can make other vlaji'u for other sets of words
10:10 < gleki> xu do'o kelci la mainkraft
10:11 < zipcpi> mi puzu kelci
10:11 < ldlework> mi'u
10:11 < gleki> lo turni cu permite lo ka traduki la mainkraft lo lojbo
10:12 < ldlework> ua i'e
10:12 < zipcpi> lo turni be ma
10:12 < gleki> lo turni be my
10:12 < zipcpi> la mainkraft ku xu
10:12 < ldlework> li'a
10:12 < zipcpi> ua
10:12 < gleki> i ku'i mi na certu i ki'u bo mi na kelci i se ki'u bo mi na traduki
10:13 < zipcpi> ua
10:13 < zipcpi> mi ka'e troci
10:14 < gleki> https://crowdin.com/project/minecraft/jbo
10:14 < gleki> i ku'i lo ca te traduki na prane
10:14 < gleki> i ji'a na mulno
10:14 < gleki> vau za'adai
10:19 < zipcpi> la nu kunkakpa je zbasu .y.
10:19 < zipcpi> dukse ru'e clani
10:19 < gleki> lu nu kakpa li'u xamgu cmene vau pe'i
10:20 < zipcpi> la nunkakpa
10:21 < gleki> to mi se pluka lo ka na finti lo cnino valsi toi la nu kakpa
10:21 < zipcpi> mi jimpe .iku'i mi na nelci lo .y. za'e kalri brirebla
10:21 < mensi> mi xebni
10:22 < zipcpi> ka'eru'e nabmi co gerna
10:24 < ldlework> gleki: I built a thing inside la jboguhe - its like a little platform with a sign
10:24 < ldlework> gleki: when you click the sign a word appears on the sign
10:25 < ldlework> on the platform a little 3D scene dipicting the word appears
10:25 < ldlework> say, a half-transparent cube, with a red ball inside for "nenri"
10:25 < ldlework> and floating above the ball it says "le bolci cu nenri le kubli"
10:25 < ldlework> As you click the sign, the word and little 3D scene changes
10:25 < ldlework> So far I have a dozen or so spatial relation words
10:28 < ldlework> pretty cool right?
10:29 < zipcpi> ie
10:31 < gleki> ldlework: la'acu'i
10:32 < ldlework> gleki: u'e do xebni mi je lo se zukte be mi zo'o
10:33 < gleki> ldlework: sa'u mi zukcfu lo drata
10:34 < gleki> ldlework: i ji'a do na pilno lo mi tutci i zo'o se ki'u bo mi na pilno lo do tutci
10:34 < ldlework> le du'u go'i cu srana lo ka cinri fa lo se zukcfu be mi
10:34 < ldlework> xu
10:35 < ldlework> gleki: that's what I figured it was
10:36 < gleki> ldlework: mi pu zo'onmo i sa'u mi favgau lo drtaa ke ctuca tutci
10:36 < Mateon1> I think I might have found an issue on the jbovlaste.lojban.org dictionary, I did a search for Match substrings: "sumti place", it returned a en->jbo "sumti place ?", that when clicked results in an invalid query page.
10:37 < zipcpi> lo'e cifnu be lo ka remna cu altrici
10:37 < gleki> i ba'e do pu xusra lo du'u naku ro da ka'e pilno lo do tutci i ja'o lo drata tutci cu jai sarcu
10:38 < zipcpi> (Actually I wonder if species places should actually accept a ka. Kinda like how I defined x2 of kenmono)
10:38 < gleki> Mateon1: you may try using alternative frontends to jbovlaste mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/index.html but thanks for reporting the issue!
10:40 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/soi%27a?bg=1;langidarg=2 ua
10:40 < ldlework> gleki: I do use the wiki fwiw
10:41 < gleki> i added the issue https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/174
10:41 < ldlework> And I think the wiki's level of quality is absolutely fantastic
10:41 < ldlework> gleki: I hope that helps
10:41 < gleki> ldlework: the wiki is not mine btw. it's mostly guskant who knows almost all now
10:41 < zipcpi> soi'a mrena'u cu na'e frinyna'u
10:41 < gleki> my main projects are La Bangu and sutysisku.
10:42 < gleki> even muplis is not my project no matter what the wiki says
10:43 < ldlework> gleki: ah, I just disagree with some of the content of La Bangu, not the project itself.
10:43 < ldlework> Its written very nicely.
10:44 < ldlework> Not sure what sutysisku is, unless that's another cmene for la sutsis
10:44 < zipcpi> Content?
10:44 < zipcpi> Oh it's his fork of sutsis. He renamed it to avoid Google clashing
10:44 < ldlework> I forget what at this point, I just remember disagreeing with some of the method.
10:44 < ldlework> Like its not how or what I would teach.
10:44 < ldlework> But that's not a fundamental critique. It would suck if we all had the same style.
10:45 < gleki> ldlework: yes, its my fork of sutsis. sutsis is rictic'es original project. As for La Bangu pls report issues anywhere
10:45 < zipcpi> lol I've jokingly compared it to how you can tell how old someone is in the PRC by how they are taught to use their language :p
10:46 < gleki> ldlework: if you disagree with the first three features of La Bangu then i can do nothing. it's just what it is. For other methods we have Waves, CLL, ldlework, jbogu'e, Glek's slides, selpa'is paid lessons. http://mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu
10:46 < quintus> je'e doi xalbo
10:47 < zipcpi> Lojban is flexible enough to permit certain "dialectal features" such as common word ordering, which famyma'o you use and which you tend to avoid, and so on and so forth
10:49 < zipcpi> Hmm... on Reddit some nintadni seem to be trying to learn from the CLL... they still haven't seemed to be aware of dotside
10:49 < zipcpi> I'm kinda wondering how much to tell them
10:50 < gleki> only by modofying google results
10:50 < gleki> modifying
10:51 < zipcpi> Huh now I can't seem to find it. Maybe it wasn't on Reddit
10:51 < zipcpi> mabla ke source amnesia
10:52 < quintus> .i xu la .xalgo. pu nitcu mi
10:52 < gleki> en: altrici
10:52 < mensi> altrici = x1 is altricial, requires nourishment, a baby, infant |>>> organism soon after hatching or being born at such
10:52 < mensi> stage of development when it is incapable of moving around on its own. See also prekoci, verba, makcu |>>>
10:52 < mensi> gleki
10:52 < gleki> en: prekoci
10:52 < mensi> prekoci = x1 is precocial, young live being soon after birth that doesn't require special care due to being relatively
10:52 < mensi> mature |>>> organism soon after birth or hatching that is relatively mature and mobile and doesn't need special care.
10:52 < mensi> See also altrici, makcu |>>> gleki
10:53 < gleki> Since the semantics of {cifnu} has been clarified recently i added these two.
10:53 < zipcpi> je'e
10:53 < zipcpi> Insisting on the "helpless" definition is like scientists insisting on the "Hemiptera" definition of "bug", pe'i
10:54 < gleki> those two words are easier to remember for more people.
10:54 < zipcpi> If we do that we'd have to make a new word that just meant "earliest stage of life"
10:54 < zipcpi> So yeah, i'esai
10:54 < zipcpi> zau BSFK
10:55 < zipcpi> coi .zarutiian.
10:56 < gleki> lo nu finti lo fu'ivla na steci BSFK
10:57 < zipcpi> I'm just saying the BSFK approves, not that the BSFK had anything to do with it :p
11:00 < ctefa`o> coiru'e
11:00 < zipcpi> coi
11:00 < gleki> jb:prenu
11:00 < mensi> prenu = prenu — x1(entity)  is a person
11:00 < mensi> :lo prenu — person.
11:00 < mensi> :xo prenu ca zvati lo bu'u kumfa — How many people are in this room now?
11:00 < mensi> :Comment: lo remna is human. In fairy tales and fantastic stories animals and alien beings from other planets can be
11:00 < mensi> called lo prenu - persons.
11:00 < mensi> :Related words: nanmu, ninmu, remna, zukte, sevzi
11:01 < gleki> ^ explanation of why not remna is added
11:02 < zipcpi> I agree. "prenu" = "sapient" being, however you want to define that
11:02 < ctefa`o> You mean sentient?
11:02 < zipcpi> No, I distinguish between sentient and sapient
11:03 < ldlework> i'e
11:03 < ctefa`o> Right, just checked what sapient actually means;)
11:06 < zipcpi> xyy'y I want a word that means "BSFK-ish"
11:06 < zipcpi> zbusufukukai
11:07 < zipcpi> exp: +s zbusufukukai
11:07 < mensi> (CU [Z:zbusufukukai VAU])
11:08 < zipcpi> exp: +s baspofaskai
11:08 < mensi> (CU [PU:ba L:spofaskai] VAU)
11:08 < zipcpi> oi
11:09 < zipcpi> exp: +s zbusfukai
11:09 < mensi> (CU [L:zbusfukai VAU])
11:10 < zipcpi> Hah if two-letter rafsi were enterable I'd just use busfazyka or something :p
11:11 < durka42> ma fasnu
11:11 < ctefa`o> How about making a bpfk cmavo to indicate the text conforms to the latest bpfk guidelines/standards?;)
11:11 < durka42> lu BPFK jo'au li'u
11:11 < zipcpi> Trying to come up with a word that means "BSFK-ish"
11:11 < durka42> "fanza" zo'o zo'onai
11:12 < zipcpi> "ckaji" -> "kai" is often used as Lojban "-ish", e.g. "lobykai", but a lujvo would be too long
11:12 < zipcpi> So it'd have to be a zi'evla
11:12 < ctefa`o> jo'au?
11:12 < ctefa`o> jo'a?
11:13 < durka42> en:jo'au
11:13 < mensi> jo'au = [MAI] change version/dialect of parser
11:13 < zipcpi> jo'au is a new cmavo; it indicates the version/dialect of the text
11:13 < ctefa`o> Huh, not showing up in vlasisku
11:13 < ctefa`o> Very new?
11:13 < zipcpi> Vlasisku has'nt been updated in a while
11:13 < ctefa`o> Oh
11:14 < zipcpi> durka42: Well, it's mostly because I often talk about how "BSFK-ish" a particular proposal or action is :p
11:15 < ctefa`o> So jbovlaste is what I should use then?
11:16 < zipcpi> Except jbovlaste doesn't have a good search feature
11:16 < zipcpi> You can use sutysisku
11:16 < zipcpi> But I find searching for English words there still causes some hiccups
11:17 < zipcpi> But yeah JVS is useful if you really want to see if a word is actually defined at all
11:17 < zipcpi> Though but then there are a lot of words from La Gleki's La Bangu project that haven't been added yet
11:17 < zipcpi> It's all a work in progress lol
11:18 < durka42> I have an updated instance of vlasisku at my website
11:18 < durka42> probably hasn't been updated in a week or two though…
11:18 < durka42> needs automatic updates
11:18 < zipcpi> ie
11:19 < zipcpi> I've use "baurspokai" once
11:20 < zipcpi> Also I'm not sure what -kai words Lojban already has
11:20 < ldlework> We should dockerize the lojban softwares
11:20 < zipcpi> Not even lobykai/jbokai has been added. Tsk tsk
11:22 < ctefa`o> "La Gleki's La Bangu Project" mo
11:22 < durka42> vlaste: *kai
11:22 < vlaste> ckaji = x1 has/is characterized by property/feature/trait/aspect/dimension x2 (ka); x2 is manifest in x1.
11:22 < zipcpi> Huh kai-lujvo tend to only take one place... interesting
11:22 < durka42> hmph
11:22 < gleki> .w sapient
11:22 < phenny> sapient — noun: 1. (chiefly science fiction) An intelligent, self-aware being — adjective: 1. Attempting to appear wise or discerning, 2. (dated) Possessing wisdom and discernment; wise, learned
11:22 < durka42> vlaste: type:lujvo *kai
11:22 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/type%3Alujvo+%2Akai
11:22 < durka42> hmph
11:22 < ldlework> do we have a word for sapient?
11:22 < zipcpi> gleki: I mean sense 1
11:22 < zipcpi> Technically it's {prenu} :p
11:22 < gleki> li'a
11:23 < gleki> then "self-aware" is the only gloss for prenu
11:23 < ldlework> nah, sapience is nessecary for prenu-ship, but prenu-ship goes further
11:23 < gleki> because "person" is also {lo se krali}
11:23 < ldlework> sapience describes a characteristic of a prenu
11:23 < zipcpi> Hm true
11:23 < gleki> prenu = sef-aware+ se krali?
11:24 < ldlework> I think prenu is probably made of many nessecary conditions
11:24 < ldlework> I doubt there are just one or two sufficient conditions
11:25  * zipcpi looks at tijlan's definition of krali
11:26 < durka42> en:krali
11:26 < mensi> krali = x1 (NU) is a legal/moral entitlement of x2 (individual/mass) by standard x3. x2 is a legal person.
11:26 < durka42> lo kagni cu se krali fi lo merko kambebna .i lo kagni na prenu
11:26 < ldlework> I think krali is the consequence of personhood
11:26 < ldlework> It doesn't give rise to it
11:26 < zipcpi> Hmm... I somewhat disagree with his lujvo choice for positive and negative rights. As I understand it "positive rights" don't involve being "permitted" for anything, but rather a statement of a right to *receive* some good/benefit from the government/society
11:27 < durka42> "legal person" has nothing at all to do with "person"
11:27 <@xalbo> What does {prenu} mean to you, other than "sapient"? Or, to put it another way, what would qualify for one and not the other?
11:27 < zipcpi> But given my political background any lujvo I construct would probably be under protest
11:27 < ldlework> durka42: ie
11:27 < ldlework> xalbo: its fair
11:28 < gleki> for me {lo prenu} is what my def. says :P
11:28 < zipcpi> I do not really look forward to political discussion in Lojban, really
11:29 < gleki> prenu are humans and other beings in confederation with the earth
11:29 < durka42> lb:prenu
11:29 < mensi> prenu = prenu — x1(entity)  is a person
11:29 < mensi> :lo prenu — person.
11:29 < mensi> :xo prenu ca zvati lo bu'u kumfa — How many people are in this room now?
11:29 < mensi> :Comment: lo remna is human. In fairy tales and fantastic stories animals and alien beings from other planets can be
11:29 < mensi> called lo prenu - persons.
11:29 < mensi> :Related words: nanmu, ninmu, remna, zukte, sevzi
11:29 < durka42> well
11:29 < gleki> i think im gonna remove this "lb:" prefix.
11:29 < durka42> that's a glossword not a definition :p
11:31 < durka42> gleki: replacing it, or you don't like searching the pavypapryvlaste anymore?
11:31 < gleki> see the comment
11:31 < gleki> LIVLABOT: "jb:" is not the only prefix for La Bangu dictionary
11:31 < gleki> oops
11:31 < gleki> LIVLABOT: "jb:" is now the only prefix for La Bangu dictionary
11:32 < gleki> probably mensi should autoupload it to the wiki
11:33 < zipcpi> We'd probably won't even use the same words; using lujvo that we believe expresses what we think, and using much-less-flattering lujvo for the opposing side. Then again, maybe that could be somewhat enlightening :p
11:33 < zipcpi> But yeah I don't really look forward to it x.x
11:35 < zipcpi> Quoth Wikipedia:
11:35 < zipcpi> To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is prohibited from acting upon Adrian in some way regarding x. In contrast, Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian
11:35 < zipcpi> ; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian.
11:35 < durka42> yeah well I have a positive right to x against YOUR FACE
11:35  * gleki sisti lo ka tcidu vau gi'e menli spoja
11:35 < durka42> are Adrian and Clay like Alice and Bob?
11:36 < gocti> #REKTO
11:36 < zipcpi> I have no idea lol
11:36 < gocti> gleki: sisti lo ka [tcidu vau gi'e menli spoja]
11:37 < gleki> exp: sisti lo ka tcidu vau gi'e menli spoja
11:37 < mensi> (CU [sisti {lo <ka (¹[CU {tcidu vau}] [gi'e {CU <menli spoja> VAU} VAU]¹) KEI> KU} VAU])
11:37 < zipcpi> I'm just disagreeing with "crukrali" for positive rights, because it doesn't involve being *permitted*
11:37 < gleki> i disagree with using {curmi} ...
11:37 < gocti> zo srakrali la'a
11:38 < zipcpi> gleki: What do you use instead? "e'ande"?
11:38 < gleki> or permite
11:39 < zipcpi> Definition?
11:39 < gleki> en: e'ande
11:39 < mensi> e'ande = x1 grants permission to/gives their consent to x2 to do/be x3 (ka) |>>> See also e'a, curmi |>>>
11:39 < mensi> Ilmen
11:39 < zipcpi> I mean permite
11:39 < gleki> jb: permite
11:39 < mensi> permite = permite — x1(entity)  allows, permits  x2(entity)  to do  x3(property of x2)
11:39 < mensi> :lo permite — who allows. lo se permite — what is allowed.
11:39 < mensi> :e'o do permite mi lo ka tcidu lo cukta ba lo nu do mo'u tcidu ri — Please, allow me to read the book after you finish
11:39 < mensi> reading it.
11:39 < mensi> :le rirni pu permite le verba lo ka kelci bu'u le panka — The parent let the child play in the park.
11:39 < mensi> :Related words: curmi, rinju, banzu, ralte, jimte, jaspu, zifre
11:39 < gleki> same za'adai
11:40 < zipcpi> Ah, but there's a subtle difference
11:40 < gleki> lo se permite — what is allowed. <-- error
11:40 < zipcpi> Both those involve a subject
11:40 < zipcpi> While curmi may not involve an object
11:40 < zipcpi> *sorry I meant object
11:40 < zipcpi> Like if I "allow a rock to fall"
11:40 < zipcpi> {curmi} would fit better than {e'ande} or {permite}
11:41 < zipcpi> Besides for making lujvo {curmi} is more convenient
11:41 < gleki> jb: curmi
11:41 < mensi> curmi = curmi — x1(entity)  lets  x2(clause)  happen; x1 makes x2 possible
11:41 < mensi> :lo saske cu curmi lo nu jimpe lo munje — Science allows understanding the world.
11:41 < mensi> :le canko cu curmi lo nu lo vifne vacri cu pagre — The window permits the passage of the fresh air.
11:41 < mensi> :Related words: permite, rinju, banzu, ralte, jimte, jaspu, zifre
11:44 < gleki> i dont know whats happening to jbovlaste
11:45 < zipcpi> Ah yes those sentences are also instructive
11:45 < zipcpi> Rewriting them as {e'ande} and {permite} just feels wrong :p
11:47 < durka42> gleki: what seems to be happening?
11:47 < gleki> mensi downloads broken xml dumps
11:47 < gleki> from it
11:47 < durka42> ue
11:48 < zipcpi> exp: +s zbusufukai
11:48 < mensi> (CU [Z:zbusufukai VAU])
11:48 < zipcpi> doi durkavore pei
11:48 < durka42> maybe someone put in some bad unicode?
11:48 < durka42> zipcpi: sure why not
11:48 < durka42> camxes: broda lo sumti ba'a xi re
11:48 < camxes> (broda [lo {<sumti ba'a> <xi re BOI>} KU] VAU)
11:48 < durka42> camxes: broda lo sumti xi re
11:48 < camxes> (broda [lo {sumti <xi re BOI>} KU] VAU)
11:49 < durka42> zipcpi: see above
11:49 < durka42> {xi} doesn't attach to attitudinals
11:49 < durka42> it reaches through them
11:50 < zipcpi> oi
11:50 < zipcpi> ... what should I use then
11:50 < zipcpi> I know there's {kanpe}
11:51 < gleki> okay, for today i stop trying to update mensi
11:51 < gleki> zipcpi: see {mai}
11:51 < durka42> a new selma'o that's a mashup of XI and TOIhE would be required to have such a cmavo
11:51 < durka42> at least as far as I am aware
11:51 < zipcpi> bu'a'a'a'a
11:51 < durka42> isn't there a MOI for this?
11:51 < durka42> vlaste: class:MOI
11:51 < vlaste> 6 results: cu'o, mei, moi, si'e, va'e, moi'o
11:51 < zipcpi> mutce zbusufukai pe'i
11:51 < durka42> vlaste: cu'o
11:51 < vlaste> cu'o = convert number to probability selbri; event x1 has probability (n) of occurring under cond. x2.
11:51 < durka42> not that anybody has ever used it, u'i
11:53 < durka42> a measly 146 hits in the corpus
11:54 < gleki> i used {fau PA da} to specify probabilities although {da} might be wrong here.
11:55 < gleki> UI on top of {fau PA da} can give necessary irrealis tones to it although i only tried {da'i}
11:55 < durka42> isn't that sorta limited to {fau su'o da} and {fau ro da} though
11:55 < durka42> would you really say {fau pimu lo ro da}
11:56 < durka42> I'm thinking about {lo nu carvi ca lo bavlamdei cu pi mu cu'o}
11:56 < gleki> ah, i lost mensi :( what was that ba'axi?
11:56 < durka42> go look it up on JVS like the rest of us plebes :p
11:56 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/zbusufukai
11:57 < zipcpi> My attempt was to make ba'axipimu mean "I expect with probability .5"
11:57 < durka42> I expect a Wuzzy-comment in 3…2…1…
11:57 < zipcpi> Sort of like "mi kanpe fi li pi mu fe lo nu ..."
11:57 < durka42> fi'o te kanpe?
11:58 < zipcpi> Doesn't say {makau kanpe} :p
11:58 < durka42> true
11:58 < gocti> zo xoi ka'e plixau
11:58 < gleki> i suggested MAI because its free
11:58 < gleki> like ba'a
11:59 < gocti> .i zasti fa ji'a zo bei'e noi zu'u nai cizra
11:59 < gocti> vlaste:bei'e
11:59 < zipcpi> But {mai} has a rather different meaning; not sure I want to overload it that way
11:59 < durka42> vlaste: bei'e
11:59 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/bei%27e
11:59 < gocti> uat
11:59 < durka42> MAI not {mai}
11:59 < zipcpi> Oh
11:59 < zipcpi> ba'ai
11:59 < durka42> zo bei'e nu'o se jbovlastegau
12:00 < durka42> so...
12:00 < zipcpi> Why bei'e?
12:00 < durka42> pimu ba'ai carvi ca lo bavlamdei => mi kanpe fi li pimu fe lo nu carvi ca lo bavlamdei
12:00 < durka42> can I use {pi mu ba'ai dai} to express my conception of your conception of the probability? xD
12:00 < zipcpi> lol
12:01 < gleki> sounds like {la'acu'i}
12:01 < durka42> {la'ai} is taken though :p
12:01 < gleki> piso'iba'ai = la'a
12:01 < durka42> ie
12:01 < gleki> so its da'i+kanpe in UI form
12:02 < gleki> oh, hm, kanpe2 is already of da'i type
12:02 < gleki> i still nu'o added da'i type to my semantic dictionary
12:02 < gleki> i still nu'o added {da'i}-type to my semantic dictionary
12:07 < la_kristan> Hi again.
12:08 < la_kristan> Anybody home?
12:09 < durka42> mi zvati lo xabju be mi
12:09 < durka42> oi
12:09 < durka42> mi zvati lo se xabju be mi
12:09 < la_kristan> .u'i
12:10 < durka42> lo se xabju be mi cu se zvati mi
12:10 < la_kristan> whatever you say...
12:11 < la_kristan> I've been at this only two days.
12:11 < durka42> fi'i
12:13 < durka42> la_kristan: whatcha studying?
12:13 < la_kristan> um, Lojban...
12:14 < la_kristan> and writing all my exercises in a spiral notebook.
12:14 < la_kristan> Whose cover is lamentably blank.
12:16 < la_kristan> It ought to say "Krista's Lojban notebook" on it in Lojban.
12:16 < durka42> I mean, what tutorial/study source are you using
12:16 < durka42> ma ve cilre
12:16 < la_kristan> Lojban for Beginners
12:17 < la_kristan> I mean, "velci befi la lojban. bei loi co'a cirle".
12:17 < durka42> :)
12:17 < durka42> .i'e
12:17 < durka42> that was my first ve cilre, too
12:18 < durka42> though you should know there have been a few small changes to the language since L4B was published
12:18 < durka42> most notably, everyone uses {lo} instead of {le} nowadays
12:18 < la_kristan> Oh? Interesting.
12:19 < durka42> and you can ignore the rules about names including "la"/"lai"/"dai", instead we just put a pause at both the beginning and end of names, and everything works out
12:19 < durka42> those are the main two!
12:19 < lenton> Is Lojban continuously being updated?
12:20 < durka42> I mean
12:20 < durka42> "officially", not really
12:20 < durka42> but it is a used language
12:20 < durka42> so usage customs develop
12:20 < durka42> plus people are always debating proposals :)
12:20 < durka42> armchair linguists as we are
12:21 < la_kristan> oh my!
12:22 < la_kristan> I hope it's not changing *too* drastically!
12:22 < durka42> but it's not like poeple won't understand if you say {la lojban. melbi .i mi nelci le jbobau}, it just sounds a little shakespearean if you know what I mean
12:22 < lenton> Isn't natural evolution a threat to Lojban?
12:23 < durka42> kinda yeah
12:23 < durka42> we have to be careful to keep the grammatical properties that we like
12:23 < durka42> but natural evolution can't really be prevented...
12:23 < la_kristan> I feel confused now... :-(
12:24 < durka42> ma cfipu
12:24 < durka42> I honestly wouldn't worry about it as a learner
12:24 < la_kristan> what does that mean?
12:25 < durka42> when learning Spanish, is it a problem that people invent new technical terms every day? no, you gain some fluency and get up to speed later :)
12:25 < durka42> {ma cfipu} means "what's confusing?"
12:26 < ctefa`o> Kristan, from what I see, most of the developments are for more advanced usages
12:26 < la_kristan> technical terms are one thing, grammar is another
12:26 < ctefa`o> The Basics are more rigid so to speak
12:26 < ctefa`o> Unless something has changed drastically while I was away
12:27 < durka42> {lo} and dotside are part of The Basics, I would say
12:27 < durka42> that's why I mentioned those two
12:27 < durka42> though they are boths imple changes
12:28 < ctefa`o> (Also kristan I am Steffmeistro, just changed my name back;))
12:28 < la_kristan> oh, okay.
12:28 < durka42> ua
12:28 < ctefa`o> I sent you a pm before, you didn't receive it I take it?
12:29 < ctefa`o> If you did nvm about it
12:29 < la_kristan> me? I don't think so...
12:31 < ctefa`o> je'e
12:32 < ctefa`o> If you know what that means
12:33 < la_kristan> no, but I was too busy pondering my notebook cover to care much...
12:34 < ctefa`o> It sort of means "Ok"
12:34 < ctefa`o> Eh actually "Roger that"
12:35 < egrep> "Understood"?
12:36 < la_kristan> It ought to say either "Christa's (kristan.'s) Lojban notebook" or "this is Christa's Lojban notebook" on it in Lojban...
12:36 < ctefa`o> "Acknowledged"
12:36 < lenton> I just started on the introduction to lojban videos on youtube, what's the best learning resource to go onto after them?
12:36 < ctefa`o> "Understood" is..
12:36 < ctefa`o> A sec
12:36 < la_kristan> but I haven't quite worked out how to say that.
12:37 < ctefa`o> Actually it could mean "Understood" as well
12:38 < ctefa`o> Although "mi jimpe" is more specific
12:38 < durka42> lenton: the Wave Lessons get good reviews. or la gleki's Crash Course
12:38 < la_kristan> YouTube? What's the link? I'd like to see too :-)
12:39 < lenton> la_kristan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdcG5iPJpA
12:40 < la_kristan> lenton : Thanks!
12:42 < la_kristan> I can make profound sentences like "mi crino"... :-P
12:42 < durka42> lo crino sidbo cu fengu sipna
12:42 < durka42> whoops
12:43 < durka42> lo skacau ke crino sidbo cu fengu sipna
12:43 < durka42> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
12:43 <@xalbo> Hmm, I always used {vlile sipna} for that quote.
12:44 < la_kristan> And if you don't believe that my sentence is true, just look at my Lernu profile!
12:44 < la_kristan> how 'bout "my hovercraft is full of eels"?...
12:45 <@xalbo> I think it's something like {lo mi varkiclafma'e cu culno lo angila}
12:46 < ldlework> lo mi voikla marce cu culno lo curfi'e
12:46 < ldlework> xalbo: have you visted la jboguhe yet?
12:47 <@xalbo> I have not. I haven't even set up the appropriate clients.
12:47 < ldlework> xalbo: its really easy! I can't wait to show you the stuffs.
12:47 <@xalbo> .i mi kakne lo nu citka lo blaci .i lo se go'i mi na se xrani
12:48 <@xalbo> .i ge'e cai ka'amru lo stedu be mi
12:48 < ldlework> yyy ki'a
12:49 < durka42> I remember {varkiclaflo'i}
12:49 < ldlework> za'a do xalbo
12:49 < durka42> same difference I guess
12:49 <@xalbo> Two other phrases I've seen translated into many languages, "I can eat glass, it doesn't hurt me." and "Oh my god, there's an axe in my head!"
12:49 < ldlework> u'i
12:49 < ldlework> Rough boughs through the trough though
12:49 <@xalbo> durka42: You're right, it was {varkiclaflo'i}. That's what I get for trying to reconstruct it from memory.
12:50 < la_kristan> "Your bear drinks beer" is apparently popular on Duolingo.
12:50 < durka42> they both work
12:50 < ldlework> that's easy tho
12:50 <@xalbo> lo do cribe cu pinxe lo birje
12:51 < durka42> hmm, Duolingo has almost taught me how to say that in German
12:51 < durka42> haven't learned possessives yet
12:52 <@xalbo> Mein bear ist gebieredrinken.
12:52  * xalbo doesn't know a bit of German.
12:52 < durka42> .u'i
12:52 <@xalbo> (Obviously, or I would have capitalized "Bear").
12:53 < durka42> hmm, google translate says the words for "you" and "your" are the same‽
12:53 < durka42> that eliminates a whole _class_ of typos! :p
12:53  * la_kristan ponders the feasability of a Duolingo Lojban course ...
12:53 < durka42> duolingo considers it infeasiable apparently
12:54 < la_kristan> But evidently Klingon is feasible.
12:54 < durka42> I think my experience learning Lojban (and maybe also learning Spanish the traditional way in school) is making it harder to learn German on duolingo, though
12:54 < durka42> I'm like "aaaah there are a million tenses and cases and you're trying to teach me by example! what's the systeeeeem?"
12:54 < la_kristan> Oh, I know that feeling!
12:55 < ldlework> I don't think I will ever try to learn a language without going by way of the grammar..
12:55 < la_kristan> That's why my Spanish is still limited to the present tense.
12:56 < durka42> yeah I think I may need some supplementary material
12:56 < durka42> immersion is nice and all but I could use a good verb chart
12:57 <@xalbo> Yeah, I'm trying to learn French with Rosetta Stone, and it pisses me off in exactly the same way. Don't just give me an example, tell me *why*, dammit!
12:57 < la_kristan> I've been using Rosetta Stone for years, it's fine to start with but I need grammar help!
12:57 <@xalbo> (I've mostly given up, and use Rosetta Stone for pronunciation and practice, but other sources for actually learning.)
12:57 < ldlework> xalbo: i'e
12:57 < ctefa`o> Back.. kristan, you may also like the lojban songs on youtube
12:57 < ldlework> RS is good for getting you to utter things outloud the first time
12:58 < ldlework> ta'o I have been wondering if I should feature the place structure definitions on my valsi viewer
12:58 < la_kristan> And I mostly gave up, and went off and learned Esperanto.
12:58 < ldlework> However, I only know of the english place structures and I'm wondering if that is impolite
12:58 < zipcpi> iicai uecai oicai ka'amru ne'i lo stedu be mi
12:58 < ldlework> Since we actually have some non-english speaking people inside la jbogu'e
12:58 < ldlework> Does anyone know if the whole of the gismu list has been translated to japanese?
12:58 < ctefa`o> Svärje får äver
12:59 < zipcpi> Who doesn't speak English in jbogu'e?
12:59 < ldlework> niftyg
12:59 < zipcpi> Interesting.
12:59 < ldlework> my entire interaction with him has been in lojban which has been fascinating
12:59 < zipcpi> That's why he hangs out at jbosnu
12:59 < durka42> can you just hook it up to the japanese jbovlaste?
12:59 < ldlework> my girlfriend built that 'hot/cold' hide and seek game
12:59 < ldlework> and he didn't understand it at all
13:00 < la_kristan> ctefa`o : I probably would.
13:00 < ldlework> When I explained the rules to him, he was *still* confused because he didn't understand the hot cold metaphor
13:00 < zipcpi> Oh yeah because it's all fu'e pe'a :p
13:00 < ldlework> I realized neither did I.
13:00 < ldlework> What was the other thing...
13:01 < ldlework> some other cultural thing that just couldn't be explained, but I forget now
13:01 < ldlework> oh right
13:01 < zipcpi> You could use {ze'ai jbini} and {ze'ai darno} but then the metaphor is lost. Still though
13:01 < ctefa`o> Kristan: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FZomVOBE5-0
13:01 < ldlework> he took an ingame screenshot of ilmen when ilmen's avatar was hilariously dressed
13:01 < durka42> zipcpi: can't use those words if no lojban definition!
13:01 < ldlework> and I said "illmen, he stole your soul!"
13:01 < ldlework> and this confused niftyg a bit
13:01 < zipcpi> fi'o zilzenba
13:01 < zipcpi> Wait that might not be right
13:02 < la_kristan> ctefa`o : Thanks
13:02 < zipcpi> lo ni... some brika'i... cu zilzenba
13:02 < zipcpi> I don't know the right metalinguistic cmavo to use
13:03 < ctefa`o> fi'e la .kristan.
13:03 < ctefa`o> Ert
13:03 < ldlework> woah, zo su'ei
13:03 < ctefa`o> fi'i la .kristan. *
13:04 < durka42> why did you switch from zei'a/dei'a anyway? ze'ai was taken…
13:04 < zipcpi> lo ni no'a cu zilzenba
13:04 < ldlework> oh nice zei'a is useful
13:04 < zipcpi> The rhyme can be confusing. And ze'ai never caught on
13:04 < zipcpi> The old one that is
13:05 < durka42> true
13:05 < ldlework> zei'a is confusing?
13:05 < zipcpi> against dei'a
13:05 < ldlework> strange
13:05 < zipcpi> It's an information redundancy thing
13:05 < durka42> oh so it's zei'a and de'ai?
13:05 < ctefa`o> ze'ai huh
13:05 < durka42> that's worse, to me :)
13:05 < zipcpi> ze'ai and dei'a
13:05 < durka42> since they _are_ similar
13:05 < ldlework> I like the series-consistency we get sometimes
13:06 < durka42> so they kinda ought to sound similar
13:06 < ldlework> ie
13:06 < la_kristan> .oi YouTube not loading
13:06 < zipcpi> Hmm... I guess now we have 2.5 against Gleki :p
13:06 < ldlework> fi'ure prenu ii
13:06 < zipcpi> Well zei'a is still "booked" and I never downvoted myself
13:07 < zipcpi> So if you prefer that maybe you can use it
13:07 < durka42> heh
13:08 < ldlework> zipcpi: it should be publically editable
13:08 < zipcpi> What should?
13:08 < ldlework> the script driving the game
13:08 < zipcpi> Oh
13:08 < Ilmen> Yet when I was on the hot/cold board with Niftg he did success on his second try
13:09 < zipcpi> Well... he just internalized it I guess?
13:09 < ldlework> Ilmen: ua he said he was confused and couldn't get it
13:09 < Ilmen> Too bad I didn't think to clarify the hold/cold terms; he didn't complain about it at that point
13:09 < ldlework> I wonder which of us showed him first?
13:09 < zipcpi> lo ka glare pe'a cu ka jbini
13:10 < zipcpi> lo ka lenku pe'a cu ka darno
13:10 < Ilmen> But it's an interesting example of how metaphorical metaphors can be opaque to people of other cultural background :)
13:10 < ldlework> zipcpi: too much too read for a semi-realtime game
13:10 < Ilmen> *metaphorical idioms
13:10 < Ilmen> .u'i
13:10 < ldlework> Ilmen: ie
13:10 < zipcpi> But yeah just use jbini/darno
13:11 < ldlework> jibni*
13:11 < zipcpi> Oh
13:11 < Ilmen> or, «jbize'a»/«darze'a»
13:11 < ldlework> speaking of information dedundency
13:11 < zipcpi> I was confused by the rafsi
13:11 < Ilmen> as it's about getting closer/farther
13:11 < ldlework> I agree we should change it
13:11 < ldlework> I can't even justify hot/cold as an english speaker
13:11 < ctefa`o> .oi dai la kristan
13:11 < ldlework> it makes no sense even metaphorically
13:11 < ldlework> u'i
13:11 < Ilmen> (you can be both close to the target and getting farther at the same time)
13:12 < ldlework> Ilmen: ie
13:12 < ctefa`o> Link works for me, must be on your end
13:12 < Ilmen> ldlework: we have the same hot/cold metaphor in French for this specific use
13:12 < ldlework> ua
13:12 < zipcpi> What's the correct brika'i for use for defining sumtcita?
13:12 < Ilmen> doesn't justify it indeed
13:12 < ldlework> u'i
13:12 < zipcpi> I would be done defining zei'a/dei'a by now if I knew what that was
13:13 < Ilmen> brika'i?
13:13 < zipcpi> pro-bridi
13:13 < Ilmen> Sure, but I don't really see what's the relation between brika'i and sumtcita
13:14 < zipcpi> zei'a = zi'o lo ni bu'a cu zenba
13:14 < zipcpi> Except that {bu'a} is probably not right
13:14 < Ilmen> Again, I don't really know what {zi'o zenba} means
13:14 < zipcpi> zi'o just deletes a place
13:15 < Ilmen> I've made the word {zilzena} because {zilze'a} sounded dubious as a regular lujvo
13:15 < durka42> I really don't see how you can know what {zilzena} means if you don't know what {zilze'a} means :p
13:16 < Ilmen> I took a similarly shaped zi'evla but reserving the right to define it without using {zenba} not {zi'o}
13:16 < la_kristan> mi karce le rokci le crino... whatever.
13:16 < zipcpi> $x_1$ (quantity) increases by amound $x_2$
13:16 < Ilmen> durka42: By asking Jbovlaste, for example
13:16 < zipcpi> What's so hard about that
13:16 < durka42> defining it in english doesn't really count
13:16 < Ilmen> jbo: zilzena
13:17 < zipcpi> zi'o just deletes the place. In this case it's because the "experiencer" place isn't useful to us
13:17 < Ilmen> ko cikna doi la mensi
13:17 < mensi> zilzena = fasnu fa su'o poi'i da de poi dubmau da gi'e sumji da x2 zo'u ke'a ge se tolfa'o su'o nu da ckaji x1 gi se
13:17 < zipcpi> Then what about jdika?
13:17 < Ilmen> jbo: zildika
13:17 < durka42> but usage is usage
13:17 < durka42> if we start using {zi'o zenba} with a convenient meaning, then it gains that meaning
13:17 < mensi> fanmo su'o nu de ckaji x1 |>>> srana fa zo zildika .e zo zenba |>>> Ilmen
13:17 < mensi> zildika = fasnu fa su'o poi'i da de poi dubmau da gi'e sumji da x2 zo'u ke'a ge se tolfa'o su'o nu de ckaji x1 gi se
13:17 < durka42> there's no reason to avoid using it out of fear that it *might* mean something else (to who? has anyone used it before?)
13:17 < Ilmen> zipcpi: Actually I define {zenba} from {zilzena}, and not the other way around
13:17 < mensi> fanmo su'o nu da ckaji x1 |>>> srana fa zo zilzena .e zo jdika |>>> Ilmen
13:18 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Well that's kinda what you get when the gismu list was put in a hurry
13:18  * durka42 co'u pante
13:18 < Ilmen> Because actually {zilzena} is simpler than {zenba}
13:18 < Ilmen> so it makes more sense to define the latter from the former
13:19 < la_kristan> usage, ŝmusage... :-(
13:19 < Ilmen> X zenba Y = loni X ckaji Y cu zilzena, basically
13:19 < zipcpi> I don't know. I agree jbojbo definitions are helpful. But we're not writing the Principia Mathematica here
13:19 < zipcpi> Sooner or later you'd run into a loop
13:20 < Ilmen> zipcpi: li'a
13:20 < la_kristan> Oh, I thought we were.
13:20 < zipcpi> u'i
13:20 < Ilmen> Unless we have a language with only one word ("chicken", for instance)
13:20 < Ilmen> or the U language
13:20 < zipcpi> It's {badna} :p
13:20 < Ilmen> %)
13:20 < zipcpi> {badna} is the only useful gismu
13:21 < la_kristan> btw, is there a marker for sarcasm?
13:21 < Ilmen> xo'o
13:21 < Ilmen> there's also zo'o
13:21 < Ilmen> en: vlaji'u
13:21 < mensi> [< valsi jvinu ≈ A word a view] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
13:21 < mensi> vlavin[5878], valvin[5898], vlaji'u[6367], valji'u[6387], vlajvinu[7897], ...
13:21 < zipcpi> Erm, just call it lo valsi jvinu
13:22 < la_kristan> Ilmen : are you talking to me?
13:22 < ldlework> mu'i ma
13:22 < zipcpi> If it's meant to be an educational resource we shouldn't be making nonce lujvo
13:22 < Ilmen> la_kristan: {xo'o} and {zo'o}
13:22 < Ilmen> depending on the exact desired meaning
13:22 < ldlework> zipcpi: je'e, that is what it is named in-world
13:22 < la_kristan> what's the difference?
13:22 < Ilmen> en: zo'o
13:22 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
13:22 < zipcpi> xo'o is "sarcasm", zo'o is "humor"
13:22 < Ilmen> wat
13:23 < Ilmen> vlaste: zo'o
13:23 < vlaste> zo'o = attitudinal modifier: humorously - dully - seriously.
13:23 < Ilmen> vlaste: xo'o
13:23 < vlaste> xo'o = attitudinal modifier: sarcastically - sincerely
13:23 < zipcpi> I'm not sure we have good jbojbo definitions for those yet? Maybe for zo'o. Not sure about xo'o
13:23 < Ilmen> zipcpi: zo'o is based on junri/xalbo
13:23 < durka42> en:badna
13:23 < mensi> badna = x1 is a banana fruit or plant of species x2
13:24 < durka42> xu zo zo'o cu se ke dizlo cmicu'a
13:24 < durka42> en:zo'o
13:24 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
13:24 < durka42> cizra
13:24 < la_kristan> how many species of banana plants are there?
13:24 < durka42> ti'e la mensi cu co'a ta'e cpacu lo spofu ke jbovlaste teryru'e
13:24 < Ilmen> for xo'o, it's maybe ranxi
13:24 < Ilmen> but I'm unsure
13:26 < zipcpi> Eh all plant/animal terms have an x2. Except {remna}; just left off the gismu list I guess
13:26 < la_kristan> hm.
13:27 < zipcpi> We keep the x2 even for things that only refer to one taxonomic "species", like {gerku} or {ci'onme'a}
13:27 < zipcpi> Just for consistency... and it doesn't just mean species, it can also mean "breed", however you want to define that
13:27 < durka42> ca'e do remna la .ne'andertal.
13:27 < durka42> ooh what an insult
13:27 < ldlework> u'i
13:27 < zipcpi> Heh
13:27 < la_kristan> wut?
13:27 < durka42> "you neanderthal!"
13:29 < ldlework> Its too bad there is no collaborative version of Kerbel Space Program
13:29 < durka42> there are 11 hits in the corpus for remna2...
13:29 < zipcpi> :o Kerbal Space Program
13:29 < durka42> a couple of them are mistakes
13:29 < zipcpi> I have that
13:29 < durka42> the first one is the same joke I made :)
13:30 < durka42> really there are 2 results
13:30 < ldlework> zipcpi: I was thinking it'd be cool launch a rocket together, working in lojban
13:30 < ctefa`o> Crashing a lot or crashing less?
13:31 < ldlework> zipcpi: I wonder if we could simulate any sort of rocket like stuff in opensim
13:31 < la_kristan> hi skapata
13:31 < dutchie> i have some vague recollection of some mod that added multiplayer to ksp
13:32 < skapata> coi
13:32 < zipcpi> Yeah but I don't know what we've to do for that :p
13:32 < zipcpi> Dark... something
13:33 < zipcpi> http://d-mp.org/
13:33 < la_kristan> skapata : I'm Christa627, btw.
13:34 < zipcpi> lol I'm still a bit slow in understanding and speaking Lojban. :p
13:34 < zipcpi> Have to look up a lot of words still
13:34 < zipcpi> Especially the new ones
13:35 < la_kristan> zipcpi : and I've only been learning it for two days.
13:35 < la_kristan> brb
13:35 < zipcpi> Haha... I can't tell you how long I've been learning it; because I used to, way back when. Then took a long hiatus
13:36 < ldlework> fi'i la kristan
13:36 < zipcpi> .ie fi'i la .kristan. uai
13:37 < ctefa`o> zipcpi let's start a club;)
13:37 < ldlework> I will definitely do collaborative KSP
13:38 < la_kristan> what's fi'i ?
13:38 < Ilmen> "welcome"
13:38 < ldlework> "welcomeness"
13:38 < Ilmen> la_kristan: You have dictionary bots right here on IRC
13:38 < ldlework> u'i
13:38 < Ilmen> en: coi
13:38 < mensi> 2 da se tolcri: sicni, rinsa
13:38 < dutchie> i'm also a new learner!
13:39 < Ilmen> vlaste: coi
13:39 < vlaste> coi = vocative: greetings/hello.
13:39 < ldlework> fi'i ro cnino tadni!
13:39 < Ilmen> However it seems the usual bot has got a broken dictionary dump lately, so it's better to use Vlaste instead
13:39 < Ilmen> vlaste: fi'i
13:39 < vlaste> fi'i = vocative: hospitality - inhospitality; you are welcome/ make yourself at home.
13:40 < Ilmen> fi'i = hospitality; fi'i nai = inhospitality
13:40 < dutchie> ki'e la .idlework.
13:40 < la_kristan> oh, greetings/hello; I was wanting to know that.
13:40 < dutchie> (did i do it right?)
13:40 < zipcpi> idlework is not a Lojban name :p
13:40 < dutchie> heh, i suppose not
13:40 < Ilmen> ldlework's Lojban name is «cadgu'a»
13:41 < zipcpi> la cadgu'a
13:41 < Ilmen> So you can say «la cadgu'a»
13:41 < ldlework> 'inhospitality' u'e
13:41 < ldlework> 'hostility' e'u
13:42 < ldlework> Ilmen: do we have ponjo translations of all the gismu?
13:42 < Ilmen> ldlework: As far as I know, yes.
13:42 < Ilmen> ja: gismu
13:42 < mensi> gismu = x1 （文字列）は x2 （意味関係）を x3 （項）について表す、 x4 （形態素）からなる語根 |>>> ・大意： 語根 ・読み方： ギスム  ・関連語： gimste, cmavo, cmene, lujvo,
13:42 < mensi> smuni, sumti, tanru, valsi |>>> glekizmiku
13:42 < zipcpi> OK {ba'ai} is now in MAI: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ba'ai
13:43 < ldlework> Ilmen: I wonder how I can display the definitions of the valsi, when we have multiple translations..
13:43 < ldlework> can't display them all obviously
13:43 < ldlework> also
13:43 < Ilmen> In this case, better having a language selector, with Lojban as a default
13:43 < ldlework> I figured out how to /extend/ lsl!
13:44 < ldlework> IE, I can create functions like jbo_define() and have it return the definition of a word you pass it or something
13:44 < ldlework> and then people can use this in their scripts
13:44 < Ilmen> As a kind of shared library ienai pei
13:44 < mensi> ei mi tugni
13:45 < ldlework> ie
13:45 < Ilmen> I haven't touched to LSL yet
13:45 < ctefa`o> la kristan did you get the song to load?
13:45 < ldlework> Ilmen: I recommend looking over the code inside hot/cold
13:45 < la_kristan> no...
13:46 < Ilmen> ma poi selsa'a — which song?
13:46 < ldlework> Ilmen: or just focus on fashion :D
13:46 < zipcpi> I'm still not convinced that defining zei'a and dei'a using zilzena and zildika won't just be more confusing to people like niftyg
13:46 < zipcpi> Than just using zi'o
13:46 < ldlework> we could ask them
13:46 < Ilmen> zipcpi: nothing prevent you to put both in the definition.
13:47 < la_kristan> still just blank window.
13:47 < ctefa`o> Huh. Well can you go on youtube and just search "lojban song"?
13:47 < Ilmen> xxx = zi'o zenba / ....
13:47 < ctefa`o> Or does youtube not work at all for you xu
13:47 < ctefa`o> I mean?
13:47 < Ilmen> jbo: su'oi
13:47 < mensi> su'oi = [PA4] namcu .i ka'e se basti su'o re namcu poi zmajavdu'i li pa .a le se li'erla'i namcu |>>> .i lu su'oi da
13:47 < mensi> li'u du lu na ku ro'oi da na ku li'u .i ko karbi zo su'oi zo su'o |>>> gusnikantu
13:47 < ctefa`o> Err
13:47 < ctefa`o> I mean "?"* ...
13:48 < Ilmen> jbo: suzmeidza
13:48 < mensi> suzmeidza [< suz* mei* dza* ≈ Suz* mei* dza*] = su'oi mo'e x1 da ckaji x2 .i va'i mo'e x1 da pavmei je zilcmi gi'e poi'i
13:48 < mensi> lo ro cmima be ke'a cu ckaji x2 .i va'i lo ro da x1 zilkancu x2 |>>> srana fa zo zilkancu .e zo pavmeidza .e zo kaidza .
13:48 < mensi> e zo suzdza .e zo roldza |>>> Ilmen
13:48 < Ilmen> zipcpi: ^ a good example
13:48 < Ilmen> here there three differently worded definitions separated by ".i va'i"
13:48 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: song is Ca Pa Djedi
13:49 < Ilmen> je'e
13:49 < zipcpi> Is {vasru} good enough to describe the sumti within a sumtcita?
13:49 < Ilmen> I'd use « se lidne »
13:49 < Ilmen> or better, li'erla'i
13:49 < ldlework> zipcpi: if you mark it with pe'a
13:49 < la_kristan> ctefa`o : the site loads, just that page wouldn't load.
13:49 < zipcpi> u'i doi cadgu'a
13:50 < Ilmen> zipcpi: how about just "se sumtcita"?
13:50 < Ilmen> en: sumtcita
13:50 < mensi> [< sumti tcita ≈ An argument a tag] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
13:50 < mensi> sumtcita[7917], su'irtcita[9506], sumtytcita[10047]
13:50 < ctefa`o> Huh
13:50 < zipcpi> pe'ape'ape'ape'afu'epe'ape'ani'oni'oni'ope'a
13:50 < ldlework> u'i
13:50 < ctefa`o> Weird. Just that song won't load?
13:50 < durka42> which song?
13:51 < zipcpi> Ilmen: The problem is that sumtcita's place structure isn't very helpful x.x
13:51 < ctefa`o> Ca Pa Djedi
13:51 < Ilmen> vlaste: sumtcita
13:51 < vlaste> sumtcita = x1 is a sumti tag/[preposition] showing information x2
13:51 < Ilmen> vlaste: tcita
13:51 < vlaste> tcita = x1 is a label/tag of x2 showing information x3.
13:51 < zipcpi> Yeah come on
13:51 < ctefa`o> vlaste: besto
13:51 < vlaste> besto = x1 dons metaphorical asbestos suit x2 to guard against flames x3 on topic x4 from x5, who disagrees with post x6 for reason x7, not realizing that the post was meant to be sent to x8 rather than all of mailing list x9 (default jboste) where it was posted in response to email; x10, whose author wishes selma'o  x11 (default SE) were extended to concisely express
13:51 < vlaste> place  x12 of brivla  x13 (default besto) which has place structure  x14 and too many places because of sadistic whim  x15 of brivla-maker  x16, who also created brivla  x17 which has place structure  x18, and so winds up using too many of cmavo  x19 (default zi'o) in order to make the brivla ( x13) more usable by standard  x20 and wishes they had never heard of the word
13:51 < vlaste> besto for reason  x21, not realizing for reason  x22 that it was suggested sarcastically due to boredom  x23 of person  x24, who is proposing it against better judgement  x25 because it is fun by standard  x26, but still wishes it had as many places as  x27 (default du) for reason  x28, and feels like throwing in epistemology sumti  x29, because he/she knows both that
13:51 < vlaste> gismu  x30 (default besto) has its place structure defined by run-on sentence  x31 and that epistemology sumti are used in gismu  x32 by epistemology  x33, notwithstanding the fact that  x34 actually has a use for besto places  x35 (default 1) through  x36 (default x7) and wishes this weren't an extremely long and stupid joke, longer than joke  x37 and stupider than joke
13:51 < vlaste> x38 but still appreciated by  x39 - a fact which says  x40 about them in the opinion of  x41 - but not seen as even remotely amusing by  x42, who is aware that  x43 has a use for the gismu besto because of  x45
13:51 < Ilmen> zipcpi: then you have "tcita"
13:51 < ctefa`o> Ooops
13:51 < la_kristan> it wouldn't load when I clicked the link here in that chat.
13:52 < ctefa`o> Sorry! Didn't think it would show the whole thing!
13:52 < durka42> selpahi has taken Ca Pa Djedi off of youtube periodically in the past...
13:52 < ctefa`o> Huh
13:52 < ctefa`o> But I just listened to it
13:52 < durka42> apparently it's an extremely personal/emotional song for him
13:52 < durka42> yeah it loads for me
13:52 < durka42> .title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZomVOBE5-0
13:52 < phenny> durka42: Ca Pa Djedi (Original Song in Lojban by selpa'i) - YouTube
13:53 < ctefa`o> Still works here
13:54 < zipcpi> sumtcita lo du'u zi'o zenba lo ni me'au lo ralju bridi kei ze'a lo sumti poi se tcita
13:54 < zipcpi> Er...
13:54 < zipcpi> se sumti?
13:54 < zipcpi> la'e lo sumti?
13:55 < ctefa`o> In other news IT IS WITCHER 3 TIME
13:55 < zipcpi> I'm not too good at jbojbo definitions
13:55 < zipcpi> sumtcita lo du'u zi'o zenba lo ni me'au lo ralju bridi kei ze'a la'e le sumti poi se tcita
13:55 < la_kristan> but at least "judgement" is spelled correctly...
13:55 < zipcpi> sumtcita lo du'u zi'o zenba lo ni me'au lo bridi kei ze'a la'e le sumti poi se tcita
13:56 < la_kristan> by my idea of correctness.
13:57 < Ilmen> zo dai'e'i'ai'u'o cmavo ma'oi xxx gi'e jungau fi lo du'u lo bridi poi selpau vo'a cu poi'i lo ni ke'a fasnu cu zilzena
13:57 < Ilmen> or something liek that
13:58 < Ilmen> zipcpi, and, it hasn't much sense to be a BAI, as it tags no sumti. Unless you want it to tag zilzena2
13:58 < zipcpi> It's a TAhE
13:58 < Ilmen> je'e
13:59 < Ilmen> s/jungau fi/sinxa
14:01 < zipcpi> And it can tag a sumti... I suppose if it has a sumti it will mean "increasing over period..."
14:01 < Ilmen> Generally speaking, I'm not fond of the idea of sumtcita cmavo; I'm much prefer the more flexible solution of having one cmavo for expressing them all, that is, {xoi} or maybe a short-scope version thereof
14:01 < zipcpi> Does xoi accept a ke'a?
14:01 < Ilmen> sure it does
14:01 < Ilmen> {do sanga xoi (ke'a) melbi}
14:02 < Ilmen> (you sing, which is beautiful)
14:02 < zipcpi> So ke'a represents the entire bridi
14:02 < Ilmen> yes
14:02 < zipcpi> Interesting
14:02 < Ilmen> it's like an afterthought version of {fasnu fa lo nu do sanga poi/noi melbi}
14:03 < Ilmen> which is forethought because you need to add fasnu first
14:03 < Ilmen> if you want to use poi/noi
14:03 < zipcpi> carvi xoi ke'a zilzena ?
14:03 < Ilmen> drani
14:05 < Ilmen> One cmavo to rule all the sumtcita, one cmavo to find them, oen cmavo to bring them all and in the darkness  bind them.
14:05 < Ilmen> zo'o
14:05 < zipcpi> The problem is that expanding sentences like this can be really wordy: http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4228582
14:05 < Ilmen> zipcpi: I know
14:06 < Ilmen> I'd like a version of xoi that'd be short-scope
14:06 < Ilmen> so paralleling lo/sei in term of syntax
14:06 < zipcpi> Maybe you'd have to wait for Toaq Dzu for that :p
14:06 < Ilmen> Toaq Dzu does have a tone for turning any predicate into an adverbial / bridi relative clause
14:07 < Ilmen> it even has two of them I think
14:07 < Ilmen> So there is no sumtcita particle in Toaq Dzu
14:07 < Ilmen> nor in Gua\spi
14:08 < zipcpi> What languages *does* niftyg speak?
14:08 < Ilmen> Just like there's no adjective in Lojban
14:08 < zipcpi> Oh he's Japanese?
14:08 < Ilmen> zipcpi: Japanese
14:08  * zipcpi nods
14:10  * nuzba @JamsEtYams: @S0phieH I don't like esperanto much. it's a horrid mess that should probs be less popular imo. lojban is cool in a way though. [http://bit.ly/1EPcV8G]
14:10  * nuzba @LycaonTalks: @JamsEtYams @S0phieH lojban is the "um, actually" of languages [http://bit.ly/1Gh472v]
14:10  * nuzba @S0phieH: @JamsEtYams yeah, it's not perfect but I do like the goal of the thing. Might look into lojban after also :) [http://bit.ly/1Gh4bQ2]
14:12 < zipcpi> Yeah I still prefer to define them by zi'o... I don't know how to mark "alternate definitions"
14:12 < zipcpi> Simply because the gismu is more well known
14:12 < Ilmen> zipcpi: Basically, in Lojban, adjectives are replaced by relative clauses (noi, poi), as well as tanru. But why not doing the same for adverbs?
14:12 < Ilmen> That's a weird design choice
14:12 < Ilmen> zipcpi: I shown an example of alternate definitions earlier
14:12 < Ilmen> «.i va'i...»
14:13 < zipcpi> While {zilzena} and {zildika} only have jbojbo definitions that are difficult to understand
14:13 < Ilmen> vlaste: zilzena
14:13 < vlaste> zilzena = x1 is a property of a number/amount increasing by amount x2
14:13 < dutchie> hah, just saw "gleua"
14:13 < Ilmen> well this def could be improved
14:13 < zipcpi> Yeah but it probably isn't translated to Japanese
14:13 < Ilmen> ie
14:14 < durka42> ja: gleua
14:14 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
14:14 < Ilmen> I usually don't even bother to translate my definitions to French :/
14:14 < durka42> I still like the old "y no da jai se facki" .u'i
14:14 < durka42> it just rhythms better to my ear
14:15 < zipcpi> And yeah I did use "me'au"... oi
14:15 < zipcpi> These experimental cmavo are such a crutch to me
14:15 < zipcpi> mi mutce zbusufukai
14:16 < zipcpi> Hah bet he liked my choice to render "furry/anthro animal" as "kenmono"
14:17 < Ilmen> Well, I've gotta finally enter a word for mosquito to JVS
14:17 < zipcpi> I did consider {remda'u} and {dalre'a} but I had semantic concerns
14:17 < Ilmen> "mosquito" is such a hard word to lojbanize
14:17 < zipcpi> Wait I thought that was blusfani
14:17 < Ilmen> en: remsmi
14:17 < mensi> [< remna simsa ≈ A human something similar] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
14:17 < mensi> remsmi[5878], re'asmi[6367], remsimsa[7937], remnysmi[8008], re'arsimsa[9526], ...
14:18 < durka42> selpahi would agree :p
14:18 < durka42> I need a new smiley for {xoi zbusufukai}
14:18 < Ilmen> zipcpi: "blusfani" is a generic word for any blood-sucking fly
14:18 < Ilmen> including horseflies and the like
14:18 < zipcpi> mo skito
14:18 < zipcpi> zo'o
14:19 < Ilmen> I'd go with "ckulikidai", from "Culicidae"
14:19 < zipcpi> Just ckulikida would do
14:20 < durka42> en:blusfani
14:20 < mensi> [< ciblu sfani ≈ Blood a fly] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
14:20 < mensi> blusfani[7897], ciblysfani[10047]
14:20 < durka42> x1 is a mosquito/blood-sucking diptere of genus/species x2.
14:20 < Ilmen> maybe just "ckuliki"
14:20 < durka42> .w diptere
14:20 < phenny> diptere — adjective: 1. feminine plural of diptero
14:20 < durka42> .u'i ki'e la .fen.
14:20 < Ilmen> although it may be confused with Culicinae, which is a subfamily
14:20 < durka42> .w diptero
14:20 < phenny> diptero — adjective: 1. dipteral
14:21 < durka42> dammit
14:21 < durka42> ah it's a typo
14:21 < durka42> should be "diptera"
14:21 < durka42> .w diptera
14:21 < phenny> diptera — adjective: 1. feminine form of diptero
14:21 < zipcpi> ... crap
14:21 < durka42> ...nope
14:21 < durka42> .wik Diptera
14:21 < phenny> "True flies are insects of the order Diptera (from the Greek di = two, and ptera = wings)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diptera
14:22 < zipcpi> I accidentally entered the jbojbo definition for dei'a as English x.x
14:22 < durka42> I'ma fix that
14:22 < durka42> zipcpi: well, now you gotta translate it to lojban
14:23 < zipcpi> me'o sy u'y my ty cy i'y li'o zo'o
14:23 < durka42> .u'i
14:26 < Ilmen> I've just added {ckuliki}
14:26 < Ilmen> for "mosquito"
14:26 < Ilmen> .i'e pei
14:26 < zipcpi> i'e
14:26 < zipcpi> Er x2 tag?
14:27 < Ilmen> I don't find the x2 necessary
14:27 < zipcpi> There are many species of mosquitoes
14:27 < Ilmen> feel free to add it if you really miss it
14:28 < Ilmen> you can always say "ti ckuliki gi'e jutcmi..."
14:28 < Ilmen> just like you can say "ti gerku gi'e blanu"
14:28 < Ilmen> or "ti gerku gi'e nakni"
14:28  * zipcpi shrugs
14:29 < la_kristan> well, if ye cannot help me with my notebook cover, methinks I shall continue my study of skakespearean Lojban...
14:29 < Ilmen> Adding places is easier than removing them, so I prefer to add only what is strictly relevant/necessary
14:30 < zipcpi> Shakespeare in the original Lojban :p
14:30 < la_kristan> zipcpi : I was gonna say that!
14:30 < la_kristan> .oi
14:30 < durka42> .oye mie sayeth bahchee le blooffahnee
14:30 < zipcpi> :p
14:31 < durka42> se => sayeth, li'a
14:31 < zipcpi> :p
14:33 < la_kristan> if "coi" is hi than whats g'bye?
14:33 < Ilmen> {co'o}
14:33 < zipcpi> "co'o"
14:34 < Ilmen> .a'i mi fanva tu'a zo ckuliki lo fasybau
14:34 < durka42> koi
14:35 < la_kristan> koi? isn't that a kind of fish?
14:36 < Ilmen> x1 est un moustique;  x1 es un mosquito; x1は蚊
14:36 < durka42> sorry, {ko'oi} is what I meant
14:38 < Ilmen> x1 estas moskito
14:38 < la_kristan> which means?
14:38 < zipcpi> Well that's one of the proposed cekitaujau shortenings, but you shouldn't have to worry about that kind of stuff yet la_kristan :p
14:38 < Ilmen> {ko'oi} is an imperative marker
14:38 < Ilmen> vlaste: ko'oi
14:38 < vlaste> ko'oi = discursive: imperative/hortative
14:38 < durka42> that's why I didn't elaborate zipcpi :p
14:39 < durka42> do zbusufukai
14:39 < zipcpi> Essentially it marks a sentence as imperative. {ko} is basically short for {do ko'oi}
14:39 < durka42> ie
14:39 < la_kristan> vlaste: co'o
14:39 < vlaste> co'o = vocative: partings/good-bye.
14:39 < Ilmen> vlaste: ki'e
14:39 < vlaste> ki'e = vocative: thanks - no thanks to you.
14:39 < zipcpi> ie mi ja'a zbusufukai
14:39 < Ilmen> ki'e = thanks
14:39 < la_kristan> oh!
14:40 < Ilmen> je'e = okay
14:40 < la_kristan> ki'e
14:40 < Ilmen> (those are very common vocatives, too)
14:40 < zipcpi> je'e basically means "I have received and understood this message". It can also mean "You're welcome" after {ki'e}. But it doesn't actually welcome anyone; that's {fi'i}
14:41 < Ilmen> zipcpi: I'm not sure it implies it's understood
14:41 < Ilmen> there's {ki'anai}
14:41 < zipcpi> Well I've heard it compared to "Roger"
14:42 < Ilmen> jbo: je'e
14:42 < mensi> je'e = [COI] tcita lo cmene ja ve skicu le du'u sinxa le du'u makau te cusku .e le du'u le cusku ba'o te benji gi'e
14:42 < mensi> jimpe |>>> doi; jimpe |>>> xorxes
14:42 < la_kristan> I don't know of any other language whose "you're welcome " equivalent literally translates to "you are welcome", anyway.
14:42 < Ilmen> the jbo-def does have "jimpe" though
14:43 < noncomcinse> ma se casnu
14:43 < zipcpi> la_kristan: Good :p
14:43 < la_kristan> what's good?
14:44 < Ilmen> la_kristan: For replying to "thank you" (you're welcome), in French people say "de rien" or "pas de problème" (= no problem), and in Spanish "de nada"
14:44 < Ilmen> So that varies depending on the language
14:44 < Ilmen> In Lojban we just say «je'e»
14:44 < la_kristan> and in Russian it's the same word as please.
14:46 < dutchie> in german too
14:46 < Ilmen> "Bitte"?
14:47 < Ilmen> de: je'e
14:47 < mensi> je'erma'ablaci [< jetce cmana blaci ≈ Strahl Berg Glas] = b1 ist eine gewisse Menge/besteht aus/enthält Obsidian aus
14:47 < mensi> Zusammensetzung mit unter anderem b2.
14:47 < dutchie> Ilmen: yes
14:47 < Ilmen> uh, cmavo definition haven't been translated to German
14:47 < Ilmen> what a pity
14:48 < la_kristan> .uinai
14:48 < Ilmen> Translations are only made by volunteers, so it's a long and teduous task
14:49 < zipcpi> Oh what's good... that you understand that Lojban isn't just a regloss of English :p
14:49 < durka42> maybe after I finish learning German on Duolingo, zo'o
14:49 < zipcpi> You'd be surprise how many people who only know one language think that other languages are just a cipher of English :p
14:51 < la_kristan> yeah, I guess so; I think I thought so when I was a kid.
14:52 < dutchie> i'm glad i was brought up to learn languages
14:52 < la_kristan> but then I started learning Spanish, and after many confusions and frustrations, I figured out that it just ain't so!
14:52 < dutchie> the advantage of having a mother who studied them at college
14:53 < dutchie> don't think one has ever "clicked" quite as quickly as lojban has - though that's probably because i've never tried learning a conlang before
14:53 < dutchie> so stuff like the so'a-so'u continuum can be designed in, and that seems really neat to me
14:54 < la_kristan> I know both Esperanto and toki pona.
14:55 < la_kristan> And have studied quite a few "natural" languages.
14:55 < durka42> ua do spero
14:56 < la_kristan> ?
14:56 < durka42> vlaste: spero
14:56 < vlaste> spero = x1 pertains to Esperanto language/culture in aspect x2
14:56 < la_kristan> ah.
14:58 < Ilmen> uo http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ckuliki
14:58 < la_kristan> That's where it all started for me, you know.
15:00 < la_kristan> Before I accidentally found Esperanto, the idea that a language could be invented never even crossed my mind.
15:01 < la_kristan> And since then, my curiosity about constructed languages has been insatiable.
15:01 < zipcpi> Cool
15:02 < la_kristan> someone said Lojban was almost impossible to learn, and someone else said it was easy.
15:03 < Ilmen> la_kristan: This may interest you too, if someday you've time to read this: http://www.rickmor.x10.mx/lexical_semantics.html
15:03 < la_kristan> So I figured there's only one way to really find out :-)
15:04 < Ilmen> It is possible to learn it.
15:05 < zipcpi> It isn't that difficult. Sure it isn't meant to fit European languages hand-in-glove like Esperanto, and it's grammar is really unique. But it's not difficult to start constructing simple sentences
15:05 < Ilmen> Ithkuil is also an interesting language to study
15:05 < Ilmen> (but it has no speaker as far as I know)
15:05 < zipcpi> Now if you want a language so difficult that no one actually speaks it fluently, you'd want Ithkuil :p
15:06 < la_kristan> I did notice that Lojban is quite different from other languages I've studied.
15:06 < Ilmen> Ithkuil is also extremely exotic, but also very difficult
15:07 < la_kristan> Um, I don't think I was looking for something literally nobody speaks...
15:07 < Ilmen> (there's quite a few enormous affix tables to memorize)
15:07 < zipcpi> I was speaking rhetorically :p
15:07 < la_kristan> worse than Volapük?
15:08 < zipcpi> Yes
15:08 < Ilmen> I don't know Volapük, so I can't tell
15:08 < zipcpi> Mainly it's meant to test the limits of how much information you can fit in as small a space as possible
15:08 < la_kristan> Neither do I, at least not yet.
15:08 < Ilmen> yeah
15:09 < Ilmen> Ithkuil push very far trying to put as much information as possible into each affix morphemes
15:09 < Ilmen> *pushes
15:11 < la_kristan> meanwhile toki pona has few words, but you have to be pretty long winded to convey anything significant.
15:12 < durka42> that's what I've heard
15:12 < la_kristan> and even then you might not succeed.
15:12 < Ilmen> With toki pona, you're bound to vagueness, while with Ithkuil you're forced to precision. I conclude that Ithkuil is Toki pona's nemesis zo'o
15:14 < la_kristan> In my conversations in toki pona, we seldom have any real confusion, except when "wile" is involved.
15:15 < Ilmen> What is nice with Lojban, is that you can choose how precise or vague you want your sentence to be
15:15 < la_kristan> Because it can be "want" "need" or "have to "
15:15 < Ilmen> Lojban doesn't compel its speaker to always speak with precision
15:16 < Ilmen> unlike Ithkuil
15:16 < la_kristan> nice
15:16 < Ilmen> Basically, the more precise you want to be, the longer the sentence
15:17 < Ilmen> and conversely, the vaguer, the shorter
15:17 < la_kristan> Ah. That seems logical.
15:18 < Ilmen> And Lojban never forces you to express an information you don't need or want to express
15:18 < durka42> co'e zo'e
15:18 < durka42> ie pei
15:18 < mensi> ei mi tugni
15:19 < Ilmen> unlike many European languages which forces you to express gender and numbers
15:19 < Ilmen> as well as compel to fill the subject slot of verbs
15:19 < la_kristan> I'll have to afk for a bit; I detect a stinky diaper in the near vicinity...
15:20 < demize> And you're going to go into hiding?
15:20 < demize> ;)
15:20 < Ilmen> In Lojban, every sumti can be left to context, even the equivalent of the subject; Lojban has no built in gender or number inflexion
15:20 < Ilmen> which is a relief
15:22 < la_kristan> ugh, TWO stinky diapers! They think that just because they're twins they've gotta both go at the same time!
15:22 < zipcpi> u'i oidai
15:22 < Ilmen> di'ai
15:22 < Ilmen> (= well-wishes, good luck)
15:23 < la_kristan> good luck changing the diapers; okay...
15:23 < la_kristan> brb
15:26 < Ilmen> co'o ro do
15:26 < Ilmen> sipna .ai
15:28 < zipcpi> Also Lojban is the only language I know of where a computer program can tell you whether a sentence is grammatical or not (whether it actually says what you want it to mean though, can be a different matter if many subclauses or other-complicated-stuff is involved :p
15:29 < zipcpi> Though the parser is also helpful for that; it reveals the structure of the sentence
15:31 < la_kristan> I'm back.
15:32 < la_kristan> operation success :-P
15:33 < durka42> ui dai
15:35 < la_kristan> who wrote Anna Karenina?
15:35 < dutchie> la lio.tolstois.
15:35 < dutchie> you're about a chapter behind me .u'i
15:36 < durka42> la .liios. tolstois.
15:36 < dutchie> oh yes, whoops
15:36 < la_kristan> I recognised the title, but couldn't remember the author.
15:38 < la_kristan> and my geography is terrible, but at least I know that Paris isn't in the United States...
15:38 < ctefa`o> It is not?! zo'o
15:38 < la_kristan> unless there's a Paris, WY or something...
15:39 < dutchie> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas
15:39 < ctefa`o> ^
15:40 < la_kristan> Well, I figured there might be a town if that name somewhere in the US...
15:40 < la_kristan> Ontario is in Oregon, you know.
15:41 < ctefa`o> So did you manage to listen to any lojban songs?:)
15:42 < la_kristan> I haven't yet, I've been busy with other stuff.
15:42 < ctefa`o> je'e
15:43 < la_kristan> I wouldn't understand them anyway, at this point :-/
15:44 < ctefa`o> Me neither;)
15:45 < la_kristan> I often barely understand songs in English!
15:45 < ctefa`o> But besides being good for listening comprehension, the songs show what the language can be like
15:47 < la_kristan> Yeah, I know what sounds the letters make, but that doesn't give the whole picture.
15:48 < ctefa`o> Right;)
15:48  * la_kristan inserts earbuds.
15:49 < ctefa`o> Prepare for awesomeness
15:49 < ctefa`o> Which one did you take?
15:50 < la_kristan> the one you were talking about.
15:50 < ctefa`o> Hm that was Ca Pa Djedi right?
15:51 < la_kristan> go'i
15:51 < la_kristan> I don't understand a word of it...
15:52 < ctefa`o> Try to just learn to identify the sounds at first;)
15:53 < ctefa`o> Took me a while myself to hear the words properly
15:54 < ctefa`o> Or just try to enjoy it for now;)
15:57 < zipcpi> What's the discursive for "essentially/basically"?
15:58 < zipcpi> I'm not sure sa'u or to'u is what I want
15:59 < zipcpi> Anyway anyone want to check my jbojbo definition of zbusufukai: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/zbusufukai
15:59 < durka42> to'u might be what you want...
15:59 < durka42> vlaste: class:UI3
15:59 < vlaste> 21 results: ba'u, da'i, do'a, je'u, ke'u, la'a, li'a, mu'a, pa'e, ra'u…
15:59 < ctefa`o> Did selpa'i make "Still Alive" in lojban?!
15:59 < ctefa`o> How did I not know of this
16:00 < zipcpi> I don't think so... my sentence isn't really brief or simple :p
16:00 < durka42> zipcpi: do'anai?
16:00 < zipcpi> I'm not sure what do'a even means lol
16:00 < durka42> ctefa`o: yeah!
16:00 < durka42> well, essentially… zo'o
16:00 < durka42> jbo:do'a
16:00 < mensi> do'a = [UI3] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri mutce ja traji fi le ka zmadu
16:00 < durka42> yyyyyyy
16:00 < durka42> zmadu ma
16:00 < zipcpi> ie
16:00 < durka42> jbo:do'anai
16:00 < mensi> do'anai = [UI*] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri mutce ja traji fi le ka mleca
16:01 < zipcpi> oi
16:02 < ctefa`o> durka42: so many syllables though;o
16:03 < la_kristan> .oi cai
16:03 < la_kristan> the browser crashed.
16:03 < zipcpi> I have translated a song, but it's not been sung yet: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Do_you_hear_the_people_sing
16:05 < durka42> ctefa`o: ma slaka du'emei
16:05 < zipcpi> la'au za'o jmive li'u
16:06 < ctefa`o> durka42: in the Still Alive translation
16:06 < zipcpi> I guess {sa'u} isn't that off. Though the sentence is complicated, the idea may be simpler to understand
16:07 < zipcpi> After all the meaning is all packed into {la bauspo fazykamni} :p
16:07 < ctefa`o> kristan: it couldn't handle the awesomeness?
16:08 < zipcpi> So someone who isn't familiar with the BSFK might be able to understand the concept easier
16:08 < zipcpi> Just like the English
16:14 < ctefa`o> puzi sipna fami co'o
16:14 < ctefa`o> Err
16:14 < zipcpi> co'o .i mi ji'a ei sipna co'o
16:14 < ctefa`o> bazi sipna fami co'o*
16:15 < zipcpi> There is a Lojban equivalent to correction asterisks
16:15 < zipcpi> It's lo'ai ... sa'ai ... le'ai
16:16 < zipcpi> Well, one of Lojban's goals is that all "punctuation" can be spoken aloud
16:17 < zipcpi> Anyway yeah I've gotta go. co'o ro do
16:18 < durka42> I don't think {roba'oi} means "forever" and anyway did {ba'oi} ever catch on?
16:19 < durka42> I'd just say {baze'e}
16:19 < zipcpi> Yeah makes sense
16:20 < zipcpi> I should probably add {baze'e} as a cmavo group
16:20 < durka42> meh
16:20 < durka42> if you want
16:21 < durka42> not a huge fan of adding cmavo groups to the dictionary
16:21 < durka42> it's a combinatorial explosion and the whole point is they are compositional
16:21 < zipcpi> Well it's useful to have something for the English gloss word "forever" "forevermore"
16:21 < zipcpi> The point is matching them to useful gloss words
16:21 < zipcpi> Not to add every possible combination
16:22 < durka42> but lojban isn't an english cipher :p
16:22 < zipcpi> It's still useful. I still have to look a lot of stuff up
16:23 < zipcpi> And someone searching for how to express "forever" would search the dictionary and find either nothing or some complicated brivla
16:23 < zipcpi> Then they have to go through all the cmavo and figure out which combination best expresses their intentions
16:23  * durka42 cu krati lo pacycei
16:23 < durka42> okay fine
16:24 < zipcpi> *sumtcita
16:24 < zipcpi> It's like how I added "za'ure'u" as "again" a long time ago
16:25 < durka42> ah did you start that argument? :p
16:25 < zipcpi> I don't remember if there was an argument
16:26 < durka42> some laldyjbopre are afraid to let {za'ure'u} mean "again"
16:26 < durka42> out of fear that the jbocei uses it to mean something else, I guess
16:26 < durka42> I never understood the counterargument
16:26 < zipcpi> lol
16:28 < zipcpi> .ie mi puzu za'o zbusufukai
16:29 < zipcpi> .y. sa'ai xa'o
16:29 < zipcpi> mi puzu xa'o zbusufukai
16:29 < la_kristan> my 10yr old brother just allowed my 2yr old brothers to scribble on my beautiful notebook!
16:30 < zipcpi> D:
16:31 < la_kristan> all my x1 and x2 and x3!!!
16:31 < b_jonas> la_kristan: scribble with what?
16:32 < b_jonas> i ciska fo ma
16:32 < la_kristan> x1 expresses/says x2 for audience x3 via medium x4!
16:32 < la_kristan> scribbled all over!
16:33 < la_kristan> with my pencil.
16:33 < b_jonas> ow
16:35 < b_jonas> co'o
16:35 < zipcpi> co'o
16:37 < la_kristan> what was co'o again? I forgot.
16:39 < la_kristan> vlaste: co'o
16:39 < vlaste> co'o = vocative: partings/good-bye.
16:40 < la_kristan> goodbye to what?
16:41 < la_kristan> the notebook?
16:41 < ctefa`o> Goodbye to the listener/the conversation
16:41 < ctefa`o> Basically "bye"
16:42 < dutchie> my turn: co'o ro do
16:42 < ctefa`o> (Not my time to sleep yet appearantly)
16:42 < ctefa`o> apparantly*
16:43 < la_kristan> but b_jonas hasn't quit, and he said it first...
16:43 < ctefa`o> Well then he probably just left the computer?
16:44 < la_kristan> ctefa`o: apparEntly!
16:44 < ctefa`o> omg did I do that wrong twice lol
16:45 < ctefa`o> Always misspell that word >_>
16:47 < ctefa`o> So did you like the song(s), despite not understanding them?
16:49 < la_kristan> Well, rap isn't exactly my first choice in music styles...
16:50 < la_kristan> I don't sleep. I study Lojban all night :-P
16:51 < ctefa`o> That's...dedicated;)
16:53 < la_kristan> So I can have the pleasure of saying
16:53  * la_kristan tavla fo le glico
16:54 < quintus> .i mi lojbo bo tadni sipna
16:54 < la_kristan> hmm...
16:54 < quintus> clearly not enough or that would be more grammatical
16:55 < la_kristan> oh well, it didn't work.
16:56 < la_kristan> Can't put characters directly after the /me.
16:56 < ctefa`o> Well Christa's sentence is correct
16:56 < quintus> oh I'm sorry if that wasn't clearer-- the "not enough" referred to me
16:56 < ctefa`o> Well sort of
16:56 < quintus> this is what happens when you drop to English on the Lojban channel
16:57 < la_kristan> .u'i
16:57 < ctefa`o> Technically the underscore is invalid;)
16:58 < quintus> doi ro do .i do mo
16:59 < la_kristan> but we all understand the limitations of IRC
16:59  * ctefa`o blanu blanu
17:00 < ctefa`o> Hmm I just had an idea, one should probably just tweak with the /me script
17:00 < ctefa`o> To get the la where we want it
17:01 < quintus> would that not involve changing one's nickname first? and changing it back afterward? /me is built into IRC
17:01 < ctefa`o> For those clients where one can do that...
17:01 < quintus> rather than any specific client
17:01 < ctefa`o> Is it built into irc or the client?
17:01 < la_kristan> irc, I think
17:02 < ctefa`o> Hmm then that won't work
17:02 < quintus> ctefa`o: is a nighttime-type-of-ending the end of a night or the end of a day?
17:02 < ctefa`o> Maaayyybeer if we ask really nice in #freenode zo'o
17:02 < quintus> the former would be a little more literal, but I could understand the latter; the ending is of-type "night"
17:02 < ctefa`o> li'a End of Night
17:03 < ctefa`o> Well maybe not li'a
17:03 < ctefa`o> "Night's End"
17:03 < ctefa`o> better than ctefan or stefan
17:04 < noncomcinse> coi jbopre
17:04 < ctefa`o> Put that in reverse and you see how I ended up with this nick
17:04 < noncomcinse> ma fasnu seju secasnu
17:04 < ctefa`o> coi noncomcinse
17:04 < quintus> li'anai ru'e
17:05 < noncomcinse> coi la ctefa'o
17:05 < ctefa`o> Stefan -> stefan -> ctefan -> ctefa'o
17:05 < quintus> that works quite well doi ctefa`o
17:06 < noncomcinse> ua
17:06 < la_kristan> do you not like "stefan"?
17:06 < quintus> I'm known as la mumoi, but because I'm rarely just on #lojban, quintus is a little more identifiable
17:07 < quintus> hmm, have I registered that yet
17:07 < ctefa`o> "stefan" basically means "List of Sails". "ctefan" got a bit better meaning "night-sail", ctefa'o got even better though;)
17:07 < la_kristan> it means?
17:07 < ctefa`o> "End of Night"
17:08 < ctefa`o> nicte falnu
17:08 < ctefa`o> Uhn
17:08 < noncomcinse> .i mutce pemci larcu
17:08 < la_kristan> ah
17:08 < ctefa`o> -Uhn
17:08 < la_kristan> and "kristan"?
17:09 < ctefa`o> Well it is not a lujvo
17:09 < la_kristan> awwww
17:09 < ctefa`o> It is a name-word
17:09 < noncomcinse> lo lujvo kakne co cmevla
17:09 < ctefa`o> Hmm
17:09 < noncomcinse> zo .noncomcins. cmevla je lujvo vau mu'a
17:09 < la_mumoi> "ctefan" is very visual
17:10 < ctefa`o> krista would work though
17:10 < la_mumoi> it sounds really neat and works too
17:10 < ctefa`o> krici stali
17:10 < noncomcinse> rafsi: stan
17:10 < mensi> zo stani se rafsi zo'oi stan
17:10 < noncomcinse> en: stani
17:10 < mensi> stani = x1 is a stem or trunk of plant x2 |>>> gleki
17:11 < noncomcinse> na melbi pe'i
17:11 < noncomcinse> ra'oi .sta. zo'u tugni
17:12 < ctefa`o> Christa, if you used "krista" instead it would mean "Staying (a) Believer"
17:12 < ctefa`o> Sort of
17:12 < ctefa`o> Unless I am inverting it
17:13 < noncomcinse> en: stali
17:13 < mensi> stali = x1 stays or remains at x2 |>>> gleki
17:13 < noncomcinse> Yeah.
17:13 < la_kristan> kristan' ; for kristano, every Esperantist knows that... :-P
17:13 < ctefa`o> Kristano means Christ in Esperanto?
17:14 < noncomcinse> That seems about right.
17:14 < la_kristan> No, Kristo is Christ
17:14 < noncomcinse> Right.
17:14 < ctefa`o> la_mumoi: Yeah I am quite fond of it;)
17:14 < noncomcinse> Esperanto novas min, .u'u
17:15 < noncomcinse> Sed mi provas lerni.
17:15 < la_mumoi> in an alternate universe... novi: x1 is new to x2
17:16 < la_mumoi> novi; novas; novis; novos
17:16 < noncomcinse> .u'i
17:16 < la_kristan> krist-an-o; christ-member-[noun]; thus, "christian".
17:17 < ctefa`o> Right. But it seems that it originally derives from a greek word, which is where I guess Jesus got his name from
17:18 < ctefa`o> ...and now I cant find that word
17:20 < ctefa`o> But eh I really need to sleep now
17:20 < la_mumoi> be back in a bit
17:20 < ctefa`o> 2 AM
17:20 < noncomcinse> ua
17:20 < ctefa`o> co'o
17:20 < noncomcinse> lerci
17:20 < noncomcinse> co'o lo cliva
17:20 < la_kristan> oh!
17:20 < la_mumoi> co'o ctefa'o
17:21 < la_kristan> co'o ctefa'o
17:34 < noncomcinse> za'u re'u rinsa
17:34 < durka42> coi
17:36 < noncomcinse> coi la durkavore
17:39 < durka42> .ai mi co'u bilma .oi
17:39 < noncomcinse> bilma ma
17:39 < noncomcinse> uinaidai
17:46 < durka42> lo vidru
17:46 < noncomcinse> .oi dai
17:51 < noncomcinse> How does the /wi 3
17:51 < noncomcinse> .u'u srera
17:51 < ldlework> no da mi kansa ui nai ru'e
17:52 < noncomcinse> kansa fi ma coi
17:52 < durka42> ui nai ru'e dai
17:52 < durka42> le jbogu'e sei mi sruma
17:53 < ldlework> do certu lo ka sruma ue
17:53 < ldlework> u'i
17:53 < ldlework> satci sruma .i satci sruma
17:54 < ldlework> vi mo
17:54 < noncomcinse> zvati ma fa lejbogu'e
17:54 < ldlework> lo do menli li'a
17:55 < ldlework> va'o lo ka barda banzu
17:55 < ldlework> nitcu lo stedu barda la'a
17:56 < durka42> zvati lo di'i'i'ilnu
17:56 < ldlework> what's the NU that extracts the truth value
17:56 < durka42> di'ilnu: x1 is the Cloud
17:56 < durka42> jei
17:56 < ldlework> ki'e
17:56 < ldlework> durka42: u'i ie
17:57 < ldlework> zvati lo do zar'u'u'ugu
17:57 < durka42> .u'i
17:58 < durka42> ah the old dilnu bi'o zargu extension
17:58 < ldlework> je'a
18:00 < ldlework> noncomcinse: more seriously, la jbogu'e is pretty easy to access, you just need to download a client
18:00 < ldlework> noncomcinse: if you're interested I can help you get setup
18:01 < durka42> you never said what it is .u'i
18:01 < ldlework> oh
18:01 < durka42> it's a private Second Life world for jbopre
18:01 < ldlework> ie
18:02 < ldlework> With the idea, that you have objects and spatial relations to percieve and therefore you get the chance to excersize areas of your vocabulary you might not normally get to
18:02 < ldlework> I can't believe I'm 28 and still can't spell exercise the first time
18:05 < durka42> yeah
18:05 < durka42> zipcpi brought up a good point before that none(ba'u) of us know the sumtcita for "left" and "right" because you don't need those on IRC
18:06 < durka42> and I sure didn't know the cardinal directions before this diplomacy game :)
18:07 < durka42> li re bi ue .i do laldo zo'o
18:08 < ldlework> durka42: yeah the cardinal directions were new to me
18:09 < durka42> so zipcpi added {baze'e} as "forevermore"
18:09 < durka42> I was thinking to add {puze'e} for consistency but I don't know what the opposite of "forevermore" is in english?
18:09 < tsani_> zo di'ilnu .u'i
18:10 < durka42> la tsani ue
18:10 < ldlework> who is this tsani person
18:11 < ldlework> is he sapient
18:11 < ldlework> rivbi za'a
18:12 < Guest39409> guh
18:12 < Guest39409> .i lo .irci tutci cu bebna ca lo cabdei
18:13 < ldlework> durka42: nevermore though I know that's not what you meant :P
18:14 < durka42> ko pruxygau zo tsani
18:15 < Guest39409> .i sa'e mi masno dukse fi lo ka se sajbi'o la nikservo
18:15 < Guest39409> .i zo tsani na'e ca se pilno
18:16 < Guest39409> .i ku'i na kakne co cmene cenba
18:16 < Guest39409> uai uinai
18:16 < durka42> ko jungau la nikservo tu'a lo do lerpoijaspu
18:16 < ldlework> ie
18:17 < tsanire> .i mi troci
18:18 < tsanire> .i mi pilno zoi zoi /nick tsani zoi .ije lo .irci tutci cu skuspu fi zoi gy Nick tsani is temporarily unavailable gy
18:19 < durka42> .ei pu la'e di'u jungau la nikservo
18:20 < durka42> .y
18:20 < durka42> xu mi jifsku
18:21 < tsanire> .i y
18:22 < tsanire> .i mi pilno zoi zoi /msg nickserv identify tsani *** zoi .ije N mi jungau lo du'u sajbi'o lo du'u mi la tsani ku mintu
18:22 < tsanire> .i ku'i ca'o ku na kakne co selcmebi'o
18:23 < tsanire> .i no'e vajni vau ku'i
18:24 < ldlework> a'o sai doi la tsani ba vitke la jbogu'e
18:24 < tsanire> JG ne la nunji'e remoi ku xu
18:24 < ldlework> ru'e
18:25 < tsanire> .a'u
18:25 < tsanire> .i sa'e mi su'oroi ba'o se nandu co pilno NJ2
18:25 < ldlework> le ciste cu mintu .i ku'i sivni
18:26 < tsanire> ua
18:26 < tsanire> .i ca ma jmaji
18:27 < ldlework> no da .i ku'i puku su'o da jmaji
18:27 < tsanire> ua
18:27 < ldlework> cnino
18:27 < ldlework> la'a se terpa
18:28 < itsa> .i za'a ru'e so'o da cnino lo se .irci
18:28 < ldlework> la niftyg ta'e zvati
18:28 < itsa> ua
18:28 < itsa> .i mi N. pu'o tavla
18:28 < ldlework> tavla bu'u la jbogu'e e'u
18:29 < ldlework> mi ka'e dunda pa jaspo
18:29 < ldlework> fi
18:31 < itsa> .i .ei pa mai mi troci co .instali lo keltutci
18:31 < ldlework> itsa: e'u http://www.singularityviewer.org/downloads
18:32 < ldlework> ti ka'e melbi traji
18:36 < itsa> ki'e
18:37 < itsa> .ai kibycpa
18:38 < durka42> ka'e kibycpa lo virtu'ale munje jarco tutci jenai lo .irci tutci .i'au .u'i
18:40 < itsa> vlaste i'au
18:40 < vlaste> i'au = attitudinal scope modifier: marks following attitudinal/UI-cluster as applying to the entire sentence or statement
18:41 < durka42> it's like a super-vau for attitudinals so you don't have to count sub-bridi
18:41 < durka42> one of zipcpi's few good ideas, zo'o
18:42 < itsa> looks like one can measure how long they've been away by the number of unknown cmavo in an average #lojban message :P
18:43 < itsa> .i ku'i lo me zo .i'au ne di'u cu no'e plixau
18:43 < itsa> .i zo vau basti da'i
18:47 < durka42> ie .iku'i lo ta'e pilno be zo .i'au na djica co kancu lo selvisnalka'e me zo vau
18:59 < itsa> je'e
19:00 < noncomcinse> coi
19:02 < itsa> coi la noncomcinse
19:02 < itsa> .i coi la'oi bigcentaur mi'e la tsani
19:02 < noncomcinse> coi la .itsa no'u la tsani
19:02 < tsani> .i ui snada co selcmebi'o !
19:03 < durka42> uo dai
19:03 < noncomcinse> uanai doi la tsani
19:03 < tsani> .i pluka nu penmi doi la noncomcinse .i xu do selcme lo drata ku ji'a
19:03 < noncomcinse> je'e
19:03 < noncomcinse> mi'e la nejni marji
19:05 < tsani> ua
19:05 < tsani> .i do mo
19:06 < noncomcinse> surla je pendyta'a
19:07 < tsani> ua
19:07 < tsani> mi'u
19:07 < tsani> .i mi kelkansa fi la lutfa'i ku noi simsa li'ai DND
19:08 < tsani> no'u la dunjoni je drakono
19:08 < durka42> doi tsani xu do sanji lo du'u lo nu kibjasyselkei za'o jmive
19:08 < tsani> ja'a ku !
19:08 < tsani> .i ca lo cabdei mi zgana lo nu makau fasnu
19:08 < bigcentaur> .i coi la .itsa.
19:08 < durka42> ko stidi fi mi .u'i
19:09 < durka42> mi na djuno lo du'u minde fi makau bu'u lo berti
19:09 < tsani> ii
19:09 < tsani> .i .u'u sai lujdu'e fi tu'a mi
19:09 < bigcentaur> Oh, you're tsani again, .i ji'a coi la tsani
19:09 < tsani> .i xelso ga'a mi
19:09 < tsani> bigcentaur: yes!
19:10 < tsani> .i xu la zvati la .montre'al. ca lo crisa
19:10 < noncomcinse> .i mi puza de'a jundi vau .u'u
19:10 < noncomcinse> en: li'ai
19:10 < bigcentaur> .i zo'o mi ba roroi zvati la .montreal.
19:10 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
19:10 < tsani> .u'i
19:11 < noncomcinse> na selsau
19:11 < tsani> .i djica xu co penmi ca da gi'e ckafpinxe jbosnu
19:11 < tsani> noncomcinse: .i la'a mi vlasre
19:11 < tsani> vlaste: la'ai
19:11 < vlaste> la'ai = otherwise lojbanic name, ending in a vowel; multiple names delimited by pauses.
19:11 < tsani> hmm
19:11 < noncomcinse> je'e la tsani
19:11 < durka42> la mensi ca spoja milxe
19:12 < tsani> vlaste: li'ai
19:12 < vlaste> li'ai = unevaluated mekso as name.
19:12 < durka42> ii
19:12 < bigcentaur> I don't remember how "co" works ha
19:12 < tsani> .i la mensi cu cremau
19:12 < tsani> "djica xu co penmi" -> "penmi djica xu"
19:12 < durka42> mi'e li'ai 42
19:12 < tsani> it flips
19:12 < tsani> * it flips tanru
19:12 < bigcentaur> oooh
19:13 < durka42> (it flips anything, if gleki's dumb idea catches on :p )
19:13 < noncomcinse> Also, it splits the bridi tail.
19:13 < noncomcinse> mi djuno co zvati <lo se zvati poi mi djuno>
19:13 < tsani> Specifically, "broda co brode ko'a" -> "brode be ko'a broda"
19:14 < tsani> durka42: (wtf?)
19:14 < durka42> ie
19:14 < noncomcinse> tsani: .i mi na pu djuno lodu'u makau me'oi .formalexpansion.
19:14 < durka42> and how on earth could you explain that more clearly than "allows modifier trailing sumti without sumti links"?? I mean really, it's just poetry
19:14 < noncomcinse> lo la gleki ku sidbo zo'u mi se cizra
19:15 < noncomcinse> durka42: ie
19:15 < durka42> exp: djica xu co penmi lo crisa co co'a
19:15 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [eE] or [oO] but "a" found.
19:15 < durka42> alta: djica xu co penmi lo crisa co co'a
19:15 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [eE] or [oO] but "a" found.
19:15 < durka42> huh I guess he took it out
19:17 < bigcentaur> .i doi la tsani .i mi sruma lo du'u ji'a do zvati la .montreal.
19:17 < tsani> bigcentaur: .i mi zvati ie
19:17 < bigcentaur> .ui
19:19 < bigcentaur> .i e'u mi'o pinxe loi birje .a loi ckafi
19:21 < bigcentaur> (brb jukpa)
19:26 < noncomcinse> exp: djica xu co penmi
19:26 < mensi> (CU [{djica xu} {co penmi}] VAU)
19:26 < noncomcinse> exp: djica xu co penmi lo crisa co xo'i co'a
19:26 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [eE] or [oO] but "a" found.
19:26 < noncomcinse> en: xo'i
19:26 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
19:26 < noncomcinse> .i mi pu se jungau fi lodu'u zo xo'i cu lebna lo selbri lo sumtcita
19:26 < noncomcinse> vau pe'a
19:27 < noncomcinse> .i uanai
19:29 < tsani> bigcentaur: .i lo birje ku .i'e .i lo cibdei .e lo vondei .e lo xavdei .e lo zeldei cu na'e mapti mi .i ku'i lo bavla'i jeftu zo'u mi zifre ca lo ro vanci
19:32 < bigcentaur> .i zo'o .ue do tolzifre mutce
19:36 < durka42> tsani: zo'o ru'e do zvati ge sampla nunsla ca lo cibde je lo vondei je lo xavdei je lo zeldei
19:39 < durka42> (to cipra fi do fe lo ka xukau ce'u pu'o tcidu lo romoi blogykantu be la selpa'i
19:39 < durka42> toi)
19:39 < tsani> .u'i .i lo xavdei je lo zeldei zo'u sampla nunsla
19:39 < tsani> .i pu'o tcidu
19:39 < durka42> ge sample nunsla
19:39 < durka42> la .penxaks. na ku
19:40 < tsani> .i ca lo jefyfa'o mi zvati la .angeli .xaks.
19:41 < durka42> ua
19:41 < durka42> zo ge cu jai preti za'adai
19:44 < noncomcinse> di'a jundi ru'e
19:47 < durka42> doi noncomcinse xu do nelci lo cnino me zo ge
19:52 < tsani> .i cinri
19:52 < tsani> .i mi nelci
19:53 < tsani> (to ba'o tcidu toi)
19:55 < bigcentaur> .i mi tavla lo mi ckule girzu prenu fi zo gleua ca lo cabdei .i zo gleua ca traji lo ka mi nelci ce'u kei fo lo jbobau
19:56 < durka42> ji'a na vlaturge'a nabmi .u'i
19:58 < tsani> .i ku'i ca lo cibdei je lo vondei na samplasla .i ca lo cibdei lo pampe'o cu vitke .ije ca lo vondei yyyy
19:58 < tsani> .i .u'i ca lo vondei ku milxe co samplasla fi'o se kansa lo so'u pendo
19:59 < durka42> ua
19:59 < durka42> ta'o mi ji'a co'a pampe'o ui
20:00 < tsani> ua ui dai
20:00 < tsani> .i zo'o ka na binxo lo ka simsa la latro'a ku noi ba lo nu ke'a co'a se pampe'o kei ke'a co'u .irci jundi
20:00 < tsani> *ko
20:00 < durka42> .u'i
20:01 < durka42> do minde ma doi .irci naljundi
20:01 < tsani> .u'i
20:01 < bigcentaur> .i doi la .durka42. .i lo drata prenu cu te preti lo zo gleua rafske fo mi
20:01 < durka42> pu lo masti be li so'u co'a .i mi co'unai .irci
20:02 < durka42> bigcentaur: lo drata prenu cu me la .cizypij. xu
20:02 < durka42> mi pu spuda lo re do
20:02 < bigcentaur> na go'i
20:02 < durka42> ua
20:02 < durka42> ja'a spaji vlaturge'a
20:03 < durka42> ku'i na nalcurmi
20:03 < bigcentaur> .i lo prenu poi zvati lo briju be mi
20:04 < durka42> je'e
20:04 < bigcentaur> he saw it and said "three vowels in a row? is that allowed?"
20:04 < tsani> ah but that u isn't a vowel ;)
20:05 < bigcentaur> hahahaha
20:07 < durka42> jbikarsna
20:08 < zipcpi> durka42: My intent with entering certain cmavo clusters like {za'ure'u} and {baze'e} is to construct Lojbanic "idioms". Not in the natural-language sense of a commonly-used metaphor. But rather in the sense that this is what people have agreed to use to express a particular common concept, that I'm sure is a single word in many languages other than English
20:09 < durka42> fair enough
20:09 < durka42> just don't go overboard :)
20:09 < zipcpi> je'e
20:09 < durka42> ko na du'eva'e co zbufusukai
20:10 < zipcpi> u'i je'e
20:10 < durka42> ta'o doi la tsani xu do djica co cmibi'o lo bauspo fazykamni
20:12 < ldlework> we need a big model of a person
20:12 < ldlework> and label all its parts
20:14 < tsani> lu bauspo fuzykamni li'u .u'i sai
20:14 < tsani> .i fuzme ma vau sa'e
20:15 < la_kristan> in the toki pona course I did once, they used a gingerbread man for a person and labeled its parts ...
20:15 < zipcpi> lol
20:16 < zipcpi> bauspo fazykamni jenai fuzykamni
20:16 < zipcpi> ba'ei fanza zei kamni
20:16 < noncomcinse> di'a jundi .i ma se casnu
20:17 < zipcpi> fuzme lo nu baze'e daspo lo jbobau
20:18 < zipcpi> noncomcinse: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni/en
20:19 < ldlework> doi tsani xu do cpacu la pamei jvinu
20:21 < zipcpi> Er did someone replace the 'methods" of my English page with the Lojban version
20:22 < zipcpi> ma poi zbusufukai cu gasnu
20:23 < zipcpi> Er I'm not so sure I like Gleki's translation template right now
20:23 < zipcpi> It appears to be bugging out. Also it prevents users from adding themselves to the English version of the page
20:24 < tsani> zbusufukai ?
20:24 < zipcpi> jbo: zbusufukai
20:24 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
20:24 < zipcpi> doi mensi ko ningau
20:24 < zipcpi> Er
20:24 < durka42> strange
20:24 < zipcpi> mensi: ko ningau
20:24 < tsani> mensi: ko ningau lo nei
20:24 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
20:25 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
20:25 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
20:25 < zipcpi> jbo: zbusufukai
20:25 < mensi> zbusufukai = x1 ckaji lo ka ce'u la bauspo fazykamni x2 simsa gi'a ckini |>>> bysyfyky pacpanra la baupla fuzykamni .i
20:25 < mensi> sa'u zo zbusufukai cu se pilno fi lo nu xamsku lo se du'u x1 ka'esai baze'e daspo lo jbobau |>>>
20:25 < mensi> spheniscine
20:25 < tsani> ua
20:26 < durka42> zipcpi: seems it thinks the english translation of that section is out of date
20:26 < zipcpi> oi
20:28 < durka42> ummmm
20:28 < durka42> I fixed it but there is no Save button on the translate page…?
20:29 < zipcpi> I don't know. I just want to revert the whole thing and send a note to Gleki that his tool was causing problems
20:29 < zipcpi> Also even if you updated the translation now the problem of not being able to easily edit the English page remains
20:29 < durka42> yeah it's weird
20:30 < durka42> co'o
20:30 < zipcpi> ... I can't. I've been locked out
20:30 < zipcpi> "no permission"
20:30 < durka42> whoops probably my fault for trying to edit
20:30 < durka42> even though I failed
20:30 < zipcpi> No
20:30 < zipcpi> Not your fault. It's the tool
20:31 < durka42> well yes :)
20:31 < zipcpi> That's what I meant when I said I can't easily edit the English page. I can't revert it either
20:31 < durka42> co'o
20:31 < zipcpi> co'o
20:32 < noncomcinse> no'e jundi .u'u
20:32 < noncomcinse> .i la'a ba no'e jundi
20:49 < zipcpi> OK I've temporarily fixed it. Methods are now in English. But there's still extra line in the Rules
20:49 < zipcpi> And I don't want the English page to be locked down
20:54 < la_kristan> anyway, back to my long delayed study of Ye Olde Lojban course...
20:54 < la_kristan> co'o
20:54 < zipcpi> co'o
21:01 < bigcentaur> .i mi tatpi .i co'o ro do
21:23 < justeno> coi .i Is there possibly, maybe a course in the works for english speakers on Duolingo?
21:24 < zipcpi> There have been attempts, but I'm not sure where they are right now. Part of the problem is that Duolingo is not very well-adapted for Lojbanic grammar
21:25 < justeno> 'cause Klingon has one...https://www.duolingo.com/course/tlh/en/Learn-Klingon-Online and so does Esperanto. It'd be awesome to see one, and learn from.
21:47 < noncomcinse> co'o mi'e nicte tatpi sipna .ai
21:50 < zipcpi> There are a lot of Lojban words that indicate structure and don't really have any "equivalents" when translated
21:50 < zipcpi> Basically spoken punctuation
23:22 < gleki> zipcpi: but but .. there are "'<> symbols in English :)
23:28 < zipcpi> Yeah but you don't translate Lojban {fa} or {vau} into them
23:31 < zipcpi> As I understand it Duolingo is meant to be a "word-for-word" type method of teaching
23:31 < zipcpi> I'm not very familiar with it though
23:36 < gleki> at some point it will fail
23:37 < zipcpi> True
23:37 < gleki> I think of you = eu penso em voce =  I think in you.
23:39 < zipcpi> Oh it isn't that literal
23:39 < zipcpi> But you are supposed to hover over each word and be able to see what it emans
23:40 < zipcpi> And I just can't see it being good for people to hover over {ce'u} and getting "pseudo-quantifier binding a variable within an abstraction that represents an open place." :p
23:41 < zipcpi> Dunno, maybe La Bangu might be helpful there
23:46 < zipcpi> But yeah it's mostly the cmavo that cause problems; though more-complicated place structures can be rather difficult to include in a gloss-bubble too
23:51 < zipcpi> Even your example sentence: mi pensi tu'a do
23:51 < zipcpi> What will we translate {tu'a} as?
23:52 < zipcpi> Hmm... is it correct if my understanding is that cekitaujau merges {tu'a} and {zo'ei} into {tau}
--- Day changed Tue Jun 02 2015
00:26 < gleki> idk, why merging them back if {zo'ei} was created exactly to separate the two sense
00:26 < gleki> s
00:26 < zipcpi> Because {zo'ei} is never wrong
00:27 < zipcpi> And was only created because people were not using {tu'a} according to how it was defined
00:27 < zipcpi> I dunno... that's what I think happened anyway
00:28 < zipcpi> And I don't know who proposed cekitaujau and what exactly it changes
00:32 < gleki> en: zo'ei
00:32 < mensi> zo'ei = [LAhE] Something associated with; equivalent to ''zo'e pe'' or "lo co'e be". |>>> There are a lot of cases where
00:32 < mensi> people use "tu'a" where they actually mean zo'ei; once I noticed the usefulness of such a word to elide whole chunks of
00:32 < mensi> sentences, I started wanting it all the time.  -camgusmis |>>> rlpowell
00:33 < zipcpi> Yeah it's just {zo'e pe}; something associated with. It can actually replace tu'a
00:34 < gleki> alta: mi djica lo nu  lo plise
00:34 < mensi> ([FA mi] [CU {djica SF} {FE <lo (¹[nu {<FA (²lo [plise SF] KU²)> <CU (²COhE SF²) VAU>} KEI] SF¹) KU>} VAU])
00:34 < gleki> this is what {tu'a} is for.
00:35 < gleki> it's a workaround for eliding {co'e} with its terminator
00:35 < zipcpi> mi djica lo ka citka lo plise -> {mi djica tu'a lo plise}... but {mi djica zo'ei lo plice} works too
00:36 < zipcpi> And I doubt there is a real need for the specificity of the presence/absence of an abstraction that tu'a does
00:36 < zipcpi> Especially since many place structures already define a place to be an abstraction
00:36 < gleki> i dont understand what was that gleki's idea with sumti tails or {co}
00:38 < zipcpi> So the score is basically... {zo'ei} can replace all uses of {tu'a} without ever being wrong. On the other hand, {tu'a} gives information.... which often is already encoded in the place structure
00:39 < zipcpi> seni'ibo {tu'a} is not needed
00:39 < zipcpi> ca'i BSFK
00:42 < ldlework> zipcpi: mi djica zo'e pe lo plise != mi djica lo ka co'e lo plise
00:43 < zipcpi> mi djica lo kamco'e be lo plise
00:44 < zipcpi> Yes, the latter is more specific
00:44 < ldlework> except that the generated abstraction from tu'a can include other unspecified arguments as well
00:44 < zipcpi> But my point was that the information is 99% of the time redudant
00:44 < zipcpi> And I'm not sure about the 1%
00:45 < ldlework> I can imagine a different world where you were arguing exactly the opposite
00:45 < zipcpi> Because {lo se djica} is already defined to be an abstraction
00:45 < ldlework> that since tu'a generates a full abstraction which can include anything
00:45 < ldlework> it is a superset of anything zo'ei could generate, so zo'ei is redundant
00:45 < zipcpi> No, because tu'a *must* generate an abstraction
00:46 < ldlework> zipcpi: and zo'ei can't generate abstractions with more than a single argument
00:47 < zipcpi> So I can't say mi benji tu'a do do
00:47 < zipcpi> No, it can. zo'e = lo co'e
00:48 < zipcpi> And co'e can have any place structure and mean anything
00:48 < zipcpi> Whether concrete or abstract
00:48 < ldlework> right but you don't generate an abstraction in your mind by going the route of lo kamco'e be ko'a bei ko'e etc
00:48 < ldlework> tu'a is explicitly an abstraction
00:49 < zipcpi> Yes, but why is that explicitness needed? It's already encoded in the place structure
00:49 < zipcpi> It doesn't even distinguish between lo ka, lo du'u, or lo nu
00:50 < ldlework> I'm just saying
00:50 < gleki> tu'a is {lo su'u co'e} except grammar
00:50 < ldlework> its a signal to the listener which seems very effective, so effective I've seen speakers somehow elicit the inclusion of other sumti in the implied abstraction without mentioning them
00:51 < ldlework> maybe zo'ei could do that but i'm suspicious
00:51 < ldlework> I just haven't seen it used well in dense speech with tight contexts
00:52 < zipcpi> "I sent you what is yours"
00:52 < zipcpi> mi benji zo'ei do do
00:53 < ldlework> Yeah it seems very nice when you need zo'e pe
00:53 < ldlework> saves one syllable
00:54 < ldlework> I guess pe'i people use tu'a to intentionally elicit an abstraction even though technically abstractions are "just another kind sumti"
00:54 < ldlework> otherwise you'd just see zo'e pe ko'a where tu'a is found in usage
00:55 < ldlework> where zo'e is implied to be an abstractio nbecause of the outer selbri
00:55 < zipcpi> I dunno... maybe you can bring it up with whoever proposed cekitaujau
00:55 < ldlework> no idea what that is
00:55 < ldlework> just giving my own reasoning
00:56 < zipcpi> It's a "dialect" of Lojban that swaps some common disyllabic cmavo with rare monosyllabic cmavo
00:56 < ldlework> i.... see...
00:56 < zipcpi> ce'u <> ce, ke'a <> ki, tu'a/(zo'ei?) <> tau, jo'u <> jau
00:57 < zipcpi> Also du'u <> du, su'o <> su, ko'oi <> koi
00:58 < ldlework> its not a terrible idea
00:58 < zipcpi> And bu'u <> either bu or zai... I'm not sure if they've decided yet. Probably bu *iff* they figure out how to change "ybu"
00:59 < ldlework> a lojban where you redid all the cmavo would be amazing
00:59 < ldlework> if it were adopted at large and had some sort of rhyme and reason
00:59 < zipcpi> Yeah... la gocti chose to use it when translating the BSFK page. Very zbusufukai
01:17 < zipcpi> I think it *might* be la selpa'i who proposed it. If it isn't him he probably can tell you who
01:27 < zipcpi> ldlework: Is it possible for me to edit the script?
01:27 < zipcpi> Says I can't edit the object
01:28 < ldlework> zipcpi: ah might have to change the perms on it
01:28 < ldlework> will do so in the morning
01:38 < dutchie> coi ro do
01:38 < zipcpi> coi
01:55 < gleki> zipcpi: xu do kakne lo ka stika lo glico papri pe BSFK
01:56 < zipcpi> nago'i
01:58 < gleki> xm
01:59 < gleki> i ua jetnu
02:19 < zipcpi> za'o na ka'e stika
02:21 < ctefa`o> coi
02:21 < zipcpi> coi
02:23  * nuzba @uitki: L17-03 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-03 by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1I88KcK]
03:14 < zipcpi> doi .niftyg. xu do ka'e jimpe tu'a ti noi jbobau velcki sei la'o url http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/zei'a url
03:28 < zipcpi> .y. ai mi galfi
03:29 < zipcpi> ca'e tu'a lo sumti poi se tcita cu te zenba jenai ditcu
03:31  * nuzba @uitki: L17-02 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-02 by Gleki - /* Chinese */ [http://bit.ly/1eMNv6D]
03:43  * nuzba @uitki: gadri: an unofficial commentary from a logical point of view - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadri:_an_unofficial_commentary_from_a_logical_point_of_view by Guskant - correct typo [http://bit.ly/1eMOqnL]
03:44 < gleki> there is a problem with the db  that prevents that pages from being edited, zipcpi
03:47 < niftg> .u'u mi na zvati ti ca lo nu la zipcpi mi tavla puza
03:53 < zipcpi> xu do ka'e jimpe doi .niftyg.
03:57 < zipcpi> gleki: What can we do about it?
03:57 < zipcpi> Crap I complained about that widget because it can't be edited without being a translation of the Lojban
03:57 < zipcpi> And now it can't be edited at all
03:58 < zipcpi> carmi mabla ke cinki pe'a
04:10 < niftg> mi puzi ba'o ku mu'ida tcidu fi lo ciksi jufra be zo zilzena noi srana zo zei'a
04:12 < niftg> mi pu senpi lo du'u zo zilzena cu dunli lu zi'o zenba li'u kei noi la'a jetnu
04:12 < zipcpi> zo zilzena cu se finti mu'i tu'a lo filsofiia
04:12 < zipcpi> se finti la .ilmen.
04:14 < zipcpi> mi na jimpe ri'a lo ka na certu
04:16 < niftg> ba'a zo ca'o cu ta'e kansa zo zei'a e zo zilzena
04:16 < zipcpi> mi xanka lo du'u lo tadni poi na'e se glibau na ka'e jimpe tu'a zo zilzena ja tu'a zo zildika
04:16 < zipcpi> .isemu'ibo mi ciska tu'a lu zi'o zenba li'u
04:19 < niftg> .u'i sei stace mi so'iroi se frili lo nu jimpe fi lo ciksi jufra be bau lo glico semau lo lojbo
04:23 < zipcpi> lo lojbo velcki su'oroi ckini lo filsofiia
04:23 < zipcpi> ta'oi ja lo cmaci
04:23 < zipcpi> ka'e nandu lo ka se jimpe
04:24 < zipcpi> .y.
04:24 < zipcpi> sa ka'e nandu fa lo nu jimpe
04:25 < niftg> mi puza karbi zo zenba zo zilzena lo ka bau lo lojbo cu ciksi tu'a ce'u fo makau .ibabo jdice jinvi lo du'u zo'ei zo zilzena cu clani ke tcila ja satci dunli zo'ei zo zenba
04:26 < zipcpi> ie
04:28 < niftg> mi ca'o zei'a jimpe fi le jbojufra ca lo nu tcidu ri
04:29 < niftg> di'u drani xu
04:30 < zipcpi> za'a drani
04:33 < niftg> .ui
04:33 < zipcpi> co'oru'e .i ai mi citka lo vanci sanmi
04:33 < niftg> kukteko
04:48 < gleki> zipcpi: wait for robin. or you may change then use a page with another name
04:50 < zipcpi> di'a jundi
04:53 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ta'oi
04:59 < niftg> si'au lo do te vanci cu jibni mi noi xabju lo gugdejupu doi la zipcpi
04:59 < zipcpi> mi zvati lo mejgu'e
05:00 < zipcpi> gugdemuje va'i
05:01 < zipcpi> ca ti'u li cy reno my pa
05:02 < zipcpi> (20:01 / 8:01 pm)
05:07 < niftg> .ua .ue .i tcika mintu
05:08 < zipcpi> a'u
05:08 < niftg> .u'u mi srera
05:09 < niftg> lo pa cacra zo'u tcika frica
05:09 < zipcpi> ie
05:09 < zipcpi> do me la'e me'o u'y ty cy ma'u so
05:10 < zipcpi> .iku'i mi me la'e me'o u'y ty cy ma'u bi
05:10 < niftg> ie
05:11 < niftg> xu do ze'u zvati lo mejgu'e
05:12 < zipcpi> ie mi jbena je co'a makcu bu'u my
05:14 < niftg> iepei do meljo prenu
05:14 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
05:14 < niftg> la mensi cu meljo prenu
05:14 < zipcpi> u'i
05:23 < gleki> es: ckuliki
05:24 < zipcpi> co'oru'e ai mi lumci mi
05:24 < mensi> ckuliki = x1 es un mosquito |>>> Véase también blusfani |>>> Ilmen
05:25 < gleki> lo se ckuliki cu mo
05:30 < zipcpi> Er, species/breed, just like every other animal/plant word
05:31 < zipcpi> Ilmen just doesn't like that place
05:31 < zipcpi> So he didn't add them when he defined them
05:32 < zipcpi> In my "parallel universe Lojban" /eu/ would be a valid diphthong
05:33 < gleki> in la alta it's = e'u
05:33 < zipcpi> It's not in English, but it's distinctive enough to avoid confusion pe'i, and it'd increase cmavo and rafsi space just that more
05:34 < gleki> some Lojbanic tribes pronounce {e'u} as {eiu}, some as {eu}
05:34 < zipcpi> Doesn't {eiu} break?
05:35 < zipcpi> -> {e iu}
05:36 < zipcpi> Not to mention the complexities involving lujvo and zi'evla
05:36 < zipcpi> I really don't know how many "Lojbanic tribes" there are
05:37 < zipcpi> If you might have noticed I had a really long monologue against what seems to be a "tribe" that really hates {y}
05:37 < zipcpi> And I was like... what, are you just gonna go {cucucucucucu} instead then?
05:38  * Broca . o O ( Xagvar dialect )
05:38 < zipcpi> Eh?
05:40 <@Broca> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/jbotut
05:43 < gleki> in those dialects {eiu} is not the same as {e.iu}
05:58 < zipcpi> mi tatpi co'o
06:00  * nuzba @hinoki__: 私には見えます。絵文字の並びだけで意思疎通をする人々、国境なきUnicodeの未来が！    (文法は工学言語Lojbanを採用しようぜ) [http://bit.ly/1ESc5Ig]
06:01 < niftg> emojiban
06:01 < niftg> sa'ai emojban
06:13  * nuzba @hinoki__: Lojbanの文法、プログラミング言語にも転用できるほど厳格だと謳ってるけど、実装するとなると解析速度とか気になりそう。なかなかいろんな手段(文法多様？)があるように感じマス。 [http://bit.ly/1eN42Yf]
06:18 < niftg> za'a tavla fi lo nu da'i da jbobau curve samplabau
07:00 < gleki> mi jimpe no da lo ponjo
07:04  * nuzba @uitki: Sandbox - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Sandbox by Guskant [http://bit.ly/1STkXbl]
07:41 < noncomcinse> coi
07:41 < durka42> coi
07:43 < durka42> si'au mi dei'a ui bilma
07:44 < noncomcinse> ui dai
07:44 < dutchie> coi .i .uidai
07:44 < durka42> coi la .dutcis. .i do mo
07:47 < dutchie> jibri
07:47 < durka42> ma jibri do
07:49 < noncomcinse> .i ca .ai mi jukpa lo cersai
07:49 < dutchie> lo skami ku jibri mi
07:49 < noncomcinse> lo'ai ca sa'ai caku le'ai
07:50 < noncomcinse> ua
07:50 < noncomcinse> mo skami jibri
07:52 < dutchie> lo so'imei cu skami jibri
07:52 < noncomcinse> .i .au ba lonu ckule ku mi co'e skami jibri
07:56 < dutchie> .i .u'i ba lonu skami jibri ku mi co'e la'acu'i za'ure'u ckule
07:56 < noncomcinse> ua
08:03 < dutchie> .i do xabja mo poi gugde
08:10 < durka42> mi xabju lo mergu'e
08:14 < noncomcinse> .i ji'a mi mergu'e xabju
08:17 < dutchie> ku'i mi xabju gligu'e
08:19 < dutchie> lo'ai gligu'e sa'i lo gligu'e lo'ai (?)
08:20 < dutchie> .u'i sa'ai sa'ai
08:20 < noncomcinse> lu lo'ai srera sa'ai drata le'ai li'u
08:20 < durka42> do xabju lo gligu'e
08:21 < dutchie> ue ki'e
08:21 < dutchie> sa'ai ie
08:26 < dutchie> .i ti traji fi
08:26 < dutchie> oops
08:26 < dutchie> that wasn't backspace
08:32 < noncomcinse> .u'i
08:44 < zipcpi> On Minecraft translation: Some of these are complicated because of lack of context
08:44 < zipcpi> I mean... "All". "None"
08:44 < zipcpi> I think "ro da" and "no da" is often incorrect
08:51 < durka42> hmm
08:51 < durka42> is it going to like paste them together into phrases
08:52 < durka42> like "All Items" => "All" + "Items" => {ro da lo dacti}
08:52 < durka42> because I could see how that is bad yes
08:53 < dutchie> i'd hope that any programmer would know that's not how you provide strings for translation
08:53 < dutchie> but i wouldn't put anything past mojang
08:54 < noncomcinse> ue
08:54 < noncomcinse> la .mainkraft. zo'u mo
08:55 < noncomcinse> .i mi na se slabu lonu fanva
08:55 < zipcpi> jai se troci fai lo nu fanva
08:55 < noncomcinse> ma troci
08:56 < zipcpi> https://crowdin.com/project/minecraft/jbo/activity
08:58 < zipcpi> I *think* "all" or "none" are buttons or GUI elements? In which case I would render them "ro xai" and "no xai"
08:58 < noncomcinse> ua
08:58 < ctefa`o> coi
08:58 < dutchie> ma poi samyzilkei cu se fanva fi la lojban.
08:58 < noncomcinse> ki'a zo xai
08:59 < zipcpi> la .mainkraft. goiru'e la nunkakpa doi .datcis.
09:01 < dutchie> la .mainkraft. slabu mi
09:01 < dutchie> i wanted to ask which other games had lojban translations
09:01 < zipcpi> I also wish you can hide comments for all the other languages?
09:01 < durka42> zipcpi: ...which of the 25 definitions of {xai} do you use again?
09:01 < ctefa`o> ta'a Which one is the bot that lets you check grammar correctness?
09:02 < dutchie> camxes: go'i
09:02 < camxes> (go'i VAU)
09:02 < ctefa`o> ua ki'e
09:02 < noncomcinse> camxes: gerna xu
09:02 < camxes> ([gerna xu] VAU)
09:02 < zipcpi> durka42: Er, "they"?
09:02 < zipcpi> Unspecified multiple referents
09:02 < durka42> je'e
09:03 < zipcpi> Gleki's COI variant is replaced by coi'o
09:03 < zipcpi> Or I think it's co'oi
09:04 < zipcpi> Yeah it's co'oi
09:04 < durka42> oh good
09:09 < zipcpi> Any particular objections of xunro'i being "x1 is a quantity of redstone"?
09:10 < noncomcinse> I guess redstone is a stone which is red, yeah
09:10 < zipcpi> Well it'd be defined as Jargon Type: Minecraft
09:10 < zipcpi> So it'd refer to that very specific substance, not just a stone that is red
09:10 < noncomcinse> .i tugni
09:10 < ctefa`o> But redstone is a special type of red stone;)
09:11 < ctefa`o> Is it even a rokci?
09:11 < zipcpi> Well it comes from a rokci, although you often encounter it as dust...
09:12 < zipcpi> Anyway lujvo are sometimes allowed to be a little metaphorical
09:12 < zipcpi> They call them cimjvo
09:12 < noncomcinse> lu xunro'i pulce li'u .e'u
09:12 < zipcpi> That would be for translating "Redstone Dust"
09:12 < noncomcinse> je'u
09:13 < zipcpi> The substance would still be xunro'i
09:13 < dutchie> pe'i you really only talk about redstone dust/ore/blocks
09:13 < dutchie> not redstone on its own as a substance
09:13 < zipcpi> Oh... how about "ore"
09:14 < zipcpi> Yeah but it'd do no good to define brivla for each of those would it? :p
09:14 < dutchie> ie
09:15 < durka42> what is "ore" anyway? {jinme krasi}?
09:15 < zipcpi> jinme won't work for redstone :p
09:15 < durka42> vlaste: kunra
09:15 < vlaste> kunra = x1 is/contains/is made from a mineral/ore of type/metal x2 mined from location/lode/mine x3.
09:16 < zipcpi> ua
09:16 < durka42> ua se'i toi'e ji'a
09:16 < zipcpi> Didn't know that was a gismu
09:16 < zipcpi> I was expecting to find palkemseltrugu'ero'i or something :p
09:16 < durka42> .u'i
09:16 < noncomcinse> the ore-block, maybe?
09:17 < zipcpi> Block is kubli
09:18 < zipcpi> Oh no, bliku is better
09:19 < noncomcinse> I mean
09:19 < noncomcinse> the ore that you'd mine from the ground?
09:19 < noncomcinse> or the one you get from sticking 9 thingies in a crafting ttab/e?
09:19 < zipcpi> Oh
09:20 < zipcpi> The nine things make a xunro'i bliku, pe'i
09:20 < zipcpi> The ground one is kunra
09:20 < zipcpi> The x3 gives a clue there
09:23 < zipcpi> daptutra for Nether?
09:23 < zipcpi> THat would be the exact same word for hell
09:24 < durka42> .w nether
09:24 < noncomcinse> en: daptutra
09:24 < mensi> daptutra [< dapma tutra ≈ Curse territory] = t1=d2 is a hell/cursed territory cursed by t2=d1. |>>> Cf. pacraistu,
09:24 < phenny> nether — noun: 1. (UK  dialectal, Scotland) Oppression; stress; a withering or stunting influence, 2. (mining) A trouble; a fault or dislocation in a seam of coal — verb: 1. (trans., UK  dialectal, Northern England, Scotland) To bring or thrust down; bring or make low; lower; abase; humble,[...]
09:24 < mensi> pacruxtutra, ceirselxa'u, ceizda, lijda. |>>> sarefo
09:24 < durka42> wait, is this the mining sense of "nether" then?
09:25 < zipcpi> comparator? I think that will have to use one of those logic brivla that those guys entered the other day
09:25 < noncomcinse> hell?
09:25 < noncomcinse> zipcpi: what logic brivla?
09:25 < zipcpi> Something about logic gates and such
09:25 < noncomcinse> xm
09:25 < noncomcinse> na selsau
09:25 < zipcpi> mi ji'a
09:26 < zipcpi> But technically redstone could be lojro'i too :p
09:26 < zipcpi> But in my mind what happened was that redstone was found and named *before* its logji-useful properties were discovered
09:27 < durka42> I thought redstone was dicro'i
09:28 < zipcpi> It doesn't actually work like dikca
09:28 < ctefa`o> Isn't it more minecraft jargong, deserving a fu'ivla?
09:28 < ctefa`o> It only makes sense in a minecraft context
09:28 < zipcpi> Hmm... are you worried that xunro'i might be needed to mean something else?
09:28 < zipcpi> exp: xu'unro'i
09:28 < mensi> (CU [xu'unro'i VAU])
09:28 < durka42> I think you should use {xunro'i} :)
09:29 < ctefa`o> Well it is more that that is what fu'ivla are for
09:29 < ctefa`o> Narrow and specific jargong
09:29 < durka42> {xu'unro'i} is a lujvo apparently
09:29 < zipcpi> Meh, no one cares what they are originally for anyway. We don't even call them fu'ivla anymore
09:30 < noncomcinse> je'u
09:30 < zipcpi> Oh right n-hyphen when r would create a double
09:30 < ctefa`o> Well ok to put it this way you want a very specific word here
09:31 < zipcpi> xunro'i != xunre rokci
09:31 < ctefa`o> or term
09:31 < ctefa`o> I know
09:32 < ctefa`o> But redstone is not just a red rock-ish substance. It has other very specific properties not encompassed by either "rock" or "red"
09:32 < zipcpi> Meh {ca'i BSFK} I wish they'd just decouple lujvo forms already. That way if unexpectedly they need another lujvo from {xunre rokci} they could make it {xu'enro'i} or something
09:33 < zipcpi> I don't like making long lujvo
09:33 < zipcpi> Otherwise you'd end up with jefydiknalgundei for "weekend"
09:34 < zipcpi> veljvo aren't supposed to include all the possible shades of meaning of the word
09:34 < durka42> agreed with that last
09:35 < durka42> doesn't mean we should make veljvo even less discoverable :p
09:35 < ctefa`o> I suppose "redstaun" is out of the question;)
09:35 < ctefa`o> Hmm nvm it doesn't work
09:35 < noncomcinse> cmevla
09:35 < smisituhu> redystaun even
09:36 < ctefa`o> Right, redystaun
09:36 < durka42> blah this why we never get any words created
09:36 < durka42> xunro'i! xunro'i! xunro'i!
09:36 < zipcpi> Well if you are willing to accept the cmevla-brivla merge (implemented by the experimental parser thus official as far as the BSFK is concerned), then perhaps cmevla would be good for "jargon" words
09:36 < smisituhu> ca'e zo xunroki co'e
09:36 < durka42> zipcpi: no I don't like that all
09:36 < durka42> cmevla shouldn't have place structures
09:36 < ctefa`o> cmevla-brivla merge?
09:36 < ctefa`o> Wtf have I missed
09:37 < zipcpi> durka42: Then just make it a tanru
09:37 < ctefa`o> Agreed durka
09:37 < smisituhu> camxes: +exp lo gi'ek cu mo
09:37 < camxes> ([lo gi'ek KU] [cu {mo VAU}])
09:37 < ctefa`o> agreed-cai
09:37 < zipcpi> e.g. lo .mypaxas. celxa'i = "M16 gun"
09:37 < zipcpi> Still has the same place structure as celxa'i
09:38 < ctefa`o> Well tanru is another thing
09:38 < ctefa`o> camxes: mi cmevlas
09:38 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "c" found.
09:38 < durka42> camxes: +exp mi cmevlas
09:38 < camxes> (mi [CU {cmevlas VAU}])
09:38 < ctefa`o> err
09:38 < ctefa`o> Right
09:38 < ctefa`o> Now what the crap does that mean
09:38 < smisituhu> mi me lo se cmene be zo cmevlas
09:38 < ctefa`o> And don't make it a cheap way of saying "mi'e cmevlas"
09:38 < smisituhu> sei refkursi
09:39 < zipcpi> It may be "cheap" that way, but what about {ti .spagetis.} (pretend we don't already have a dozen brivla for spaghetti)
09:40 < durka42> so basically you throw out all the brivla formation rules, plus add a bunch of pauses everywhere
09:40 < durka42> that's the really ugly side of the brivla cmevla merge and I don't want it to happen :(
09:40 < zipcpi> I agree that brivla should be an end goal
09:40 < zipcpi> But sometimes it's impractical
09:41 < zipcpi> What about things like Pokemon or city names?
09:41 < zipcpi> Must they all get a brivla?
09:41 < ctefa`o> "ti spageti"?
09:41 < durka42> if {ti .spagetis.} can mean "This is spaghetti", how do you have something named Spaghetti?
09:41 < zipcpi> And if they don't get brivla, then we'd have to put "me la"s everywhere
09:41 < durka42> it doesn't work
09:41 < durka42> well sometimes that's the price we pay for unambiguity!
09:41 < zipcpi> {la} still refers to a name
09:41  * smisituhu usually goes overboard with forcing everything into brivla form
09:42 < ctefa`o> "ti spageti" is that bad compared to "ti spagetis"?
09:42 < noncomcinse> vlatai: spageti
09:42 < zipcpi> I said we were pretending that "spageti" doesn't exist
09:42 < ctefa`o> Uhn
09:42 < ctefa`o> Uhn
09:42 < ctefa`o> Err
09:42 < noncomcinse> .i mi na jundi ca la'edi'u la'a
09:42 < ctefa`o> Uhm*
09:42 < ctefa`o> ok
09:42 < ctefa`o> So we pretend fu'ivla do not exist
09:42 < ctefa`o> Gotcha
09:42 < smisituhu> but I can't imagine myself saying {terjomrgi'e} N times when just {gi'ek} can do the job
09:43 < noncomcinse> I enabled my touchpad drivers and suddenly it turned weird
09:43 < ctefa`o> Solution: Stop pretending fu'ivla don't exist and use them?
09:43 < zipcpi> What I mean is that we are pretending that Lojban is still new and we haven't sorted out how to zi'evla-ize "spaghetti"
09:43 < ctefa`o> Unless you can find a better example
09:43 < smisituhu> "lasagna" mu'a
09:43 < noncomcinse> .u'u fliba lonu co'a .irci lo drata
09:43 < ctefa`o> But it makes no sense to pretend that
09:44 < smisituhu> to je'e je'e i zo lanzana toi
09:44 < ctefa`o> This use is what fu'ivla is FOR
09:44 < zipcpi> ctefa'o: Sure we do. That's what we always do when demonstrating the "four stages of fu'ivla"
09:45 < zipcpi> Otherwise we'd have to keep finding new words. Which someone would probably zi'evla-ize soon after we talk about them
09:45 < zipcpi> Unless we bring up Pokemon names
09:46 < ctefa`o> But ok, let's pretend zi'evla do not exist
09:46 < ctefa`o> And we want to say spaghetti
09:47 < zipcpi> And besides, even {ti me la .spagetis.} is not semantically accurate
09:47 < ctefa`o> You obviously can't use a name unless you have named your spagetti dish that;)
09:47 < zipcpi> {la} is supposed to signal a "proper" name
09:47 < fwilson> so I'm learning lojban currently, and I'm on numbers -- can I just repeat ki'o for something like two million (i.e. is re ki'o ki'o correct?)
09:47 < zipcpi> Like lo zipcpi = a penguin. la zipcpi = One who is named "Penguin", i.e. me
09:47 < noncomcinse> ti poi rokci cu me la .djan.
09:48 < ctefa`o> mi citka la .spagetis.
09:48 < smisituhu> fwilson: go'i
09:48 < noncomcinse> plot twist, it's my pet rock
09:48 < fwilson> smisituhu: thanks!
09:48 < zipcpi> That would mean "You eat something that is named "Spaghetti"" ; note the capital
09:48 < ctefa`o> We could use a lujvo
09:48 < ctefa`o> I know
09:49 < smisituhu> mi citka lo ro la .spagetis. ku poi zvati lo mi zdani
09:49 <@xalbo> .i mi pu kurji lo rokci .i ri morsi
09:49 < ctefa`o> We could use a lujvo or a tanru
09:49 < zipcpi> We can't do that for everything. Even less practically than zi'evla
09:49 < ctefa`o> Hey xalbo we are pretending zi'evla don't exist, wanna join?:)
09:49 < ctefa`o> Right zipcpi
09:50 <@xalbo> Why are we pretending that?
09:50 < ctefa`o> I dunno
09:50 < smisituhu> Proposal: throw away spoken/written isomorphism, use me'oi for everything
09:50 < zipcpi> No you are not getting the point
09:50 < ctefa`o> smisituhu: !!
09:50 < zipcpi> My point is to demonstrate a different way of making what is known as "type-2 fu'ivla"
09:50 < smisituhu> bu'a'a
09:51 < ctefa`o> I thought we were supposed to pretend zi'evlas didn't exist at all?
09:51 < ctefa`o> Ok so type-2 does
09:51 < ctefa`o> Go on
09:51 < zipcpi> Not that they didn't exist at all, but that we *haven't* to decided how to zi'evla-ize whatever it is we want to discuss
09:52 < smisituhu> ge na ku ro fu'ivla cu zi'evla
09:52 < ctefa`o> Ok ok
09:52 < smisituhu> gi na ku ro zi'evla cu fu'ivla
09:52 < zipcpi> Or we have decided *not* to zi'evla-ize it for some reason or other
09:52 < ctefa`o> Ok, so, basically, you want "names for concepts" to be treated as selbri
09:53 < zipcpi> That's what the cmevla-brivla merge is
09:53 < zipcpi> I wasn't the one who proposed it
09:53 < ctefa`o> But you seem to support it
09:53 < zipcpi> Yes
09:54 < noncomcinse> .i xunai ma'a casnu la .mainkraft. pu tu'a lo cmevla joi brivla
09:54 < ctefa`o> Can we at least stick with a cmavo to indicate "this is not an actual relation but a name dor one"?
09:54 < zipcpi> That's is {la}
09:54 < ctefa`o> Uhm
09:55 <@xalbo> Even given cmevla-brivla merge (which I oppose in the current world, due to backwards incompatibility), it seems like you're going well beyond that.
09:55 < zipcpi> How am I going "beyond" that?
09:56 <@xalbo> As I understand it, the proposed place structure for a cmevla used as a selbri is "x1 is the thing named <cmevla>", not "x1 is an instance of the concept described by the foreign word <cmevla>"
09:57 < ctefa`o> ...anyway "redystaun" is my proposal for "redstone" from minecraft
09:57 <@xalbo> {ti .spagetis.} would mean "This is Spaghetti", not "This is spaghetti."
09:57 < zipcpi> No, I think that's even worse than whatever damage the cmevla-brivla merge as I understand it could do
09:57  * smisituhu names spaghetti Spaghetti
09:57 < smisituhu> problem solved, no?
09:58 < ctefa`o> Then again me myself have a few radical ideas that would make selpa'i seem mild;)
09:58 < zipcpi> The cmevla-brivla merge as I understand it have two goals
09:58  * xalbo se mapku lo pimlu gi'e te cmene fi zo .makaronis.
09:58 < smisituhu> ma mu'a doi .nictyfam.
09:58 < smisituhu> .i'e doi te cmene
09:59 < zipcpi> One: Make {la} names able to mix cmevla and brivla. Otherwise we'd have trouble with people who have brivla-ized one part of their name but not the other
09:59 < zipcpi> Two: Make type-2 fu'ivla simpler *and* more semantically correct by not invoking a "non-proper-noun" use of {la}
10:00 < zipcpi> So {mi .djan.} would still be incorrect
10:00 < ctefa`o> Can you just not invent another cmavo that doesn't use "la"?
10:00 < zipcpi> What would that be? la'ai'a?
10:00 < zipcpi> There isn't that much cmavo space left
10:00 < smisituhu> {le}
10:00 < smisituhu> si
10:01 < zipcpi> {le} doesn't work without the cmevla-brivla merge
10:01 < smisituhu> (I know, I'm just stirring up argument for all the wrong reasons)
10:01 <@xalbo> What are you proposing for the place structure of {.djan.} (or {.spagetis.}, or any other cmevla)?
10:01 < smisituhu> ei sai mi sisti
10:02 < zipcpi> cmevla are considered to always have a {za'e} attached to them
10:02 < ctefa`o> "mi copin"
10:02 < zipcpi> So they mean whatever they mean. If we want it to always mean a single concept, we make a brivla.
10:03 < durka42> I always figured it would be {.cmevlas. = x1 me la .cmevlas.}
10:03 < ctefa`o> "mi grotrunkar"
10:03 < ctefa`o> Hey if this means we can get grotrunkar into the dictionary I am all for it
10:03 < zipcpi> durka42: That just brings up the {la} problem I was trying to point out
10:04 < ctefa`o> (Casually hopes there are no other swedes around)
10:05 < ctefa`o> Casually/Heavily/whatever
10:05 < ctefa`o> Nvm
10:05 <@xalbo> It seems like you're trying to make cmevla act like stage 4 fu'ivla.
10:05  * ctefa`o out
10:05 < ctefa`o> Oh
10:05 < zipcpi> No, stage-2
10:05 < zipcpi> They are grammatically brivla, but will not be like brivla
10:05 < ctefa`o> Make stage 4 act like stage 2, you mean doi xalbo?
10:06 < zipcpi> There are still good reasons to eventually make brivla out of most concepts
10:06 < ctefa`o> Eh other way around
10:07 < zipcpi> ta'onai though perhaps redstone should indeed be {xunroki}?
10:07 <@xalbo> It sounds like your version of {ti .spagetis.} would mean mean the same thing as CLL {ti me la .spagetis.}.
10:07 < zipcpi> Yes.
10:07 < zipcpi> But I pointed out that CLL's usage isn't semantically accurate
10:07 < durka42> sure why not {xunroki} :)
10:07 <@xalbo> In practice, no one uses stage 2 anyway, because why bother lojbanizing something into a cmevla instead of lojbanizing it into a full brivla and being able to actually use it?
10:08 < ctefa`o> ++
10:08  * ctefa`o out x2
10:08 < ctefa`o> co'o
10:08 < zipcpi> xalbo: What about Pokemon names then?
10:08 < zipcpi> Or when in conversation you just haven't decided how to make something conform into a zi'evla form?
10:08 <@xalbo> en: xavyrebyfagdaskycizborda'u
10:09 < mensi> [< xa rebla fagri daski cizra bo danlu ≈ 6 tail fire pocket strange  |  animal] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se
10:09 < mensi> tolcri
10:09 < mensi> xavreblyfagdaskycizbordal[24903], xavyrebyfagdaskycizbordal[24973], xavreblyfagdaskycizborda'u[25392],
10:09 < mensi> xavyrebyfagdaskycizborda'u[25462], xavreblyfagdaskycizbordanlu[26942], ...
10:09 <@xalbo> I'm not sure that it's any easier to lojbanize into a cmevla than a fu'ivla, is it?
10:09 < smisituhu> lo voi na ka'e zbasu lo brivla fau lo nu fleta'a cu sa'u na se jbobau
10:09 < zipcpi> Of course it is. I often have to make several tries to find an acceptable zi'evla
10:10 < zipcpi> There's tosmabru, slinku'i, and unintended lujvo
10:11 < zipcpi> Not too difficult *given some time to think*
10:11 < zipcpi> Sometimes you don't have that time
10:11 <@xalbo> {me'oi} is handy.
10:11 < durka42> I think this is going in circles .u'i
10:11 <@xalbo> Then you don't even need to coerce it into a cmevla.
10:11 < zipcpi> Yes, but ugly in "formal" text
10:12 <@xalbo> In formal text you have the time to think.
10:12 < zipcpi> Again, see pokemon names
10:12 < zipcpi> Sometimes even *with* time to think you may not *want* to make a brivla
10:13 < gocti> lo cilce pokmonepamupa cu tolcanci !
10:13 < zipcpi> Yes, I have heard the "name them all by number" joke
10:14 < durka42> xekcedisorexa
10:15 < durka42> si xekcedisoreze
10:15 < zipcpi> Even outside some fictional context like Pokemon, do we really want brivla for things like "M16 gun"?
10:15 < zipcpi> Or the names of cities?
10:15 < zipcpi> Heck even the names of countries are under dispute, as ISO designations come and go
10:15 < durka42> I've been saying thinks like {la berti .atlantik. xamsi} in diplomacy a lot
10:15 < durka42> things*
10:16 < zipcpi> Then you are already in the cmevla-brivla merge camp
10:16 < durka42> I'm a moderate merger
10:16 < zipcpi> Well you've already accepted the "hard" bit; throwing out the old grammar
10:16 < durka42> grammar is easy
10:16 < durka42> semantics are hard :p
10:16 <@xalbo> (The moderates are always the second against the wall, no matter which side of the revolution wins.)
10:17 < durka42> true
10:17 < smisituhu> I used to be against, but the merged grammar started appearing in my speech without me noticing at first
10:17 < durka42> heh
10:18 <@xalbo> smisituhu: Do I know you under another name? Are you karmanaut-si-unidan-si-selpa'i too?
10:18 < smisituhu> mi'e jbopre .i xu su'o drata bridi cu jai sarcu
10:18 < smisituhu> (to je'e do'u lu mi'e jbopre li'u na bridi toi)
10:19 < durka42> la selpa'i cu litru lo na'e se .irci
10:19 < zipcpi> durka42: What I'm trying to point out is that you can also use {lo} there. Even if you are uncertain of using the place structure of {.atlantik.}, the place structure of the tanru is that of {xamsi}
10:20 < durka42> welll
10:20 < durka42> yes kinda
10:20 < durka42> I am referring to the thing called The North Atlantic Ocean though
10:20 < durka42> not any other north Atlantic ocean(s)
10:21 < zipcpi> True... but then that gets into another argument... you see, Lojban uses "common names" and brivla where most other languages do use "proper names"
10:21 < zipcpi> See {pavma'i} et al
10:22 < zipcpi> Not that there is anything *wrong* with that though
10:22 <@xalbo> (You probably wanted {la berti ke .atlantik. xamsi} anyway.)
10:22 < zipcpi> The place sturcture of {pavma'i} is still useful
10:22 < durka42> xalbo: probably yes
10:23 < smisituhu> Many languages treat months like normal nouns
10:23 < zipcpi> I dunno... but I'm sure there are some very extremely specific brivla
10:23 < zipcpi> Oh yeah what about countries?
10:24 < smisituhu> en: pinkipai
10:24 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:24 < durka42> spanish has that crazy rule where "the monday" means either "monday" or "on monday"
10:24 < smisituhu> vlaste: pinkipai
10:24 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/pinkipai
10:24 < smisituhu> ei mi galcmicu'a
10:25 < smisituhu> mensi: ko ningau
10:25 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
10:25 < zipcpi> ... did you just add that?
10:25 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
10:25 < smisituhu> en: pinkipai
10:25 < mensi> pinkipai = x1 is Pinkie Pie from My Little Pony |>>> Also: flatacai ~ Fluttershy; tu'ailspake ~ Twilight Sparkle, but
10:25 < mensi> jbovlastes morphology checker is not up to date, so this word can't be entered into the database yet. It's
10:25 < mensi> morphologically fine by today's standards, however, so feel free to use tu'ailspake. |>>>
10:25 < mensi> selpahi
10:25 < smisituhu> na go'i .i laldo
10:25 < smisituhu> .i detri fa li 2012
10:26 < zipcpi> {lai mi dirba xirma} ?
10:26 <@xalbo> For countries, I'd say the best practice is to make a fu'ivla from the local name, if you know it. In informal contexts, use a cmevla from whatever name you do know.
10:27 < durka42> apparently vlatai is now up to date enough to accept {tu'ailspake} :)
10:29 < smisituhu> (pop quiz, how many of you got the stress right when first reading {pinkipai}?)
10:30 < zipcpi> mi na go'i
10:30 < zipcpi> u'i se'i
10:30 < smisituhu> mi zo'u mi'u
10:31 <@xalbo> I got it right, and even thought to myself how odd the stress sounded.
10:31 < smisituhu> io
10:33 < zipcpi> We really need to get a forum for the minecraft translation project
10:35 < noncomcinse> xu la jbosnu cu mapti
10:35 < zipcpi> No it needs to be asynchronous
10:35 < noncomcinse> ki'a
10:36 < zipcpi> There are comment threads on the thingy itself but it's mixed with all the other translation attempts from all the other languages
10:36 < zipcpi> Erm, meaning that when I post a message there it stays there even if you're not present to receive it.
10:37 < zipcpi> Also I wish I could annotate my translations
10:37 < zipcpi> Like why I think a certain wording is better than another
10:37 < noncomcinse> y
10:38 < noncomcinse> http://lojban.freeforums.net
10:38 < noncomcinse> pei
10:38 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/xunroki ca'i BSFK this is now a word
10:38 < zipcpi> Yeah that could work. Only wish the crowdin made it much more convenient
10:39 < smisituhu> noncomcinse: ba'a nai freeforums has a genuinely evil ToS
10:39 < noncomcinse> My other thought would be hithub
10:39 < noncomcinse> smisituhu: What do they have in it?
10:40 < zipcpi> mi'a baze'e ponse lo pruxi be do
10:40  * smisituhu cu sisku
10:42 < noncomcinse> *github
10:42 < smisituhu> "YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT THE PROBOARDS PARTIES MAY PUBLISH OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR EXERCISE OF THE LICENSE GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION. YOU AGREE TO WAIVE, AND HEREBY WAIVE, ANY CLAIMS ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THE EXERCISE BY THE PROBOARDS PARTIES OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY CLAIMS RELATING TO YOUR RIGHTS OF
10:42 < smisituhu> PERSONAL PRIVACY AND PUBLICITY. YOU WILL NOT BE COMPENSATED FOR ANY EXERCISE OF THE LICENSE GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION.
10:42 < smisituhu> "
10:42 < smisituhu> ko fraxu fi tu'a lo ga'e zei lerfu
10:42 < zipcpi> Guess I wasn't too far off with my Lojban "translation" :p
10:42 < smisituhu> iep
10:44 < zipcpi> Also need to do more taxonomy zi'evla. Specifically plant names
10:45 < noncomcinse> wow
10:47 < zipcpi> Who entered the xunro'i variants?
10:48 < zipcpi> "robin0van0der0v"
10:49 < zipcpi> Oh by the way sword is {cladaxi}. Much easier on the tongue than {cladakyxa'i}. Besides, that makes "short sword" awkward to say
10:57 < zipcpi> ... what's with the dialect that favors {ku} over {cu}
10:57 < zipcpi> I don't understand it
10:58 < zipcpi> I mean I understand the Lojban, but I don't understand why one would prefer {ku} over {cu}
11:09 < zipcpi> {cu} marks a selbri better, and is less likely to be wrong when abstractions are involved
11:10 < b_jonas> zipcpi: sword? I need a way to clearly distinguish explosive-powered projectile weapons from muscle-powered ones first
11:10 < zipcpi> Erm, does sword ever mean the former?
11:10 < b_jonas> no
11:10 < b_jonas> but {cacla} and the like are ambiguous
11:11 < b_jonas> and there doesn't seem to be an easy way to disambiguate
11:11 < zipcpi> Yeah...
11:12 < b_jonas> we get words that mean either bullet or arrow, which is fine for metaphors like "fast like a bullet" or "Cupido's arrows" but not when you're discussing actual weapon use
11:13 < zipcpi> arrow is celga'a
11:13 < b_jonas> and lujvo that are ambiguous between bow or gun, crossbow or pistol, gastraphetes or machine gun, catapult or ballista or cannon
11:13 < zipcpi> The latter ones probably are better as zi'evla
11:14 < b_jonas> I for one think we just need a single new gismu that means gunpowder or other similar explosive, and then we can easily make clear words for all these
11:14 < b_jonas> (not strictly "gunpowder", because newer explosives are used in cannons too)
11:14 < zipcpi> {spoja}?
11:15 < b_jonas> (canons and firearms)
11:15 < durka42> spoja pulce
11:15 < b_jonas> zipcpi: or {trano} or something, yes
11:15 < zipcpi> Nah
11:15 < b_jonas> why not?
11:15 < zipcpi> Too dependent
11:15 < b_jonas> {trano} probably covers all the explosives
11:16 < zipcpi> And also too vague
11:16 < b_jonas> maybe not futuristic tech like electromagnetic railguns, but do those even count as firearms?
11:16 < b_jonas> zipcpi: even together with one of {cecla} or {danti}?
11:16 < zipcpi> Why do is the method of propulsion even important? The taxonomy should first split "bow" from "gun"
11:17 < b_jonas> hmm yeah... there's grenades that are launched with muscle power but then explode
11:18 < b_jonas> zipcpi: what distinguishes "bow" from "gun"? I think it's muscle power versus chemical power. ballista, catapult, crossbow etc all use muscle power (of human or rarely animal)
11:18 < zipcpi> No, you just brought up railguns
11:19 < zipcpi> I think the shape is more important
11:19 < b_jonas> the _shape_?
11:19 < b_jonas> there's all kinds of shapes
11:19 < zipcpi> Well it is what chiefly distinguishes bow from gun in common use
11:19 < b_jonas> there's spring-powered toy guns shooting nerf pellets that are shaped like guns
11:19 < b_jonas> and wound by a muscle
11:20 < zipcpi> Yes, why can't we call that with the same brivla as for "gun"?
11:20 < b_jonas> again, I don't want to distinguish "bow" from "gun"
11:20 < zipcpi> That can be another brivla
11:20 < zipcpi> But it shouldn't be glossed as "gun"
11:20 < b_jonas> sure, you can call all of them {cecla} and {danti}. {danti} in the gimste specifically mentionts catapults, doesn't it?
11:20 < b_jonas> I don't care about gun, I want a word for _firearms_
11:20 < b_jonas> _firearms_
11:21 < zipcpi> THen why didn't you say so
11:21 < b_jonas> didn't I?
11:21 < zipcpi> No
11:21 < b_jonas> no, I didn't
11:21 < b_jonas> indeed
11:21 < b_jonas> I only said muscle power versus chemical power
11:21 < b_jonas> isn't that enough?
11:21 < zipcpi> I thought you wanted to distinguish "bow" from "gun"
11:21 < zipcpi> You said that
11:21 < b_jonas> yeah, at first
11:22 < zipcpi> And so I pointed out that the method of propulsion is not what distinguishes the two in common usage
11:22 < b_jonas> I guess I was imprecise
11:22 <@xalbo> Personally, I don't use the word "firearms" much in English, and I don't expect I'd use it any more in Lojban.
11:22 < zipcpi> We have to think about words for common usage as well, not just technical details
11:22 < zipcpi> Otherwise we'd end up with {cinki} meaning "Hemiptera"
11:23 < b_jonas> xalbo: I don't use it either, but admittedly it's at least less stupid than the Hungarian equivalent "lőfegyver"
11:23 < ldlework> I think if I was speaking to a general about a shipment of a variety of 'firearms' I would use xarci
11:23 < b_jonas> One thing I know is, don't use {xukmi} for chemically powered, because that's already too overloaded, it means chemicals, drugs, medicines, so it would confuse issues too much.
11:24 < ldlework> celxa'i
11:24 < b_jonas> ldlework: yes, but just like {cecla} and {danti}, {xarci} also includes muscle-powered weapons, doesn't it?
11:24 < ldlework> b_jonas: yes it does
11:24 < b_jonas> we started with {xarci} used in a lujvo for sword afterall
11:24 < ldlework> right that's why I would move to celxa'i for 'firearms' to mean 'portable guns'
11:24 < b_jonas> ldlework: yes, there's something in that, the gimste does say "gun/cannon (= celxa'i)"
11:25 < zipcpi> b_jonas: Why not though? Would {xumce'a} mean anything else?
11:25 < b_jonas> but in that case I don't know what bows and catapults would be called
11:25 <@xalbo> Under what contexts do you want to include a pistol and a cannon, but exclude a railgun?
11:25 < zipcpi> He wants a word for "firearms"
11:25 < ldlework> xalbo: when talking about transportable guns
11:25 < zipcpi> Not "gun"
11:25 < zipcpi> Although that should be under consideration as well
11:25 < ldlework> firearms means "portable guns"
11:26 < ldlework> not "chemically explosive projectile weapons"
11:26 < b_jonas> zipcpi: sure, chemical weapons like tear gas grenades and even worse war stuff
11:26 <@xalbo> Huh, I didn't actually know that.
11:26 < ldlework> which is what "gun" means
11:26 < zipcpi> Right I just thought of that
11:26 < zipcpi> {pojyce'a} then?
11:26 < ldlework> rocket launcher?
11:26 < ldlework> :)
11:26 < zipcpi> That can be a longer lujvo
11:26 < zipcpi> Or even a zi'evla
11:26 < ldlework> celxa'i is good for anything that is a weapon that shoots
11:27 <@xalbo> By "transportable", I guess you mean small enough to be carried easily by a single human?
11:27 < b_jonas> zipcpi: dunno, does that include grenades?
11:27 < ldlework> portable versions being the ones that are used the most
11:27 < ldlework> we don't need a third rafsi
11:27 < zipcpi> Grenades don't cecla
11:27 < ldlework> grenades are not a gun or firearm
11:27 < b_jonas> zipcpi: why not? you throw them with muscle power, sometimes even with a long stick I think.
11:27 < zipcpi> That's {renro}
11:28 < ldlework> yes, but there is no device doing the launching
11:28 < b_jonas> ldlework: the long stick is not a device? how about a sling or blowgun?
11:28 < ldlework> the stick might have a name
11:28 <@xalbo> Grenades don't kill people sisi cecla. People kill people sisi cecla.
11:28 < ldlework> but grenades are not celxa'i
11:28 < ldlework> xalbo: u'i
11:29 < b_jonas> xalbo: no. grenades se cecla
11:29 < ldlework> right
11:29 < ldlework> that's what he's saying
11:29 < b_jonas> ok
11:29 < zipcpi> veljvo are tanru, which are imprecise by definition, but once we have decided a lujvo means a thing, it means that
11:29 < b_jonas> this is complicated, I'm getting lost. let's just uninvent all the weapons instead.
11:30 < ldlework> I'm pretty sure I will continue to use celxa'i for all small arms
11:30 < ldlework> explosive or not
11:30 < zipcpi> So there's no need to think whether something {cecla gi'e ckini lo spoja}
11:30 <@xalbo> .i lo celxa'i na catra lo remna .i lo remna cu catra lo remna .i lo celxa'i cu jai te catra lo remna lo remna
11:30 < zipcpi> So if we define {pojyce'a} as "explosive-powered firearm", it means that
11:31 < zipcpi> ca'i BSFK, end of story
11:31 < ldlework> I'd still use xa'i at the end
11:31 < zipcpi> Grenades can get another lujvo altogether
11:32 < b_jonas> zipcpi: I still wonder if trany- would be better in such a lujvo than spojy-
11:32 < zipcpi> Then it makes it dependent of the composition of the explosive
11:32 < zipcpi> We don't want that
11:32 < b_jonas> also, I'd actually like a pair of words. how would you call the opposite, muscle-powered projectiles?
11:33 < zipcpi> sluji is muscle
11:33 < b_jonas> "dependent of the composition of the explosive" -- seems a safe enough bet
11:33 < ldlework> punxa'i
11:33 < zipcpi> b_jonas: I don't want to think about that
11:33 < ldlework> for things like bows
11:33 < zipcpi> What if they come up with some explosive compound that doesn't {trano}? WHat then?
11:33 < zipcpi> There is such a thing as being too specific
11:33 < ldlework> ie
11:34 < b_jonas> zipcpi: or they can come up with humans with a skin such that the bullets just bounce back from it, sure... well no
11:34 < zipcpi> The thing is that you are multiplying entities
11:34 < ldlework> puncelxa'i, pojycelxa'i
11:34 < ldlework> mu'o
11:35 < b_jonas> I'm not trying to invent words for impossible sci fi weapons like lightsabers right now. I'd leave that for another time.
11:35 < zipcpi> And making dependencies on things that the common man doesn't think about when distinguishing the two things
11:35 < ldlework> ^ ie cai
11:35 < ldlework> embedding domain knowledge into the utilization of technology is a bad idea
11:35 < ldlework> the idea of a gun is that you don't need to understand chemistry for it to be useful
11:36 < ldlework> or identifiable
11:36 < b_jonas> oh sure, let's just give guns to everyone without any knowledge about them. that always works out well.
11:36 < b_jonas> domain knowledge hah
11:36 < ldlework> b_jonas: just like we do all technology?
11:36 < b_jonas> yes, like cars. I know.
11:36 < ldlework> how many people really understand how their computers work?
11:36 < b_jonas> I don't, but I'm starting to get more and more idea about that actually and some details are scary
11:37 < ldlework> usually we name technological implements based on their use, not their mechanism QED
11:37 < b_jonas> unlike weapons, I actually know about computers
11:37 <@xalbo> b_jonas: Or we could tell children not to play with weapons that are powered by nitrogen reactions, and see how well that goes.
11:37 < ldlework> xalbo: u'i
11:37 < ldlework> I think my lujvo were good for the original distinction wanting to be made no?
11:37 < b_jonas> xalbo: yeah, no, I tell them not to play with any weapons that can shoot an eye out. not even bows.
11:37 < ldlework> puncelxa'i, pojycelxa'i
11:38 <@xalbo> ldlework: Yeah, I'd say those are pretty good.
11:38 < ldlework> celxa'i for all projectile weapons
11:38 < b_jonas> ldlework: yeah, could work I guess... let me think
11:38 < zipcpi> And then we need another that separates "bow" from "gun", and is agnostic about the method of propulsion
11:38 < ldlework> bukcelxa'i for sling, etc
11:39 < zipcpi> And "arrow" from "bullet"
11:39 <@xalbo> (Also beware of things like compressed air, and electricity, though maybe those fall into the category of "unusual sci-fi weapons")
11:39 < ldlework> zipcpi: my two lujvo makes that separation
11:39 < ldlework> of bow from gun
11:39 < b_jonas> zipcpi: arrow is {se puncelxa'i} and bullet is {se pujycelxa'i} if you take those words above
11:39 < ldlework> ie
11:39 < b_jonas> arrow in the general sense that is
11:39 < zipcpi> No I don't want {pojycelxa'i} to mean "gun"
11:39 < b_jonas> including catapult stones
11:39 < ldlework> zipcpi: celxa'i means "projectile weapon"
11:40 < ldlework> if you're using gun in the colloquial sense of "things that shoot things, however"
11:40  * xalbo notices {se danti}
11:40 < ldlework> which includes guns like slings
11:40 < zipcpi> We just said we weren't trying to distinguish bows from guns
11:40 < zipcpi> But then we need new lujvo for *those*
11:40 < ldlework> hwat?
11:40 < zipcpi> ... oi
11:41 < zipcpi> b_jonas wanted a lujvo that meant specifically "a weapon powered by explosives"
11:41 < zipcpi> *projectile weapon
11:41 < b_jonas> ldlework: isn't "gun/cannon (= celxa'i)" enough for that sense?
11:41 < ldlework> b_jonas: yes
11:41 < ldlework> celxa'i == shooty thing
11:41 < b_jonas> ok
11:41 < zipcpi> Doesn't count railguns, doesn't count toy guns, but counts cannons
11:42 < ldlework> celxa'i does
11:42 < zipcpi> celxa'i counts all of them
11:42 < zipcpi> Including bows
11:42 < ldlework> ...
11:42 < ldlework> yes, guns means two things
11:42 <@xalbo> "celxa'i == shooty thing" .i'e
11:42 < ldlework> 'all shooty things'
11:42 < ldlework> or 'shooty things propelled by gunpowder'
11:42 < zipcpi> No, I think what distinguishes the common word "bow" from "gun" is the shape
11:43 < ldlework> which is hard to agree with
11:43 < b_jonas> meh, bows are for art
11:43 < zipcpi> Or the type of bullet they fire
11:43 < ldlework> its the most useless characteristic of the thing
11:43 < ldlework> zipcpi: right, which is informed by how it is launched
11:43 < b_jonas> I was asking about easy to use stuff like guns and ballistas and crossbows and gastraphetes and catapults that don't require training and just smash stuff
11:43 <@xalbo> "gun" in my usage is "shooty thing that doesn't rely on human strength", which is why they're more dangerous to self and others than bows.
11:43 < zipcpi> It may be useless but it's the most identifiable
11:44 < ldlework> it really isn't
11:44 < ldlework> projected chemically and projected via wound-tension are the most distinguishing characteristic
11:44 < b_jonas> and I specifically don't restrict to human strength, something using horse's muscle's is still muscle-powered
11:44 < zipcpi> There needs to be a word that means toy guns, explosive-powered guns, railguns, laser guns, but not bows
11:44 < ldlework> why?
11:44 < ldlework> it makes zero sense to me
11:44 < ldlework> bows are simply a subset of 'shooty things'
11:44 < ldlework> so are guns that use gun powder
11:45 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Do you include slingshots?
11:45 < b_jonas> zipcpi: does {celxa'i} work for that?
11:45 < zipcpi> That would be yet another lujvo
11:45 < b_jonas> zipcpi: do blowguns count?
11:45 < ldlework> bukcelxa'i
11:45 < zipcpi> Well then how would you distinguish a toy gun from a toy bow then?
11:45 < b_jonas> ldlework: wait, you're saying zipcpi wants an Englishism?
11:45 < ldlework> vaxycelxa'i
11:46 <@xalbo> "shooty things you can carry around and kill stuff with with no more effort than pulling a trigger"
11:46 < ldlework> b_jonas: even if its not 'malglico' I don't htink the bow shape is what defines bows categorically
11:46 < zipcpi> b_jonas: Several systems of taxonomy *can* coexist
11:46 < b_jonas> xalbo: hah! some early guns using gunpowder certainly require much more effort than that
11:46 < ldlework> maybe he thinks it is literally the shape of the thing that makes it different than a 9mm
11:46 < b_jonas> probably more than a crossbow
11:47 < ldlework> xalbo: I think gun is better to be defined as any device for which the device helps increase momentum of the projectile
11:47 < b_jonas> guns were't always full-auto-reload machine guns like you see in video games and http://www.xkcd.com/188/
11:47 <@xalbo> b_jonas: I don't disagree. But I'd say that in terms of regulations and safety, an old-fashioned gun like that isn't too much of a problem.
11:47 < ldlework> either serves entirely, or helps, the actual projection
11:47 < zipcpi> Just like we can agree that {cinki} refers to any small arthropod that we commonly call "bug", even if scientists would object
11:47 < ldlework> not how much damage the thing actually does
11:47 < zipcpi> For the scientific distinction, there's {insekto} etc.
11:47 < ldlework> zipcpi: that's what we're doing. the lujvo here are not very specific
11:48 < zipcpi> No, b_jonas wanted a more technical distinction.
11:48 < zipcpi> I said those can exist, but we also need a more laic distinction too
11:48 < ldlework> zipcpi: he wanted a specific distinction however subjectively technical to you
11:48 < ldlework> we found the distinction
11:48 < ldlework> it involves a two-part lujvo
11:49 < zipcpi> The technical distinction is of a different taxonomy than the laic distinction
11:49 < ldlework> zipcpi: no, you have a different opinion on what defines the taxonomy all together
11:49 < zipcpi> They can coexist
11:49 < ldlework> 'shape' isn't inherently laic
11:49 < ldlework> maybe it is malglico :(
11:50 < zipcpi> Again, what distinguishes a toy bow from a toy gun?
11:50 < ldlework> what distinguishes the things they imagize
11:50 < ldlework> does shape implement and inform the method of projection? sure.
11:50 < ldlework> but I can create a bow-shaped gun
11:51 < ldlework> or an umbrella shaped one
11:51 <@xalbo> .i ca dormijysai
11:51 < ldlework> 'bow' refers to the thing that does the launching
11:51 <@xalbo> (like Chewbacca has)
11:51 < ldlework> IE, the tension of a bowed stick
11:51 < ldlework> not the mere shape
11:51 < ldlework> 'gun' has no natural shape
11:51 < zipcpi> Fine let's just enter {pojycelxa'i} and {puncelxa'i} and think about the rest later
11:52 < ldlework> the shape argument falls flat
11:52 < zipcpi> Though there probably needs to be a distinguishment between "bow" and "sling"
11:52 < ldlework> sling is not a puncelxa'i
11:52 < ldlework> slings have nothing to do with tension
11:52 < zipcpi> Depends on what kind of sling o.o
11:53 < ldlework> mmm no
11:53 < zipcpi> Maybe that's malglixlu
11:53 < ldlework> bukcelxa'i
11:53 < b_jonas> is there a specific word for blowguns?
11:53 < ldlework> but this focuses on the material
11:53 < zipcpi> There are two kinds of sling really
11:53 < ldlework> b_jonas: I have one
11:53 < zipcpi> The one you swing around and throw
11:53 < zipcpi> And the one powered by elastics
11:53 < zipcpi> The second one definitely {cecla}s
11:53 < ldlework> zipcpi: slingshot is different than sling
11:53 < zipcpi> Oh
11:53 < ldlework> they both cecla
11:53 < ldlework> sling is a piece of cloth, practically nothing more
11:53 < ldlework> a slingshot is a tension device
11:53 < ldlework> like a bow
11:54 < zipcpi> Then are we just deciding by fiat that puncelxa'i doesn't include them though? I think I'd prefer another lujvo for that
11:54 < ldlework> b_jonas: vaxycelxa'i
11:54 < b_jonas> ldlework: sling is piece of cloth plus lots of skill. you have to learn it by taking a class or feat or something, like you have to learn a bow, unless you get proficiency as hobbit racial bonus.
11:54 < ldlework> that's irrelevant though
11:54 < ldlework> however true
11:54 < ldlework> :)
11:54 < ldlework> oh it was a joke
11:54 < b_jonas> ldlework: hmm, dunno
11:55 < ldlework> I read like the first 4 words
11:55 < ldlework> b_jonas: the skill is definitely unrelated to the mechanism of action pe'i
11:55 < b_jonas> as for sling and slingshot, that's not even the worst weapon name confusion
11:55 < b_jonas> (yeah, {caxycelxa'i} probably works)
11:55 < zipcpi> What about railguns though?
11:56 < ldlework> b_jonas: cax?
11:56 < b_jonas> sorry
11:56 < ldlework> oh vax
11:56 < b_jonas> {vaxycelxa'i}
11:56 < b_jonas> can't type
11:56 < ldlework> ki'e
11:56 < ldlework> zipcpi: what about them
11:56 < b_jonas> anyway, there are two different weapons called "morning star". that's just brilliant.
11:56 < ldlework> makcelxa'i
11:57 < ldlework> b_jonas: heh
11:57 < zipcpi> There is still a category of distinction that includes railguns, laser guns, and firearm-guns, but not bows
11:57 < zipcpi> Because in the former
11:57 < b_jonas> let's call both of them {certarxa'i}
11:57 < ldlework> don't see how
11:58 < zipcpi> Because the use is similar even though the mechanisms differ
11:58 < zipcpi> {zmiku}?
11:58 < b_jonas> zipcpi: how about tasers, blasters, stun guns, nerve um whatever blasters are called in the Foundation universe?
11:58 < ldlework> zipcpi: in the non-lojban world can you find any conversation, textbook, reseller, manufacturer that organizes their guns by whether they have a trigger?
11:58 < zipcpi> b_jonas Yes, those all {zmiku}
11:59 < ldlework> a bow is automatic
11:59 < ldlework> you have to string the bow, or load the gun
11:59 < zipcpi> No, operation is very different
11:59 < ldlework> you're just being arbitrary
11:59 < ldlework> for a railgun, who knows if I have to calibrate a computer and push a button or pull a lever to shoot it
11:59 < b_jonas> why are you always bringing up bows?
11:59 < zipcpi> ... sigh
12:00 < ldlework> zipcpi: bows are automatic in exactly the same way as 9mm's
12:00 < ldlework> if that's the road you're headed I can't follow you there
12:00 < b_jonas> they're not even among the six classical weapons the romans thought a learned men had to be proficient with, are they? those were, what, gun, candle stick, rope, lead pipe, dunno
12:00 < ldlework> lol
12:00 < b_jonas> sorry, don't take that seriously
12:01 < zipcpi> Is it really *that* malglico? Do no other languages make the same taxonomic distinction?
12:01 < ldlework> zipcpi: except we've made the same taxonomic distinction
12:01 < ldlework> you've simply confused the word 'bow' with 'shape' rather than 'tension'
12:01 < ldlework> the stick 'bows'
12:01 < zipcpi> If we really must avoid all malglixlu-type taxonomy, why is {mi'ai} even in the dictionary then?
12:01 < b_jonas> zipcpi: it can't be worse than some of the riddiculous polearm names
12:01 < b_jonas> or morning star
12:01 < ldlework> zipcpi: ignoring the answer to your question now... :/
12:02 < ldlework> its not malglico, you're simply confused of which sense of bow is meant with regards to the weapon's name.
12:02 < ldlework> what natural shape informs the name 'gun'?
12:03 < ldlework> that weapons include shape, is incidental to the fact that shape often informs a weapons _mechanism of action_
12:03 < b_jonas> Commander Keen calls them "Neural Stunner". is the adjustable weapon name "blaster" from Star Wars or Star Trek or both or neither?
12:03 < zipcpi> That I pick it up and pull the trigger, and do not care about how it is powered?
12:04 < ldlework> what?
12:04 < b_jonas> and what's the adjustable weapons called in the Foundation universe? I keep forgetting it
12:04 < zipcpi> The thing is there is room for *overlapping* categories of distinction
12:04 < b_jonas> zipcpi: you can charge and pull the trigger of a crossbow, much more easily than that of some of the medieval guns.
12:04 < ldlework> also, what if the gun is empty
12:04 < ldlework> suddenly you care how it is loaded
12:05 < b_jonas> zipcpi: that's because a crossbow and modern guns are _simple weapons_ so you don't need weapon proficiency to use them, a sling, bow, or nunchuk are not
12:05 < zipcpi> OK yeah I don't really know my guns. Sue me, I'm not an American, even though I know I act like one sometimes :p
12:05 < ldlework> a taxonomy of guns based on their interface is also very strange
12:05 < ldlework> because we can invent arbitrary interfaces to the same propulsion mechanism
12:05 < ldlework> triggers, levers, buttons, voice commands, a sexually illicit body language
12:05 < ldlework> whatever
12:05 < b_jonas> zipcpi: http://www.xkcd.com/188/ tells all you need to know about guns
12:05 < ldlework> none of those are useful for the purposes of war
12:05 < b_jonas> zipcpi: but not about bows or slings, there's no royal road for learning those
12:06 < ldlework> b_jonas: hahaha
12:06 < ldlework> sera'a le zdile
12:07 < zipcpi> gun: "a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise."
12:07 < b_jonas> zipcpi: so including cannons, right?
12:07 < b_jonas> does it include rocket launchers?
12:07 < zipcpi> That's what the dictionary says
12:07 < zipcpi> I'm not going there again
12:08 < b_jonas> ok
12:08 < Zluglu> coi ro do
12:08 < b_jonas> I don't know if that's an Englishism or not, I'm just saying maybe Hungarian is deficient in words or something, but I'm sure it doesn't have such a word
12:08 < b_jonas> so that's not the categorization I'm thinking of
12:08 < b_jonas> chemically powered projectile weapon is close, though it includes rockets
12:09 < Zluglu> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldT2g2qDQNQ so lojban is an “Incredibly pedantic constructed” language
12:09 < zipcpi> "synonyms:	firearm, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, carbine, automatic, handgun, semiautomatic, machine gun, Uzi; More"
12:10 < b_jonas> but yes, maybe railguns are a tad bit more realistic than lightsabers (tubes of magnetically contained plasma that can be turned on and off in a fraction of a second)
12:11 < zipcpi> They already exist; they just aren't in common use yet
12:13 < b_jonas> hah, let's invent a word for cold fusion and room temperature semiconductor too
12:13 < zipcpi> Why not? I just entered {xunroki} into the dictionary
12:17 < zipcpi> en: celxa'i
12:17 < mensi> celxa'i [< cecla xarci ≈ Launcher weapon] = xa1=c1 is a gun/cannon/firearm for use against xa2 by xa3, launching
12:17 < mensi> projectile c2 propelled by c3. |>>> jvajvo; Gismu deep structure is "cecla gi'e xarci". |>>>
12:17 < mensi> araizen
12:17 < zipcpi> ...
12:17 < zipcpi> Bow is entered as bagyce'a
12:18 < zipcpi> en: bagyce'a
12:18 < mensi> bagyce'a [< bargu cecla ≈ Arch launcher] = c1=b1 is a bow that shoots arrow c2 from string c3, and is made of material
12:18 < mensi> b3. |>>> Cf. bargu, cecla, celga'a, xarci. |>>> arj
12:18 < ctefa`o> coiru'e
12:18 < zipcpi> Hi
12:18 < b_jonas> zipcpi: I think there was already a word or two for crossbow in jbovlaste, you might want to check that
12:19 < Ilmen> coi
12:19 < zipcpi> So all that was for nothing... people have already defined cimjvo
12:19 < Ilmen> en: cimjvo
12:19 < mensi> cimjvo [< cilmo lujvo ≈ Moist affix compound] = l1 is an implicitly metaphorical lujvo with meaning l2 and arguments l3
12:19 < mensi> built from metaphor l4. |>>> Used to refer to metaphorical lujvo that do not contain any -pev- rafsi (for “pe'a”). The
12:19 < mensi> word “cimjvo” is itself an example of cimjvo. Synonym of “cimjvo” with explicit metaphor: “pevycimjvo”. |>>>
12:19 < mensi> daniel
12:19 < ctefa`o> Was it less than 10 syllables b_jonas?;)
12:19 < zipcpi> And run around all the deep philosophical taxonomy distinctions
12:19 < b_jonas> ctefa`o: I don't remember
12:20 < zipcpi> Malglixlu is as malglixlu does
12:20 < ctefa`o> coi .ilmen.
12:20 < b_jonas> ctefa`o: I ran into it ages ago when I wondered how to say gastraphetes
12:20 < Ilmen> coi do
12:21 < b_jonas> coi .ilmen
12:21 < Ilmen> ma nuzba
12:21 < b_jonas> what zipcpi sais
12:22 < Ilmen> sa'u mi pu na ganse lo krasi be lo nu casnu
12:22 < zipcpi> We just had a rather loud discussion about how to distinguish "bow" from "gun"
12:22 < zipcpi> But now we found people have already defined lujvo that are... not quite correct, but already established
12:23 < b_jonas> and about what we want to distinguish in first place and what should have a word and what shouldn't and my crazy ideas
12:23 < b_jonas> and that we don't even know what some English words like "gun" and "firearms" mean
12:24 < b_jonas> plus people convincing me that {trano} isn't the gismu they want to use in lujvo for explosive-powered weapons, but {spoja} is
12:24 < b_jonas> and morning stars
12:25 < Ilmen> je'e
12:26 < b_jonas> and everyone focusing on their particular favourite weapons, like gastraphetes and stuff
12:26 < zipcpi> That one should be a zi'evla
12:26 < b_jonas> what? why?
12:27 < zipcpi> Well when something is so specific as to use such a "foreign" name
12:27 < b_jonas> "foreign" your mom
12:27 < ctefa`o> ta'a Is that lojbanic "talk" server still going?
12:27 < b_jonas> English is full of these latin and greek names
12:27 < ctefa`o> Mumble
12:27 < zipcpi> No, but it isn't anglicised like "information"
12:28 < b_jonas> gastraphetes means belly-charger because it's such a large (crossbow) that you don't push it with your hands, your arms are so weak,
12:28 < b_jonas> you charge it by leaning it with your belly (gastra) on one end and the ground on the other end\
12:28 < b_jonas> it's a belly crossbow
12:28 < b_jonas> you don't need zi'evla for that
12:28 < Ilmen> ctefa`o: It does
12:28 < zipcpi> Yeah but why invent a lujvo for that when almost every other language just fu'ivla from each other?
12:29 < b_jonas> zipcpi: are you sure? I don't know what other languages call a gastraphetes
12:29 < b_jonas> zipcpi: I for one say you use a zi'evla when you can't eaisly compose a lujvo becaues you can't easily make up the meaning from parts
12:29 < Ilmen> ctefa`o: zbaga.ax.lt:64738
12:29 < Ilmen> this is the new server
12:29 < b_jonas> for a huge crossbow, because that's what the gastraphetes really is, you don't need zi'evla
12:30 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: nice
12:30 < b_jonas> not any more than you need one for, um, what was my last example,
12:30 < zipcpi> I still tend to prefer zi'evla over vonjvo
12:30 < zipcpi> Cause the consonant clusters get too much
12:30 < b_jonas> haruspex. a seer that does divination from livers of sacrificed beasts and poultry.
12:31 < Ilmen> "canti tcidu"
12:31 < Ilmen> pei
12:31 < ctefa`o> Will get on as soon as I get out of lo djacu
12:31 < ctefa`o> If anyone is on
12:31 < zipcpi> en: skogarce'a
12:31 < mensi> skogarce'a [< skori garna cecla ≈ Rope bar launcher] = x1=c1 is a bow/crossbow/ballista for shooting ammunition x2=c2
12:31 < mensi> [arrow/quarrel/crossbow bolt] by flexing and releasing bow/prod/lath x3=g1 of material x6=g3, to whose two ends are tied
12:31 < mensi> bow string x4=g2=s1 of material x5=s2. |>>> To be clear, the launch mechanism is as follows: x4 is pulled so as to bend
12:31 < mensi> x3, while x2 is placed on x4, and x4 is released, causing x3 to snap back into its normal shape, launching x2 as it does
12:31 < mensi> so. |>>> zort
12:32 < b_jonas> Ilmen: yeah, something like that. I don't remember what we figured. I always said {livga} because I think the "entrails" part is misleading,
12:32 < zipcpi> That's already a cibyjvo
12:32 < b_jonas> but in any case the "divination" or "future reading" is the hard part
12:32 < Ilmen> It doesn't need to be overspecific in its morpheme composition
12:32 < Ilmen> what else could be "canti tcidu (prenu)"?
12:33 < b_jonas> Ilmen: it wasn't too specific, we settled on something short I think
12:33 < Ilmen> anyway rafsi are just meaning hints
12:33 < zipcpi> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes
12:33 < zipcpi> There aren't that many other languages translated
12:33 < b_jonas> (and I still think it's {livga}, not {canti}, but I could be wrong)
12:34 < zipcpi> But they all tend to be variations of "Gastraphetes"
12:34 < zipcpi> Of course, Chinese always have to be the odd one out...
12:34 < zipcpi> They're even worse than Lojbanists when it comes to resistance against fu'ivla :p
12:34 < b_jonas> does Japanese use a fu'ivla?
12:35 < zipcpi> There isn't a japanese page
12:35 < Ilmen> Japanese do have fu'ivla
12:35 < zipcpi> But Japanese love their fu'ivla
12:35 < zipcpi> besuboru
12:35 < Ilmen> foreign words are usually spelled in katakana
12:35 < Ilmen> such as "kompyutaa" for "computer
12:35 < Ilmen> "
12:35 < b_jonas> Ilmen: yep
12:36 < dutchie> camxes: .i puzaku la juLIET. cu klama la paris.
12:36 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "j" found.
12:36 < dutchie> what's wrong here?
12:36 < Ilmen> When I say "foreign words", I don't count words from Chinese, which are quite numerous in Japanese
12:37 < b_jonas> dutchie: camxes is stupid and doesn't  like the "IE" part. try replacing it with "I'E" to satisfy camxes, and don't believe what he says.
12:37 < Ilmen> camxes: la .juliiet.
12:37 < camxes> ([la juliiet] VAU)
12:37 < dutchie> huh
12:38 < dutchie> it seems like there should be a simple fix for that
12:38 < Ilmen> Recently i+vowel and u+vowel have been banned from the morphology, and should be replaced with "ii+vowel" or "uu+vowel"
12:38 < dutchie> ah
12:38 < dutchie> ki'e
12:38 < Ilmen> or i'+vowel and u'+vowel
12:38 < dutchie> ua
12:38 < b_jonas> Ilmen: which is, of course, riddiculous. in cmevla, it should be fine. the CLL even has like two or three examples.
12:39 < Ilmen> The rational for this was that there are people who have a hard time distinguishing for example [tie] from [tce]
12:39 < zipcpi> b_jonas: How do you distinguish i,a,i,a,ion from i,ia,ii,ia,ion then?
12:39 < b_jonas> I can accept that you don't want to allow them in zi'evla, because there, the CLL is completely ambiguous.
12:39 < Ilmen> b_jonas: I was in favor of keeping glides in cmevla
12:40 < b_jonas> Ilmen, zipcpi: sorry, I shouldn't have brought this up probably.
12:40 < Ilmen> but the majority voted for a complete ban of glides+vowel =s
12:40 < b_jonas> let's just say that camxes currently doesn't allow it, and I shouldn't comment further on it for now.
12:41 < b_jonas> let's go back to liver readers and belly chargers and fish speakers
12:41 < dutchie> should i prefer la juLIET. or la juLIIET. then?
12:41 < dutchie> or just use either and not worry about it?
12:41 < zipcpi> The latter.
12:41 < Ilmen> dutchie: the latter one
12:41 < dutchie> je'e
12:41 < gocti> juliIET to be exact
12:42 < gocti> except it's a cmevla, so disregard that
12:42  * gocti runs off
12:42 < zipcpi> Yeah I don't see why cmevla can't be stressed on more than one syllable. But you probably don't want to stress every one :p
12:42 < Ilmen> yeah, ju-li-IET
12:43 < Ilmen> dutcies: also, stress is optional in cmevla (name words ending on a consonant)
12:44 < Ilmen> and stress can also be marked with an accent mark, which is more discrete
12:44 < Ilmen> {la .juliiét.}, for example
12:44 < dutchie> je'e
12:45 < Ilmen> camxes: musofybáknicuzvátilopúrdi
12:45 < camxes> ([{<mu BOI> sofybakni KU} cu] [zvati {lo purdi KU} VAU])
12:45 < Ilmen> (white spaces are optional when the stressed syllables are explicitly marked)
12:46 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: about that, does standard lojban say that you have to mark stress on the whole syllable or just the vowel?
12:46 < dutchie> u'e
12:46 < zipcpi> (though then you have to be more careful about marking mandatory pauses) :p
12:46 < ctefa`o> I.e. klAma vs KLAMa
12:46 < ctefa`o> Err
12:46 < ctefa`o> klAma vs. KLAma*
12:46 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: Both are okay
12:46 < Ilmen> capital consnants have no effect
12:46 < Ilmen> only capital vowels count
12:47 < Ilmen> so KLAma == klAma
12:47 < ctefa`o> Ok. Only remember seeing whole-vowel examples in the cll
12:47 < Ilmen> == KLAMa
12:47 < ctefa`o> Yeah, I know
12:48 < Ilmen> camxes: musofybAknicuzvAtilopUrdi
12:48 < camxes> ([{<mu BOI> sofybakni KU} cu] [zvati {lo purdi KU} VAU])
12:48 < zipcpi> The CLL is rather old and doesn't reflect some of the changes that have happened, some of which are even about as official as you can get
12:49 < zipcpi> As far as I can understand, there is CLL Lojban at the bottommost strata
12:49 < ctefa`o> I know but I don't recall seeing stress discussed anywhere else in non-old dociments
12:49 < zipcpi> Then the "official-ized" changes that the CLL doesn't reflect, like xorlo, dotside, and morphology changes
12:50 < zipcpi> Then the more "experimental" changes incorporated into the commonly used experimantal parser but not the official one. Includes sumtcita-merge, simplified connectives, and cmevla-brivla merge
12:50 < Ilmen> The process for updating the CLL is ongoing, but it's very slow. As of now it's in the state where the old CLL is getting ready for being printed and undergoing corrections
12:51 < dutchie> what's dotside?
12:51 < Ilmen> dutchie: A small reform concerning cmevlas
12:51 < zipcpi> Then you have the truly radical ideas that do not even have a parser yet, like cekitaujau and two letter rafsi
12:51 < gocti> objection!
12:51 < gocti> si
12:51 < zipcpi> u'i doi gocti
12:52 < Ilmen> Dotsides makes cmevla's morphology freer, but requires dots to be put both before and after cmevla
12:52 < Ilmen> so, "la .lojban." instead of "la lojban."
12:52 < Ilmen> Before Dotsides, names such as "las" were forbidden, if I recall correctly
12:52 < Ilmen> *Dotside
12:53 < zipcpi> Before dotside: Cmevla can't have {la}, {lai} or {doi}, except immediately after a consonant. If cmevla occur immediately after these words, they don't need a pause (but they still do after other words, like {coi}! Even the CLL got that wrong on its very first page)
12:53 < gocti> jbofihe: la latros. broda cu mo
12:53 < mensi> (0[{la <(1la tros)1 broda> KU} cu {mo VAU}])0
12:53 < Ilmen> xD
12:54 < zipcpi> After dotside: Cmevla can now have those banned syllables, but now they must always require a pause both before and after
12:56  * nuzba @enkiv2: Are there any musical groups that record only in esperanto? What about Lojban? [http://bit.ly/1RHFr5f]
12:56 < ldlework> b_jonas: you should come visit la jbogu'e
12:56 < enkiv2> is nuzba a twitter bot?
12:56 < Ilmen> ue coi
12:56 < Ilmen> enkiv2: Yes
12:57 < enkiv2> i guess that doesn't bode well, if the mentions of lojban on twitter are so infrequent
12:57 < gocti> enkiv2: see YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT THE PROBOARDS PARTIES MAY PUBLISH OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR EXERCISE OF THE LICENSE GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION. YOU AGREE TO WAIVE, AND HEREBY WAIVE, ANY CLAIMS ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THE EXERCISE BY THE PROBOARDS PARTIES OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY CLAIMS RELATING TO YOUR RIGHTS OF PERSONAL PRIVACY AND PUBLICITY. Y
12:57 < ldlework> enkiv2: don't have any disillusions about the size of our communicty
12:57 < gocti> su
12:57 < gocti> su
12:57 < gocti> enkiv2: see https://www.youtube.com/user/shanikuzai/videos and https://www.youtube.com/user/lilisuno
12:58 < Ilmen> xD
12:58 < enkiv2> there's a lojban wikipedia. i think the community counts as pretty large.
12:59 < zipcpi> So yeah there are essentially four "major" dialects of Lojban
12:59 < gocti> Lojban Wikipedia is dead (or was last time I was there)
13:00 < ldlework> enkiv2: that's certainly polite of you :)
13:00 < Hakkavelin_> coi ro do .i
13:01 < Ilmen> coi la samgutcre
13:01 < zipcpi> dutchies: If you want to see how level 2/3 Lojban is like, see the Wave lessons or the Crash course
13:01 < ldlework> level 2/3 lojban...?
13:02 < gocti> xorlo/dotside/BPFK changes
13:03 < zipcpi> Based on the list I gave: level 1=CLL, level 2=official changes like xorlo, dotside, morphology changes, level 3=experimental changes included in the commonly-used parser like sumtcita-merge, simplified connectives, cmevla-brivla merge, level 4=cekitaujau + 2-letter rafsi
13:03 < Hakkavelin_> je'e la Ilmen
13:03 < ldlework> strange
13:04 < zipcpi> And now ca'i BSFK syllabic consonants no longer exist in level 4 :p
13:04 < gocti> cipr: la zipcpi ca djunybico'a lo du'u lo gernyrco'e cu cu'e
13:04 < cipr> SyntaxError: Expected [oO] but "e" found.
13:04 < ldlework> I would say 'core predication and objectification' is level 1, subordination is level 2.. etc
13:04 < gocti> cipr: la zipcpi ca djunybico'a lo du'u lo gernyrco'e cu co'e
13:04 < cipr> ([FA {la zip-cpi KU}] [CU {<ca djuny-bi-co'a> <(¹FE [lo {du'u <(²FA [lo gernyrco'e KU]²) (²cu [co'e VAU]²)> KEI} KU]¹) VAU>}])
13:05 < zipcpi> Oh so that's your level 4 parser? :p
13:05 < gocti> na kakne tau la cetkitau
13:05 < ldlework> am I using pu'o correctly?  {do xagji pu'o lo nu do citka}
13:05 < zipcpi> Awr
13:05 < gocti> ldlework: BPFK says {se pu'o}
13:06 < Ilmen> "when you're eating, you're going to be hungry"
13:06 < Ilmen> if I'm not mistaken
13:06 < ldlework> en: pu'o
13:06 < mensi> pu'o = [ZAhO] interval event contour: in anticipation of ...;  until ... ; inchoative         ----|     |. |>>>
13:06 < mensi> officialdata
13:06 < ldlework> en: ca
13:06 < mensi> ca = [PU] time tense relation/direction: is [selbri]; during/simultaneous with [sumti]; present tense. |>>>
13:06 < mensi> officialdata
13:06 < ldlework> en: ba
13:06 < mensi> ba = [PU] time tense relation/direction: will [selbri]; after [sumti]; default future tense. |>>>
13:06 < mensi> officialdata
13:07 < ldlework> I interpret {ko'a broda pu'o ko'e} in that ko'a brodas until ko'e
13:07 < ldlework> in anticipation of ko'e
13:08 < Ilmen> pu'o is the prospective aspect, it's for when an event is going to happen
13:08 < Ilmen> mi pu'o citka = I'm going to eat, I'm not eating but will be eating
13:09 < Ilmen> "I eat until X" is more {mi citka co'u X}
13:09 < ldlework> right, pu'o *implies* that the event happens in the future, but that merely the consequence
13:09 < ldlework> of it happening after the whatever is going on in the main bridi
13:09 < ldlework> if I'm hungry now
13:09 < ldlework> and I'll be hungry until I eat
13:09 < ldlework> of course, me eating is in the future
13:10 < ldlework> but that's not the entirety of the semantic
13:10 < ldlework> otherwise pu'o == ba
13:10 < ldlework> or rather pu
13:10 < Ilmen> pu'o is close to "ba", but with addtitional semantics
13:10 < ldlework> exactly
13:10 < ldlework> in that the main bridi is continuative, until the pu'o's event takes place
13:10 < ldlework> that's the meaning of 'until'
13:10 < Ilmen> "mi ba citka" doesn't refute "mi ca citka"
13:11 < Ilmen> "mi pu'o citka" does
13:11 < ldlework> right, I don't see how that conflicts with the sumtcita interpretation
13:12 < ldlework> in your selbri modification example, pu'o is in the future and hasn't happened yet
13:12 < ldlework> mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka
13:12 < ldlework> this claims exactly the same
13:12 < gocti> BPFK's definition of ZAhO as sumtcita differs from the ma'oste's: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Aspect
13:12 < ldlework> that mi citka is in the future and hasn't happened yet
13:12 < Ilmen> {mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka} -- when I'm eating, I'm going to be hungry
13:12 < ldlework> that seems useless
13:12 < ldlework> like a semantic with no utility
13:13 < ldlework> certainly not as much as an actual "until" would be
13:13 < gocti> {co'u} can work as "until"
13:13 < ldlework> ba and pu both have expected and understanable relations to the main bridi
13:14 < ldlework> pu'o is very surprising
13:14 < Ilmen> {.i sa'u ko troci co'u lo nu claxu lo titnanba}
13:14 < ldlework> and seems like it can be fufilled with caba
13:14 < Ilmen> (part of Jmive Zaho)
13:14 < ldlework> I don't get it
13:15 < durka42> that translation doesn't seem to match the BPFK section
13:15 < Ilmen> It was intended to mean "try until you lack cake
13:15 < Ilmen> "
13:15 < ldlework> why the heck does co'u mean 'until'
13:15 < durka42> mi xagji pu'o lo nu citka — I'm not yet hungry (but when I am, I'll be eating)
13:15  * ldlework boggles.
13:15 < durka42> oh that one is easier!
13:16 < durka42> mi xagji co'u lo nu citka — The event of me being hungry stops while I'me ating
13:16 < durka42> don't boggle at me, I'm applying the BPFK definitions! :p
13:16 < ldlework> I see "I hunger. The end of this event is: I eat."
13:16 < durka42> right
13:17 < ldlework> please can we redo all the definitions
13:17 < ldlework> of everything
13:17 < ldlework> ki'e durka42 Ilmen gocti
13:17 < durka42> ZAhO is real good at generating awkward english translations
13:18 < ldlework> so
13:18 < ldlework> pu'o is like the opposite of co'u
13:18 < zipcpi> "I would say 'core predication and objectification' is level 1, subordination is level 2.. etc" wait what?
13:18 < ldlework> {mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka} = "I hunger. This event wont take place *until*: I eat."
13:18 < ldlework> zipcpi: ma cfipu
13:19 < Ilmen> pu'o can be reversed with "se"
13:19 < zipcpi> I have no idea what those mean
13:19 < gocti> levels of changes to CLL vs levels of teaching newbies
13:19 < Ilmen> although I'm not sure the official grammar wouldn't cringe at that
13:19 < ldlework> Ilmen: I'm not asking to reverse the predicated objects when related with pu'o. My opposite I mean semantically.
13:19 < ldlework> Is this true: {mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka} = "I hunger. This event wont take place *until*: I eat."
13:19 < zipcpi> Ugh how to'e zbusufukai of me. I don't even know what the BPFK agreed about the sumtcita
13:20 < ldlework> zipcpi: core-predication == bridi form, objectification = nonce descriptions from predicate (lo - ku)
13:20 < Ilmen> pu'o: «Prospective aspect. It indicates that a situation is about to take place, not yet realized. When tagging a sumti, the sumti indicates an event occurring while the situation is not yet realized.»
13:20 < ldlework> this to me is the minimal level of certu
13:20 < ldlework> Ilmen: just says yes or no
13:20 < ldlework> lol
13:20 < ldlework> Is this true: {mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka} = "I hunger. This event wont take place *until*: I eat."
13:21 < durka42> I don't think so
13:21 < ldlework> the event not taking place is mi xagji
13:21 < zipcpi> ldlework: Yeah but that doesn't talk about dialects :p
13:21 < ldlework> let me reword
13:21 < ldlework> Is this true: {mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka} = "I hunger. This event (me being hungry) wont take place *until*: I eat."
13:21 < Ilmen> I think it means "I'm eating and is going to be hungry"
13:21 < ldlework> whaaaaa
13:21 < durka42> Ilmen: I think that's wrong too!
13:22 < durka42> what about the part in the def where it says "the situation is not yet realized"
13:22 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Is there a list somewhere about all the BPFK definition changes they've agreed on but not entered into JVS
13:22 < durka42> then it can't mean "I am eating"
13:22 < durka42> zipcpi: none of the BPFK definitions have been entered into JVS
13:22 < zipcpi> Because I'm still using a lot of things the way the JVS defines it
13:22 < durka42> it's the old mabla ma'oste
13:22 < Ilmen> zipcpi: the BPFK defs are to become the official definitions eventually
13:22 < gocti> zipcpi: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Category:BPFK_Section
13:22 < ldlework> We need an event contour visualizer
13:23 < ldlework> One where you can only use brodV and ko'V
13:23 < durka42> I thought there was a picture somewhere
13:23 < ldlework> no no no
13:23 < ldlework> that thing is *useless*
13:23 < ldlework> I mean type in a simple brodV and ko'v using sentence
13:23 < zipcpi> But yes, I'm supposed to be the founder of the BSFK, with a page full of level-4-isms, but I don't even know how level-2 sumtcita work
13:23 < ldlework> get a chronological visualization
13:23 < Ilmen> The BPFK definitions are almost complete, they're currently in the process of being voted upon, but it's slow as continental drift
13:23 < zipcpi> o'anaisai
13:23 < Ilmen> @ zipcpi
13:23 < durka42> ah that would be nice :)
13:24 < ldlework> can't anyone tell me whether {ko'a broda po'u ko'e} means, ko'a broda wont happen until ko'e does?
13:24 < Ilmen> I don't think it does
13:24 < durka42> the way I read the definition, it says ko'e happens while ko'a does not yet broda
13:24 < Ilmen> I think ko'a and ko'e are simultaneous
13:25 < Ilmen> hm
13:25 < durka42> er
13:25 < durka42> no
13:25 < Ilmen> sa
13:25 < Ilmen> .u'i
13:25 < durka42> now I agree with Ilmen's translation from before
13:25 < zipcpi> One problem is that the definitions are often unclear as to what they do with any sumti they tcita
13:25 < durka42> sorry
13:25 < ldlework> which is what
13:25 < durka42> I keep switching the gismu
13:25 < gocti> ldlework: pe'i it does
13:25 < durka42> zipcpi: the BPFK defs are always clear about that!
13:25 < ldlework> WHAT
13:25  * ldlework cries
13:25 < durka42> oh come on gocti!
13:25 < zipcpi> That's also why I had such a problem answering the question of what my own sumtcita, (zei'a), and (dei'a)
13:25 < ldlework> get your shit together jbopre u'i
13:25 < zipcpi> durka42: I was talking about the laldyrai ma'oste :p
13:26 < durka42> zipcpi: the ma'oste sucks and was never meant for learning
13:26 < zipcpi> *(zei'a) and (dei'a) tags
13:26 < durka42> Ilmen can you paste the definition again .u'i
13:26 < Ilmen> "broda pu'o lo nu brode ~= pu'o broda ca lo nu brode. "
13:26 < ldlework> at least that's what we tell ourselves in retrospect
13:26 < ldlework> u'i
13:26 < durka42> yes that!
13:26 < Ilmen> pu'o = Prospective aspect. It indicates that a situation is about to take place, not yet realized. When tagging a sumti, the sumti indicates an event occurring while the situation is not yet realized. broda pu'o lo nu brode ~= pu'o broda ca lo nu brode.
13:26 < ldlework> Ilmen: I don't know what that means
13:26 < ldlework> examples are bad
13:26 < zipcpi> durka42: Yes I know. mablyrai ke carmi mabla
13:26 < ldlework> please just tell me the order and overlap of the events
13:26 < gocti> oi
13:26 < durka42> mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka => mi pu'o xagji ca lo nu mi citka => I am not yet hungry and I am eating
13:27 < durka42> that's what I get from the definition
13:27 < ldlework> when will I be hungry?
13:27 < durka42> some time later
13:27 < ldlework> cizra
13:27 < Ilmen> I think {ca lo nu... cu pu'o..} would be better
13:27 < ldlework> someone come up with an actual believable use
13:27 < durka42> You're telling me all this time I've been eating bowls of hunger?!
13:27 < gocti> Ilmen: ie
13:27 < ldlework> u'i
13:27 < durka42> mi tolxagji ca lo nu mi citka?
13:28 < durka42> er
13:28 < durka42> mi tolxagji pu'o lo nu mi citka?
13:28 < ldlework> I'm not yet satiated but am eating?
13:28 < Ilmen> {pu'o} is like {canai je ba}
13:28 < durka42> ldlework: yeah
13:28  * ldlework endevors to create an html5 visualizer
13:28 < ldlework> wait no
13:29 < ldlework> la jbogu'e visualizer :D
13:29 < zipcpi> durka42: I just wish you could search these
13:29 < ldlework> seriously, we need a korpus of contour examples yesterday
13:29 < durka42> zipcpi: ie
13:29 < gocti> PEG in LSL sususu
13:29 < ldlework> ii
13:30 < ldlework> gocti: I can extend LSL though
13:30 < ldlework> with C# and provide new built-in functions
13:30 < ldlework> so its not that bad :)
13:30 < gocti> ri'e
13:30 < ldlework> gocti: are you going to visit?
13:30 < Ilmen> durka42: ie pei {pu'o} is very similar to {canai je ba}
13:30 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
13:31 < gocti> la'a ba za .i ca ku lo mi kibyterjo'e cu masno gi'e kargu
13:31 < gocti> co jai
13:31 < ldlework> you don't need a strong computer
13:31 < ldlework> it isn't secondlife
13:31 < ldlework> its a small island with basically nothing in it
13:31 < ldlework> just other jbopre and some toys and trees
13:31 < durka42> Ilmen: for the predicate, but not for the tagged sumti
13:31 < zipcpi> durka42: Which "experimental cmavo", if any, have been incorporated yet?
13:31 < durka42> in camxes-exp?
13:31 < zipcpi> No in BPFK sections
13:31 < durka42> umm
13:31 < durka42> ja'ai
13:31 < durka42> xa'o
13:32 < durka42> I'm not aware of others but there might be
13:32 < ldlework> gocti: je'a vitke stidi
13:32 < Ilmen> They're very few
13:32 < zipcpi> Not even ki'ai/sa'ei?
13:32 < gocti> su'oi and ro'oi if you count guskant's paper
13:32 < Ilmen> zipcpi: nope
13:32 < Ilmen> But anybody can write a proposed definition for them
13:32 < durka42> I'd be very glad if the BPFK could explain what the hell is the difference between those two, .u'i
13:32 < zipcpi> ... do we really need su'oi and ro'oi?
13:33 < durka42> we do if you're a fan of plural logic!
13:33 < durka42> it makes my head hurt but smart folks assure me it is fundamental to everything
13:33 < zipcpi> Wait are you really confused about the difference between ki'ai and sa'ei?
13:33 < gocti> su'o X = su'oi X poi pa mei
13:33 < zipcpi> I've seen people misuse sa'ei when they meant ki'ai the other day
13:33  * gocti is guilty of that
13:33 < durka42> oh no I guess not
13:33 < zipcpi> do zbusufukai
13:34 < durka42> I don't know between sa'ei, ci'oi and tai'i though
13:34 < Ilmen> en: sa'ei
13:34 < mensi> sa'ei = [COI2] Converts following cmevla or zoi-quote into onomatopoeia. (bam! crash! kapow! etc.) |>>> Narrower term
13:34 < mensi> than tai'i. See also sance, ci'oi, ki'ai. |>>> spheniscine
13:34 < zipcpi> ci'oi are for things that don't actually make a sound, but are evocative of a certain action or mental state
13:35 < zipcpi> They are common in Japanese, but even English has them. "Zing!" "Yoink!"
13:35 < zipcpi> Zing being the "sound" of pain, and yoink being the "sound" of stealing
13:35 < durka42> I see
13:37 < zipcpi> tai'i is basically when you don't want to have to distinguish between sa'ei and ci'oi
13:38 < zipcpi> Hard time seeing that used though; people would probably just end up misusing sa'ei when they mean ci'oi. Then again, YMMV, since ci'oi is much more common in Japanese than English
13:39 < zipcpi> Well it's kinda like how people use {nu} like {su'u}
13:39 < zipcpi> Seriously what is up with that
13:39 < durka42> la'a lo nu tordymau cu krinu
13:39 < zipcpi> Yeah
13:40 < ldlework> I sort of wish we were all in jbogu'e having these conversations
13:40 < gocti> {nu} and {du'u} are kinda like English /h/ and /N/
13:40 < ldlework> we're all setup for it
13:40 < ldlework> well not all
13:41 < durka42> easier to multitask while IRCing though
13:42 < ldlework> why's that
13:42 < durka42> gocti: eh?
13:42 < durka42> I mean because it's just text
13:42 < ldlework> but, can't you just use the text interface?
13:42 < ldlework> maximize the chat window
13:42 < ldlework> :D
13:42 < ldlework> also there is radegast client which is text only
13:43 < ldlework> I need to get an IRC bridge going, but unfortunately the official one doesn't work on freenode for some reason
13:43 < ldlework> so I'd have to build it
13:44 < gocti> (the environments where they can occur are almost disjoint but they feel completely different from each other to the speaker)
13:44 < Ilmen> BTW, what is the vocal chat thing in the Singularity viewer, @ ldlework?
13:44 < ldlework> Ilmen: we can integrate a free service, or I can do some work to make mumble usable from inside the secondlife client, but everyone has to download an addon to their client
13:44 < ldlework> selpah'i recommends we just use the normal mumble
13:45 < Ilmen> je'e
13:45 < Ilmen> sure
13:45 < ldlework> and that if people in mumble are interested as to what other people are talking about that will motivate them to login to jbogu'e
13:45 < gocti> ta'o .au pei co'u fa'u co'a glibau fa'u jbobau casnu
13:45 < ldlework> well that's my own thought, in response to his recommendation not selpah'is
13:47 < zipcpi> Oh did gocti see my fun new word, {zbusufukai} yet? I can't remember
13:47 < gocti> ganse ja'a ku
13:47 < zipcpi> i'e
13:47 < ldlework> I've been pronouncing be as bei my whole jbonunji'e :(
13:47 < gocti> .i mi jinvi lenu mutce lobykai
13:48 < durka42> ldlework: yeah that was a fun realization for me
13:48 < zipcpi> doi cadgu'a do zbusufukai
13:48 < durka42> I imported my entire lojban pronunciation knowledge from spanish and later I realized the vowels were not quite right
13:48 < ldlework> ouch
13:49 < durka42> I've been told there is _still_ a difference between {bei} and like "bay", but I can't hear it, so :)
13:49 < ldlework> I think it is my rounded-vowel tendencies as a glipre that bites me most
13:49 < zipcpi> durka: Try starting to say "bear", but not finishing it, for {be}
13:49 < ldlework> zipcpi: that's not bei
13:49 < ldlework> oh
13:49 < gocti> or "bed"
13:49 < ldlework> you said that
13:49 < durka42> it's the vowel in "heh", no?
13:49 < durka42> yeah
13:49 < zipcpi> No I don't like "bed"
13:50 < ldlework> bed works exactly the same
13:50 < zipcpi> tends to sound like "bade" to my ears
13:50 < ldlework> o.O
13:50 < durka42> "bear" and "bed" are different vowels
13:50 < durka42> in my dialect
13:50 < durka42> "bade" is quite different!
13:50 < ldlework> bed and heh seem to have the same vowel
13:50 < zipcpi> Yes it is
13:50 < gocti> su'a ko'oi ba'e sai ro jicmu ve ckule cu cilre fi lo .itpa
13:50 < durka42> beh-are
13:50 < durka42> zo'o
13:51 < ldlework> bed and bear seem to have the same vowel if I don't go anywhere close to the 'a' in bear
13:51 < durka42> maybe
13:51 < zipcpi> But I believe Lojban e is X-SAMPA [E], not [e]
13:51 < durka42> except it sounds the same as "bare"
13:51 < durka42> so you can't go by letters
13:51 < ldlework> durka42: yes, when full
13:51 < zipcpi> [e] sounds too much like /ei/
13:51 < ldlework> durka42: ie
13:51 < durka42> hold on now I need an X-SAMPA audio chart :)
13:51 < ldlework> omg
13:51 < ldlework> jbogu'e!
13:52 < durka42> is there one in there?
13:52 < ldlework> no but that's an amazing thing to have in there!
13:52 < ldlework> ki'e sai
13:52 < durka42> ie
13:52 < durka42> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio
13:52 < ldlework> "lets walk over to the IPA chart..."
13:52 < durka42> zipcpi: you're saying {e} is an open-mid vowel, not close-mid?
13:52 < zipcpi> Yes
13:52 < durka42> I agree
13:52 < gocti> http://chins.qc.to/voksna.html
13:53 < durka42> uesai
13:53 < Ilmen> As for me, I use mid vowels for /o/ and /e/
13:53 < gocti> (pilno lo snavei pe la uitkimledja toi)
13:53 < zipcpi> The close-mid is too confusable for /ei/
13:53 < durka42> hey! that's the mcgurk guy!
13:53 < ldlework> Ilmen: then what do you use for /ei/ ?
13:53 < Ilmen> (so, half-way between a closed [e] and an open [ɛ])
13:53 < gocti> +to
13:54 < Ilmen> well I don't have trouble distinguishing [ei] from [e]
13:54 < Ilmen> but you can pronounce "ei" with a more open e if you want
13:55 < ldlework> eyah
13:55 < Ilmen> to make a better contrast
13:55 < ldlework> with more rounding?
13:55 < Ilmen> Rounding? ua nai ru'e
13:55 < zipcpi> I'd put an oval somewhere between the front-mid and the front-near-open for Lojban /e/
13:55 < ldlework> (I know there is no actual 'ah' sound its just to help with the sense of rounding at the end)
13:55 < zipcpi> Centered on the open-mid
13:56 < ldlework> actually I just imagined this conversation in mumble
13:56 < Ilmen> In phonetics, "rounding" means "lip rounding" :)
13:56 < ldlework> with everyone vocalizing various e sounds at the same time
13:56 < ldlework> Ilmen: ah I thought I remembered in the cll or something distinguishing between english speaking vowels which are usually 'rounded' compared to the 'short vowels' used in lojban
13:57 < ldlework> like the short o being pronounced ough
13:57 < ldlework> do-ugh melbi mi-yah
13:57 < gocti> off-glides rather
13:57 < ldlework> ua
13:57 < ldlework> ki'e
13:58 < zipcpi> Red shades for unrounded vowels, blue for rounded?
13:58 < zipcpi> In lojban only o and u are rounded
13:58 < Ilmen> (in the phonetic sense of "rounded")
13:58 < zipcpi> Mhm
13:58 < Ilmen> ie nai pei
13:58 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
13:59 < zipcpi> So Lojban e = front open mid, with some allowed variation but avoiding the close-mid
13:59 < zipcpi> Lojban a = any unrounded open
14:00 < zipcpi> Lojban i = close front unrounded
14:00 < zipcpi> Lojban o = rounded mid back, can be anywhere between close-mid and open-mid
14:00 < zipcpi> Lojban u = rounded close back
14:01 < zipcpi> Lojban y = central mid; some variation allowed
14:02  * gocti cu darlnranta tu'a zo'oi o ju'e zo'oi O tai le nu no'a tu'a zo'oi e ju'e zo'oi E
14:03  * nuzba @frenezulino: @enkiv2 @cizyprijev Lojban song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLrmjRIMgAk [http://bit.ly/1SU8iFb]
14:03  * nuzba @cizyprijev: @enkiv2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Esperanto_music    For Lojban, check out anything by "la selpa'i" or "lilisuno". [http://bit.ly/1ETA3CT]
14:03 < durka42> oh interesting
14:03 < durka42> nuzba doesn't reset its timer for a /me
14:03 < ldlework> ma cinri
14:04 < ldlework> honestly
14:04 < ldlework> I can render webpages onto prims
14:04 < ldlework> I may just put up a board, and render the wiki chart onto it
14:04 < zipcpi> Grr I can't draw slanted ellipses
14:05 < ldlework> zipcpi: you'll get there, keep practicing
14:05 < zipcpi> No I mean in Paint.net
14:05 < ldlework> mmm
14:06 < ldlework> is there no word for 'legal' ?
14:06 < gocti> ko pilno la jimpe ku se ju la .djimp.
14:06 < zipcpi> I'm not very certu with graphics programs
14:06 < gocti> fladra?
14:06 < zipcpi> In what sense
14:06 < ldlework> "Are you doing something illegal?"
14:06 < zipcpi> {zekri}?
14:06 < ldlework> nice
14:07 < zipcpi> xu do ca gasnu lo zekri
14:09 < zipcpi> I like how someone translated Minecraft "Time to Strike" as {lo vlile ku ja'a danfu}. Though I'd put {cu} instead of {ku}
14:09 < zipcpi> Or just leave it out altogether since ja'a can never be in the middle of a tanru
14:09 < ldlework> I usually go for ku if I have a simple sumti and there is a selbri modifier
14:09 < zipcpi> I don't like using ku for cu
14:09 < ldlework> I do when there is a selbri modifier
14:10 < zipcpi> Causes problems if you're in an abstraction
14:10 < ldlework> like I said, if I have a simple sumti
14:10 < gocti> .oi .u'u za'a bu'o la .djimp. na curmi zo'e bi'u nai .i la xinmo jvinu ja'a go'i
14:10 < ldlework> le broda ku pu brode
14:10 < zipcpi> Yeah well, I'm the zbusufukai who invented {i'au}; so I hate thinking about context too much :p
14:13 < zipcpi> I don't even see you in jbogu'e
14:14 < ldlework> I was too lonely!
14:14 < zipcpi> uinaidai
14:14 < ldlework> but I'm going to head home and log on
14:14 < ldlework> co'o ro pendo
14:14 < zipcpi> co'o
14:15 < gocti> co'o cadgu zei .a
14:15 < Ilmen> ca sai lo nu mi jbogu'e nerkla .u'i
14:15 < zipcpi> But yeah the experimental cmavo the BPFK chose to define make sense, since they feel genuine holes
14:15 < zipcpi> *fill
14:15 < zipcpi> I mean, really, {xa'o} and {ja'ai}
14:16 < gocti> ro xusra be lo du ri ja ra cipra cmavo cu jifxu'a
14:17 < zipcpi> "Everything said about these cmavo is false" ?
14:17 < durka42> everyone claiming that these cmavo are experimental is lying
14:17 < zipcpi> lol
14:18 < zipcpi> Yep, they're about as level 2 as you can get
14:18 < zipcpi> Can't be level one until they finish rewriting the CLL + ma'oste :p
14:19 < durka42> s/they/we
14:19 < gocti> ^
14:19 < zipcpi> Right. But I'm not BPFK :p
14:20 < gocti> lo ro ma'a jdice lo du lo jbobybau cu mo kau
14:20 < zipcpi> jbobybau ki'a
14:20 < gocti> jbo: jbobo
14:20 < mensi> jbobo = x1 lojbo x2 |>>> .i ko pilno va'o lo nu do ji'a jinvi lo du'u zoi jy. loj jy. .a zo lojbo .a zo .lojban.
14:20 < mensi> tolmletce ni'o li'a ra'oi jbo rafsi zo jbobo |>>> danr
14:20 < gocti> (to mi na go'o jinvi toi)
14:20 < gocti> *go'oi
14:21 < zipcpi> So it's the same as "lojbo", but for people who are so used to calling Lojban "jbobau" that they feel that "Lojban" doesn't make sense as a name anymore :p
14:21 < gocti> la'a
14:27 < ctefa`o> Well "Lojban" is a name
14:27 < zipcpi> Yes. but then Lojban became lojbo, then was assigned the rafsi jbo, then people attached it to make the brivla jbobau
14:27 < ctefa`o> But eh, nvm, this discussion won't lead anywhere
14:28 < zipcpi> But yeah I have no dog in the fight
14:28 < ctefa`o> I just don't agree that Lojban and lojbo can mean the same thing
14:28 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: Lojban and jbobau
14:29 < ctefa`o> Right
14:31 < zipcpi> Well, both jbobo and lojbo share the rafsi {jbo} :p
14:31 < ctefa`o> >_>
14:31 < zipcpi> ca'i BSFK
14:31 < Ilmen> lojbóbo
14:31 < gocti> (to ge'i lo ro la .lojban. gi lo ro jbobau cu za'u mei toi)
14:31 < Ilmen> cujbonóbo
14:32 < ctefa`o> Maybe when I get more experienced in lojban I will change my mind.
14:33 < durka42> zo jbobo cu jai xamselsku
14:33 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: You can think of {jbobau} as "x1 is Lojban"
14:35 < durka42> lol xorxes made lojbab mad
14:35 < durka42> jbodrama
14:35 < ctefa`o> So...x1 is what the name Lojban refers to?
14:35 < Ilmen> yeah
14:35 < ctefa`o> So what if I call my cat "Lojban"
14:36 < ctefa`o> Is it "lo lojbo" now?
14:36 < Ilmen> .u'i no
14:36 < zipcpi> Oh crap it's the {me la} again
14:36 < durka42> zo lojbo frica zo jbobau
14:36 < Ilmen> the referent of "Lojban" depends on the context
14:36 < durka42> there can always be multiple things with the same name
14:36 < durka42> ie
14:36 < Ilmen> the x1 of jbobau is the language called Lojban
14:36 < durka42> cmevla are inherently polysemous which is another reason not to use them for anything important :p
14:36 < zipcpi> And it has x2 and x3 places as well, that act the same as {bangu}
14:37 < ctefa`o> I don't buy it and I don't think I ever will sorry
14:37 < zipcpi> Buy what?
14:37 < ctefa`o> This idea
14:37 < zipcpi> Which idea?
14:37 < zipcpi> I'm so confused
14:37 < ctefa`o> Or its justification
14:37 < durka42> that {jbobau} refers to the Lojbanic language?
14:37 < ctefa`o> Uhm
14:37 < ctefa`o> Using names as selbri?
14:38 < zipcpi> ... that was never brought up here
14:38 < durka42> oh you popped the stack back a few hours
14:38 < durka42> .u'i
14:38 < ctefa`o> I just came back
14:38 < ctefa`o> Now to go on the mumble server
14:38 < ctefa`o> Did someone have the new mumble server name?
14:39 < ctefa`o> Got lost in the recent conversarion
14:39 < Ilmen> Zbaga
14:39 < Ilmen> zbaga.ax.lt:64738
14:40 < ctefa`o> ki'e
14:40 < zipcpi> lojbo is not defined in terms of {la .lojban.} except perhaps informally
14:41 < zipcpi> So no, naming your cat Lojban won't change the meaning of {lojbo}
14:42 < Ilmen> ie
14:42 < Ilmen> ko mi tugni doi la mensi
14:42 < ctefa`o> No but it breaks using "lojban" to refer to "jbobau"
14:43 < ctefa`o> Ilmen it doesn't work
14:43 < zipcpi> {jbobau} isn't defined in terms of {la .lojban.} either
14:43 < ctefa`o> I can't connect using your server, mumble won't even let me try
14:43 < zipcpi> I agree cmevla are inherently polysemous. I'm not saying that brivla are useless and should be abolished. I'm not *that* zbusufukai
14:44 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: add a new server, call it Zbaga, put "zbaga.ax.lt" as its address, and 64738 for the port
14:44 < Ilmen> and then choose an username
14:44 < Ilmen> I'm currently logged in
14:44 < Ilmen> so it works
14:45 < sdamashek> fwilson: of course you're in here
14:45 < zipcpi> I'm saying that there are certain contexts where defining brivla would be difficult or too presumptive, and using {me la} so that cmevla can be used instead is too cumbersome
14:45 < fwilson> sdamashek: go'i
14:45 < ctefa`o> The connect button gets grayed out
14:45 < Ilmen> huh
14:46 < zipcpi> And... yes, not quite smudra
14:46 < fwilson> and I guess I'm still trying to think of Lojban grammar structures in English :/
14:46 < ctefa`o> Then make another cmavo doing that
14:47 < ctefa`o> Eject one of the unused experimential cmavo
14:47 < ctefa`o> Into whatever feels un-cumbersome enough
14:47 < durka42> I'm in the merge camp but I don't see any difference between {lo berti .atlantik. xamsi} and {lo berti me la .atlantik. me'u xamsi}
14:47 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: I've just done agaian the steps I've told you, and it works for me
14:47 < Ilmen> *again
14:47 < ctefa`o> Very strange
14:47 < dutchie> is {mi cilre du'u tavla fo la lojban.} right?
14:48 < durka42> dutchie: mi cilre lo nu tavla fo la .lojban.
14:48 < ctefa`o> I have no idea what may be wrong
14:48 < zipcpi> durka42: But there is a big difference between {ti .spagetis.} and {ti me la .spagetis.}, pe'i
14:48 < ctefa`o> Maybe the .ax.it?
14:48 < dutchie> ki'e
14:48 < durka42> dutchie: oh, cilre says it wants a du'u in x2
14:48 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: maybe
14:48 < dutchie> u'i
14:48 < dutchie> i noticed that
14:49 < durka42> dutchie: well anyway, {du'u …} is a bridi (and {nu …}) so you always need a {lo) to put it in a sumti
14:49 < zipcpi> Except that how "correct" {ti .spagetis.} is is in dispute
14:49 < dutchie> so {lo du'u ...} and it's right?
14:49 < ctefa`o> Ilmen, trying to update mumble
14:49 < ctefa`o> Nope I have 1.2.8
14:50 < Ilmen> it's zbaga.ax.lt
14:50 < zipcpi> So maybe we need an experimental cmavo that isn't actually meant to be used, but only meant to clarify the difference between "me la" as a proper noun, and "common" nouns
14:51 < zipcpi> la'e zo
14:52 < zipcpi> me'oi = me'au la'e zo'oi
14:52 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: seems I am not the only one with this problem. None of the proposed worksrounds work for me though
14:52 < zipcpi> So *la'a'ai = me'au la'e zo
14:53 < durka42> dutchie: yeah should be
14:53 < zipcpi> "the referent of this word", without implying a "name"
14:53 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: Did you create a mumble authentification certificate?
14:53 < durka42> dutchie: come to #ckule for simple questions when #lojban is overrun
14:53 < zipcpi> Though I don't know whether the Lojban word {cmene} makes that distinction
14:53 < Ilmen> No idea whether that's related, but I've made one if I remember correctly
14:53 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: hmm maybe not?
14:54 < Ilmen> Config > certificate wizard
14:54 < Ilmen> I've no idea whether that's the issue
14:54 < Ilmen> but you can have a try
14:54 < ctefa`o> Maybe check your server, does it only allow certified connections?
14:54 < Ilmen> I'm not the owner of the server, it's gotci's
14:55 < zipcpi> So *{ti .spagetis.} -> {ti me'au la'e zo .spagetis.}
14:55 < ctefa`o> Created one
14:55 < zipcpi> No {la} in sight
14:55 < ctefa`o> No do difference
14:56 < Ilmen> :S
14:56 < ctefa`o> -do
14:57 < zipcpi> It's also roughly the difference between {la'au}, and {la'e lu}
14:57 < durka42> la == la'e zo, u'i
14:57 < ctefa`o> Omg
14:57 < durka42> jbo: la'au
14:57 < mensi> lai'e = [LAhE] sumgadri le se li'erla'i sumti le du'u sinxa le se cmene be ri
14:57 < ctefa`o> .ax is Ålands domain
14:57 < ctefa`o> So...
14:57 < Ilmen> I don't know what's wrong. I have an entry "Zbaga" in my favorites, it has Name = Zbaga, Address = zbaga.ax.lt, Port = 64738, Username = menli
14:57 < Ilmen> And I can connect with that
14:58 < zipcpi> durka42: Even given smurublynuze, la could accept more than one word :p
14:58 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: weird
14:58 < durka42> well you know what I mean
14:58 < ctefa`o> I have *exactly* the same
14:59 < ctefa`o> Other username though li'a
14:59 < Ilmen> gotci: any idea on what's the problem?
15:00 < Ilmen> * gocti
15:00 < zipcpi> It's just maybe it's my malglico mind, but la to me signals a "proper name", in the sense of "don't think about what these words mean too seriously; think about what we have agreed to call that instead"
15:00 < durka42> ie
15:01 < zipcpi> Just like la zipcpi na'e zipcpi
15:01 < zipcpi> .y. la zipcpi cu na'e zipcpi
15:02 < ctefa`o> With my mal-sfe'ero mind to me a name is just something that refers to something.
15:02 < ctefa`o> No semantic meaning involved
15:03 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: should I do something more with the cert?
15:03 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: Try replacing "zbaga.ax.lt" with "84.73.73.130
15:04 < Ilmen> "
15:04 < zipcpi> But under that system {ro brivla ku ji'a cmene}
15:04 < Ilmen> it seems to work as well
15:04 < ctefa`o> Ah right that was another workaround
15:04 < ctefa`o> Forgot that one
15:04 < zipcpi> And I'm not sure whether that's what {cmene} means. I could be wrong.
15:05 < ctefa`o> Serms o work now
15:05 < Ilmen> ua
15:05 < durka42> {cmene} has to do with morphology
15:05 < durka42> so you mean {cmevla}
15:05 < durka42> but I'm not sure what you are saying
15:05 < zipcpi> No.
15:05 < zipcpi> I'm refering to {cmene} as "name"
15:05 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: Nice. Though I don't understand why "zbaga.ax.lt" doesn't work for you
15:05 < durka42> DNS ci'izra
15:05 < zipcpi> xu lo'i brivla cu cmene
15:05 < ctefa`o> Some DNS sh*t
15:06 < durka42> naku su'o brivla cu cmene
15:06 < durka42> su'o brivla cu cmevla mu'u la zipcpi
15:06 < durka42> wait
15:06 < durka42> do I have them backwards
15:06 < durka42> aaaaaah I have them backwards
15:06 < durka42> fuck
15:07 < durka42> cmevla is the morphological one
15:07 < zipcpi> {zo zipcpi pe la zipcpi} might be what you mean :p
15:07 < durka42> probably don't listen to me about anything
15:08 < zipcpi> Maybe we should define {cmevo} instead
15:08 < zipcpi> So then we have cmavo, brivo, lujvo, gismu, errm... zivlo?
15:08 < zipcpi> zo'o
15:09 < zipcpi> And cmevo
15:10 < zipcpi> That way it can be divorced from {da poi cmene gi'e valsi} :p
15:10 < durka42> anyway
15:10 < durka42> I'll start again
15:10 < durka42> na ku su'o brivla cu cmevla
15:10 < durka42> su'o brivla cu cmene mu'u zo zipcpi pe la zipcpi
15:11 < durka42> soi se stidi vau ro cmevla cu brivla lo ka ce'u menre lo se cmevla be vo'a
15:11 < zipcpi> ie iku'i xu zo zipcpi pe lo'i zipcpi cu cmene
15:12 < durka42> na jimpe
15:12 < zipcpi> xu zo zipcpi pe lo'i zipcpi ge'u ji'a cu cmene
15:12 < zipcpi> Is the word "zipcpi" as applied to penguins, a name as defined by the word "cmene"?
15:12 < durka42> zo zipcpi cmene do .i zo zipcpi valsi lo ka pinguuino
15:13 < durka42> I guess not then
15:13 < durka42> zo pe ta'e cizryselja'e
15:14 < zipcpi> Come to think of it that makes me wonder how to render the part of the Bible where God asked Adam to "name" the animals
15:14 < zipcpi> Hah imagine if he had to conform to zi'evla morphology :p
15:15 < zipcpi> gepard... no ... getpardo.... no.... zgepardo... no...
15:15 < zipcpi> :p
15:15 < zipcpi> Erm, replace no with {si} for a completely lojbanic variation
15:16 < zipcpi> Except when he accidentally makes a tosmabru or a slinku'i
15:16 < zipcpi> Then the earth would open up and swallow him for not being gendra
15:16 < zipcpi> ... anyway I *really* digress
15:18 < zipcpi> jbo: cmene
15:18 < mensi> cmene = x1 noi valsi ja vlapoi cu tcita x2 pi'o x3 |>>> valsi; vlapoi; tcita; pi'o; cmevla |>>>
15:18 < mensi> xorxes
15:18 < zipcpi> Sigh... my head hurts
15:19 < durka42> jbo: cmevla
15:19 < mensi> cmevla [< cmene valsi ≈ Cmene* valsi*] = x1 valsi x2 x3 gi'e cmene po'o ni'i lo vlaturge'a be x3 |>>> .i bau la .lojban.
15:19 < mensi> da poi valsi cu ganai se fanmo lo zunsna gi cmevla .i bau la .lojban. da poi cmevla ce'e de poi cmene zo'u ge da me lo
15:19 < mensi> pa po'o valsi gi ku'i de me lo su'o pa valsi noi ka'e cmevla .i ko viska zo vlaturge'a ji'a |>>>
15:19 < mensi> durka42
15:19 < durka42> oi me mi moi
15:19 < zipcpi> "bau la .lojban."
15:20 < durka42> ma nabmi
15:20 < zipcpi> Let me make a new language that is completely not Lojban but call it Lojban anyway then :p
15:20 < durka42> .u'i
15:20 < zipcpi> There. The work of the BSFK is complete
15:20 < durka42> what on lo crino terdi pe le cevni am I trying to say in that second sentence
15:21 < zipcpi> u'i
15:22 < zipcpi> x2 x3 -> Also you forgot a boi :p
15:22 < durka42> "in Lojban, there's a cmevla A and a cmene E such that (A is just one word) and (B is at least one word that can be a cmevla)"
15:22 < durka42> waaaat
15:23 < durka42> I always figured that if $x_1$ gets an auto-xi then it gets an auto-boi too
15:23 < zipcpi> lol
15:23 < durka42> I think I need to edit this def :p
15:24 < durka42> .i bau la .lojban. ge ro cmevla cu valsi pamei gi ro cmene cu cmevla su'omei
15:24 < ctefa`o> co'o
15:24 < ctefa`o> ba sipna
15:24 < durka42> co'o
15:26 < zipcpi> co'o
15:29 < ldlework> mi vitke la jbogu'e
15:30 < ldlework> ko'oi
15:30 < akmnlrse> mi je la menli cu zvati la jbogu'e je la mumble
15:31 < zipcpi> mi zei'a tatpi
15:33 < ldlework> ui mi se kansa zenba
15:34 < durka42> mi vitke
15:35 < zipcpi> I still wonder if it's worth adding pojycelxa'i into the dictionary. I won't know how to define it
15:35 < durka42> cusku lo sedu'u mi po'o zvati lo mujypau
15:35 < zipcpi> That distinguishes it from the current definition of celxa'i
15:35 < durka42> xu mi tavla no da
15:36 < durka42> ldlework: am I in the wrong part of the world?
15:36 < akmnlrse> durka42: mi'a zvati la berstici
15:37 < durka42> la…
15:37 < durka42> la barstici?
15:37 < akmnlrse> si'au
15:37 < zipcpi> xu la berstici cu mlatu je cu cnino dalpe'o do i'au zo'o
15:38 < durka42> si'au la jbogu'e cu panra lo se .irci lo ni glare fa lo samca'a
15:38 < zipcpi> za'a mi co'u djuno lo du'u makau se cmene ro da
15:39 < zipcpi> .y. la'a lo sko'opu na drani
15:40 < zipcpi> za'a mi co'u djuno lo du'u roda cmene makau
16:33 < durka42> zipcpi: looks like the BPFK heavyweights are lining up to change the grammar in order to obsolete your date format proposal :(
16:34 < zipcpi> Even the LI?
16:34 < zipcpi> Won't that kill all mekso?
16:35 < zipcpi> Cause I agree with the {boi} thing... it's just the LI change that would affect me
16:35 < zipcpi> Besides LI already does have a famyma'o
16:35 < durka42> no not LI
16:35 < zipcpi> It's LOhO
16:35 < durka42> check out the bpfk-list thread
16:36 < durka42> {li pa su'i pa} and {li pa su'i .abu} would remain, but {li ry re dy re} would die
16:36 < zipcpi> Huh
16:36 < durka42> because the first two are mex expressions
16:36 < durka42> with number-strings and lerfu-strings inside
16:37 < durka42> I'll still create a cmavo that works like the current {li} if it goes through :p
16:37 < durka42> is {li'oi} taken yet
16:37 < durka42> seems it is, but with an unformalizable word, so :)
16:38 < durka42> oh nevermind it's an attitudinal
16:38 < durka42> well
16:38 < durka42> li'ai?
16:38 < durka42> nope
16:38 < durka42> need to be more creative
16:38 < durka42> oh I know! how about {xai}? xD
16:40 < zipcpi> Besides, what about {me'o} then?
16:42 < zipcpi> u'i
16:42 < durka42> again, me'o is exactly the same as li
16:42 < durka42> in grammar
16:42 < zipcpi> But what about arbitrary character strings?
16:42 < durka42> dude please read the bpfk-list thread
16:43 < ldlework> tu'a mi pamoi lo nu lojbo bacru
16:43 < ldlework> nandu ue
16:43 < ldlework> la akmnlrse cu sutra io
16:43 < durka42> I don't want to be defending a proposal I don't support when lojbab has already asked all the same questions :)
16:44 < durka42> zipcpi: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/GQ9Mnwieue0/47R3Jay3Ua8J
16:44 < zipcpi> Right... when my biggest supporter is Lojbab...
16:44 < ldlework> u'i
16:46 < zipcpi> But yeah, he gets what {me'o} was designed for
16:46 < zipcpi> I can't agree with breaking it, even if my date proposal wasn't at stake
16:47 < durka42> the {abu boi reroi broda} thing is a little annoying
16:47 < zipcpi> and resorting to vobu rebu etc... blex
16:47 < durka42> I'm not sure it's annoying _enough_
16:47 < zipcpi> Yes, but that can be fixed without touching mekso
16:47 < zipcpi> It's just a philosophical quibble
16:48 < zipcpi> That makes them want to affect mekso too
16:48 < durka42> so separating lerfu strings from number strings except under LI?
16:48 < zipcpi> Yes
16:48 < durka42> you could bring that up as a mid-way proposal
16:49 < zipcpi> How? I'm not BPFK
16:49 < ldlework> zipcpi: submit a pull request
16:49 < zipcpi> I've already made all my arguments in the main mriste
16:49 < ldlework> lgtm
16:49 < zipcpi> LGTM?
16:49 < ldlework> let's get that merged
16:50 < durka42> I always that that stood for "looks good to me"
16:50 < ldlework> it does
16:50 < ldlework> either or
16:50 < durka42> k
16:50 < durka42> well maybe I'll bring it up and attribute it to you :)
16:50 < ldlework> durka42: I'm flattered!
16:50 < durka42> not _you_ :)
16:51 < ldlework> :)
16:51 < zipcpi> LI already does have a famyma'o, it's lo'o
16:51 < zipcpi> Almost no one uses it though because {boi} was sufficient
16:51 < durka42> camxes: li pa
16:51 < camxes> ([li {pa BOI} LOhO] VAU)
16:52 < zipcpi> So yes, that would be a potential downside... people will be forced to use {lo'o} in some situations
16:52 < zipcpi> Don't see them cropping up too often though
16:56 < zipcpi> And besides, I got my idea from watching b_jonas treat the ISO 8601 as just another mekso to be put into {lo detri}
16:57 < zipcpi> All I did was adapt ISO 8601 to be more usable as a Lojbanic sub-language
16:57 < zipcpi> All those "pi'e" systems can't account for stuff like the ISO week year and stuff
16:57 < zipcpi> Or alternative calendars
16:57 < durka42> as I've said I really like your proposal
16:58 < durka42> I dunno why guskant said it was nonsense
16:58 < durka42> I think she didn't quite understand
16:58 < durka42> to be fair xorxes didn't really bring up the lerfu/number thing to derail your proposal
16:58 < durka42> but it was one hell of a thread hijack
16:58 < zipcpi> I think it's because she's thinking in terms of standard mathematical convention
16:58 < zipcpi> malmeksyxlu
16:59 < zipcpi> malmekyxlu
17:00 < zipcpi> My system *isn't* standard mathematical convention. Neither is ISO 8601
17:00 < zipcpi> Maybe there just needs to be some way of marking what *type* of number something is then
17:01 < zipcpi> Something like jo'au
17:01 < zipcpi> But only for mekso
17:01 < zipcpi> Because as I've said du'eroi, dates are numbers. ISO 8601 dates are numbers, my dates are numbers
17:02 < zipcpi> They just don't act like real-numbers
17:02 < durka42> wait, it is even PEG-ly possible to have {cy ci ibu} parse differently from {li cy ci ibu}
17:02 < zipcpi> Exactly
17:02 < durka42> is it?
17:02 < durka42> it suddenly occurred to me while writing out the mid-way proposal that it might make everything ambiguous everywhere
17:02 < durka42> and then lojban would explode
17:03 < zipcpi> No... everything within LI... LOhO is just treated as if it could contain any combination of lerfu and number strings
17:04 < zipcpi> I don't know how VUhU will be affected though
17:04 < zipcpi> I don't even know how VUhU works
17:04 < durka42> mm right
17:04 < zipcpi> But *outside* LI... LOhO, la xorxes can do whatever he wants
17:04 < durka42> something inside "mex" would just change from "lerfu_and_number_string" to "(lerfu_string / number_string)+"
17:04 < durka42> or whatever it is called
17:04  * durka42 goes spelunking
17:05 < durka42> oh dear…
17:05 < durka42> there's a reason I never bothered to learn mex :p
17:05 < durka42> there's gotta be a lerfu in here somewhere
17:06 < zipcpi> lol
17:06 < durka42> there it is!
17:06 < durka42> operand_start = ( quantifier / lerfu_word / NIhE_clause / MOhE_clause / JOhI_clause / gek / LAhE_clause / NAhE_clause)
17:06 < durka42> oh that's not it
17:06 < durka42> lerfu_string is further down
17:07 < durka42> interesting, "number" and "lerfu_string" are already different rules but they accept the same stuff
17:07 < durka42> however {A1} will parse as "lerfu_string" but {1A} as "number"
17:07 < durka42> I guess this isn't surprising given who wrote the PEG
17:08 < zipcpi> Hah
17:09 < durka42> number = ( PA_clause ( PA_clause / lerfu_word )* )
17:09 < durka42> lerfu_string = ( lerfu_word ( PA_clause / lerfu_word )* )
17:10 < zipcpi> I mean, if she thought my system was "nonsense", what of ISO 8601 2015-W-07?
17:11 < durka42> ie .u'i
17:11 < zipcpi> Er, 2015-W22 rather
17:13 < zipcpi> 2015-05-31T19:00:17Z
17:14 < zipcpi> P3Y6M4DT12H30M5S
17:14 < zipcpi> Right?
17:14 < durka42> I dunno
17:15 < zipcpi> That's in fact my very inspiration for my system
17:15 < zipcpi> That already b_jonas was putting magic letters in the dates
17:15 < zipcpi> I just made my magic letters more useful
17:17 < zipcpi> Not all mekso are created equal
17:17 < zipcpi> Lojbab recognizes that
17:42 < ldlework> is there a categorized word list?
17:44 < zipcpi> durka42, still here?
17:45 < durka42> yes
17:45 < zipcpi> Anyway I apologize for letting some of my anger slip out
17:45 < zipcpi> Seriously, this is all just bad timing and clash of egos
17:45 < durka42> 'sok
17:45 < zipcpi> la .guskant. must have spent a lot of time working on *her* system
17:46 < zipcpi> And here comes this mabla ke zbusufukai prenu to overturn everything :p
17:48 < durka42> you did come back on the scene a bit suddenly and start emailing 10 proposals an hour :p
17:49 < durka42> guskant has created hundreds of date/time fu'ivla, I'm not even sure if it's one system or two
17:50 < zipcpi> Hey, I've been told it's a Lojbanic tradition :p
18:04 < ldlework> jetnu
20:44 < ldlework> sooooooo
20:44 < ldlework> I built a working IPA chart in la jbogu'e
21:32 < niek> coi
21:33 < ldlework> coi niek
21:35 < niek> ue lo nu mi co'a cikna cu clira ca lo cabdei
21:46 < justeno> coi
21:47 < justeno> the community should pull together and create a duolingo course (if possible - i've heard of issues with grammar)
21:48 < justeno> I can be the motivator, the one that cracks the whip, heh
21:48 < justeno> (if I actually knew lojban, I'd totally contribute to the course creation)
21:48 < ldlework> .i ba'anairu'e su'o jbopre cu pu za gunka zo'e
21:48 < ldlework> justeno: why not learn, its easy
21:48 < ldlework> like - the easiest
21:49 < ldlework> so easy
21:49 < justeno> no
21:49 < justeno> esperanto is easy
21:49 < justeno> lojban is wat
21:49 < ldlework> justeno: I bet I can teach you core lojban in 10 minutes
21:49 < ldlework> if you're willing
21:50 < justeno> http://i.imgur.com/mR4xEMT.jpg *
21:50 < ldlework> justeno: no joke, give me a chance
21:50 < justeno> ldlework: i know the very basics. bridi, sumti, etc
21:50 < ldlework> ah okay
21:50 < ldlework> darn
21:50 < ldlework> so you can form basic sentences?
21:50 < justeno> ku/cu/vau(?) are confusing me
21:51 < ldlework> I can teach you in a way that likely clears things up to you
21:51 < justeno> i'm game. I've not practiced in quite some time (and am cramming esperanto currently)
21:51 < ldlework> justeno: cool
21:51 < justeno> so first i need to at least rewatch the "this is a bridi" video
21:51 < ldlework> I made that video
21:51 < justeno> :D
21:52 < ldlework> I can teach if faster here
21:52 < ldlework> it*
21:52 < justeno> sure
21:52 < justeno> now is good for me, you as well?
21:52 < ldlework> sure why not
21:52 < justeno> ok, so my understanding
21:52 < ldlework> I kinda just have a presentation
21:53 < justeno> bridi is the 'verb' so to speak, but not necessarily a verb. sumti are the parameters (x1....) of said bridi?
21:53 < ldlework> nah
21:53 < ldlework> lets start from scratch
21:53 < ldlework> just try to keep up
21:53 < justeno> ok
21:53 < justeno> will do
21:53 < ldlework> the first core idea is that all sentences, at least by default are all formed the same way
21:53 < ldlework> the pattern is: x1 verb x2 x3 x4 x5
21:54 < ldlework> this is the only pattern you need for a long while, so just assume all lojban is formed this way for now
21:54 < justeno> 'k
21:54 < ldlework> in lojban, the verbs have strange definitions providing up to 5 semantics
21:54 < ldlework> illustration is easiest
21:55 < ldlework> vecnu: x1 sells item x2 to buyer x3 for price x4
21:55 < ldlework> When we plug this verb word into the main sentence pattern like so:
21:55 < ldlework> x1 vecnu x2 x3 x4 x5
21:55 < ldlework> the verb informs the role each noun plays in the sentence
21:55 < ldlework> take the following three simple nouns:
21:56 < ldlework> mi - the speaker
21:56 < ldlework> do - the listener
21:56 < ldlework> ti - this thing here
21:56 < ldlework> you *already* know how to say something in lojban
21:56 < ldlework> your brain is probably itching to put the simple nouns into the pattern
21:56 < ldlework> to say something
21:56 < ldlework> go ahead
21:56 < justeno> mi vecnu ti do
21:56 < ldlework> why thank you
21:56 < ldlework> how much will that be?
21:56 < ldlework> :)
21:57 < justeno> 1 million dollars
21:57 < ldlework> yikes!
21:57 < justeno> heh
21:57 < ldlework> okay there is only one other thing to know
21:57 < ldlework> to understand what makes up the core grammar of lojban
21:57 < ldlework> we can't get by having a simple two-letter word for every possible noun we might want to talk about
21:58 < ldlework> the way nouns are created is by 'objectifying' places inside the verbs
21:58 < ldlework> we do this by wrapping the verb in "lo" and "ku" to "steal" the x1
21:58 < ldlework> illustration is easiest
21:58 < ldlework> vecnu: x1 sells x2 to x3
21:58 < ldlework> lo vecnu ku : a seller
21:58 < ldlework> dunda: x1 gives x2 to x3
21:58 < ldlework> lo dunda ku : a giver
21:59 < ldlework> say "I sold this to the giver"
21:59 < justeno> I do not know past tense. Do you mean "I sell this to the giver"?
22:00 < ldlework> in the english translations, the tense is irrelevant
22:00 < ldlework> english forces us to pick a tense
22:00 < justeno> mi vecnu ti lo dunda ku
22:00 < ldlework> lojban doesn't
22:00 < ldlework> correct
22:00 < ldlework> but that's it dude
22:00 < ldlework> with a dictionary on hand
22:00 < ldlework> you can say *a lot* of novel phrases
22:01 < ldlework> using the x1 of verbs as the nouns available to you
22:01 < justeno> I knew those basics (at one point). Beyond that...
22:01 < ldlework> but it took like 10 minutes...!
22:01 < justeno> haha, yeah it did
22:01 < ldlework> and you now have a million available phrases
22:01 < justeno> that was swift
22:02 < ldlework> watch this
22:02 < ldlework> in just two more minutes
22:02 < justeno> 'k
22:02 < ldlework> I'm going to multiply your number of phrases
22:02 < ldlework> by a bajillion
22:02 < justeno> do it
22:02 < ldlework> what we did with lo-ku was to transform a "verb term" into a "noun term"
22:02 < ldlework> we got the x1
22:02 < ldlework> but verbs have more semantics than that
22:03 < ldlework> a family of "verb modifiers" gives us the ability to access the other places
22:03 < ldlework> if "lo - ku" always steals the x1
22:03 < ldlework> then we just need to move around the place we want, to x1
22:03 < ldlework> illustration is easiest:
22:03 < ldlework> vecnu: x1 sells x2 to x3 for price x4
22:03 < ldlework> se vecnu: x1 is sold by seller x2 to buyer x3 for price x4
22:04 < ldlework> te vecnu: x1 buys x2 from seller x3 for price x4
22:04 < ldlework> can you guess the definition of "ve vecnu" ?
22:04 < justeno> hm
22:05 < justeno> x1 is the price
22:05 < ldlework> yep
22:05 < ldlework> each of them swap x1 and xN
22:05 < ldlework> se: x1 and x2
22:05 < ldlework> te: x1 and x3
22:05 < ldlework> all the way to xe: x1 and x5
22:06 < ldlework> once we have a verb with the x1 we want, lo - ku comes by and snips the x1 into a noun
22:06 < ldlework> illustration is easiest
22:06 < ldlework> lo vecnu ku : seller
22:06 < ldlework> lo te vecnu ku : a commercial good
22:06 < ldlework> lo ve vecnu ku : a buyer
22:06 < ldlework> oooops!
22:06 < ldlework> forgot se
22:06 < ldlework> close your eyes and forget the last 25 seconds
22:06 < ldlework> lo vecnu ku : seller
22:07 < ldlework> lo se vecnu ku : a commercial good
22:07 < ldlework> lo te vecnu ku : a buyer
22:07 < ldlework> lo ve vecnu ku : a price
22:07 < ldlework> lo xe vecnu ku : !!! vecnu has no x5 place :)
22:07 < ldlework> but now you have access to literally all the possible nouns
22:07 < ldlework> \o/
22:07 < justeno> wow
22:08 < justeno> what about adjectives?
22:08 < ldlework> so
22:08 < ldlework> you just stick verbs next to each other
22:08 < ldlework> mi vecnu lo xunre plise ku
22:08 < ldlework> "I sell a red-kind-of apple"
22:09 < ldlework> justeno: here's a challenge
22:09 < justeno> ruh-roh
22:09 < ldlework> here is a list of the core verbs: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/gismu
22:10 < ldlework> pick 3 and say something novel
22:10 < ldlework> use two as nouns, and relate them by way of the third
22:10 < justeno> ok
22:11 < ldlework> these are your first words in a new language
22:11 < ldlework> make em count! lol
22:11 < justeno> lo lojban ku cizra mi
22:12 < justeno> lo lojbo ku cizra mi
22:12 < ldlework> haha
22:12 < ldlework> nice
22:13 < ldlework> justeno: okay now pick three new verbs
22:13 < ldlework> but you can't use any of the x1's
22:13 < justeno> mk
22:14 < justeno> this may take a sec
22:16 < justeno> no x1 at all?
22:17 < ldlework> nope! you can do it!
22:18 < justeno> zoe viska lo voksa ku
22:18 < justeno> to see speech
22:18 < justeno> though, i guess that would only be 2
22:20 < justeno> oh, i need to use se. derp
22:20 < justeno> se/te/ve/xe
22:21 < ldlework> indeed
22:23 < justeno> ranmi lo se xelso ku
22:23 < justeno> hmm
22:23 < justeno> that's something i have so far
22:23 < ldlework> myth about greek culture?
22:24 < justeno> yeah
22:24 < ldlework> so you just need what is a myth about greek culture
22:26 < justeno> yep, just looking through the gismu
22:27 < justeno> ranmi lo se xelso ku lo se stura  ku
22:29 < justeno> lafti lo se jgari ku lo se minli ku
22:30 < ldlework> heh I guess I meant "you have to use SE on each verb" rather than "no x1's"
22:31 < justeno> ah
22:31 < ldlework> but that's good
22:31 < ldlework> justeno: a good next step is questions which are suuuuper easy
22:31 < justeno> would it be like lo se <verb> ku se <verb> lo se <verb> ku ?
22:31 < ldlework> yeah
22:31 < ldlework> but that alone proves you understand it
22:31 < justeno> se/te/etc
22:32 < ldlework> and it doesn't matter what verbs you pick at this point
22:32 < ldlework> or how you modify them
22:32 < justeno> mk
22:32 < ldlework> the concept has been conveyed, I think :)
22:32 < justeno> i took long enough, i hope so. heh
22:32 < ldlework> justeno: with questions you'll be able to actually converse
22:32 < ldlework> instead of just saying things at people :)
22:32 < justeno> xu
22:32 < ldlework> yep
22:32 < ldlework> for yes/no questions
22:32 < ldlework> do you know how to answer yes and now?
22:33 < justeno> i know of xu, but not how to use it (anymore)
22:33 < ldlework> yes and no*
22:33 < ldlework> justeno: just stick it anywhere!
22:33 < ldlework> usually at the start or end :)
22:33 < justeno> even between a lo-ku?
22:33 < ldlework> usually the thing you stick it after is the thing you're most interested in
22:33 < ldlework> sure
22:34 < justeno> wow
22:34 < justeno> flexible
22:34 < ldlework> .i xu do citka lo plise : did you eat an apple?
22:34 < justeno> tinsa
22:34 < ldlework> .i do citka lo xu plise : you at an APPLE?!
22:35 < justeno> ku is implied since it' the end of the sentence
22:35 < justeno> ?
22:35 < ldlework> yes
22:35 < ldlework> the rule for terminators is
22:35 < ldlework> they are only required, when removing them, would make the grammar ambiguous
22:35 < ldlework> in other words
22:35 < ldlework> you can remove them anytime they are not actively keeping things separated
22:36 < ldlework> which is something you get used to by seeing others elide, and noticing places you can elide yourself when talking
22:36 < justeno> ah. for your earlier question: no, i don't know yes/no answers
22:36 < ldlework> go'i is a way of answering 'yes' to a xu question
22:36 < ldlework> na go'i is a way of saying 'no'
22:36 < justeno> na negates?
22:37 < ldlework> correct
22:37 < justeno> in general?
22:37 < ldlework> right
22:37 < justeno> na plise - the/a not apple?
22:37 < ldlework> mi prami lo na remna : I love non-humans
22:37 < ldlework> right
22:38 < justeno> woh
22:38 < justeno> besto
22:38 < justeno> x45
22:38 < ldlework> joksters :)
22:39 < justeno> and x11 is the default se
22:39 < justeno> :S
22:39 < ldlework> justeno: to ask more specific questions
22:39 < ldlework> you just leave out the thing you want to know about
22:39 < ldlework> for example
22:39 < ldlework> do citka ma
22:39 < ldlework> "you eat what?"
22:39 < justeno> mo citka ma
22:40 < justeno> who eats what?
22:40 < ldlework> nope
22:40 < justeno> :(
22:40 < ldlework> ma is for asking for nouns
22:40 < ldlework> mo is for asking for verbs
22:40 < ldlework> so you asked
22:40 < ldlework> what-kind-of eating and eating what?
22:41 < justeno> ma citka ma?
22:41 < ldlework> like you asked what the adverb is
22:41 < ldlework> sure, "who eats what?"
22:41 < ldlework> do mo lo plise : "you did what to the apple?!"
22:41 < ldlework> :)
22:41 < justeno> haha
22:42 < justeno> what other m- are there?
22:42 < ldlework> well, those are the only two
22:42 < ldlework> but there is one last question word, pei
22:42 < ldlework> which asks, "what do you think?"
22:42 < ldlework> like the canadian "eh?"
22:42 < justeno> heh
22:43 < ldlework> btw
22:43 < ldlework> all vau is
22:43 < ldlework> is the terminator for bridi
22:43 < ldlework> and a bridi, is simply the thing
22:43 < ldlework> for which we give the name of the {x1 verb x2 x3 x4 x5} pattern
22:43 < ldlework> whenever you have a verb with some arguments, you have a bridi
22:43 < ldlework> and vau is its terminator
22:44 < ldlework> .i ma mo ma ma ma vau u'e
22:44 < ldlework> here, I'm attaching an emotion word to the vau
22:44 < ldlework> applying the emotion word to the whole bridi clause
22:44 < ldlework> the same thing happens if you attach it to the bridi's "lo", ".i"
22:45 < ldlework> .i u'e ma mo ma ma ma
22:46 < justeno> so basically, lojban is some basic rules and memorizing a LOT of gismu
22:46 < ldlework> well
22:46 < ldlework> learning any language is essentially climbing two hills
22:46 < ldlework> the grammar and the vocabulary
22:46 < ldlework> true for any language
22:46 < ldlework> except, perhaps, lojban
22:46 < ldlework> because the grammar is trivial, really
22:46 < ldlework> so all that's left is vocabulary
22:47 < ldlework> you have a handfull more of major grammar concepts to learn and you'll have the majorty of what you need
22:47 < ldlework> everything else is little tweaks and stuff
22:47 < ldlework> like plurality, ownership and stuff
22:48 < justeno> all of which are important
22:48 < ldlework> definitely
22:48 < ldlework> justeno: wanna know how to associate one thing with another by way of loose ownership?
22:48 < ldlework> NOUN pe NOUN
22:48 < ldlework> done.
22:48 < ldlework> xu do citka lo plise ku pe mi
22:49 < justeno> mi pe zdani
22:49 < justeno> my house?
22:49 < ldlework> 1) zdani is a verb, not a noun
22:49 < justeno> mi pe lo zdani
22:49 < ldlework> 2) you have the association backwards
22:49 < justeno> ah
22:49 < ldlework> that's grammatical
22:50 < egrep> "lo zdani pe mi" ?
22:50 < justeno> na go'i (xu do citka....)
22:50 < ldlework> correct
22:50 < justeno> lo zdani ku pe mi ?
22:50 < ldlework> right
22:50 < ldlework> the ku isn't needed
22:50 < ldlework> because pe cannot appear inside lo ku
22:50 < ldlework> so the appearence of pe, must imply the closure
22:51 < ldlework> but you can include it to be safe
22:51 < justeno> 'lo zdani ku pe mi' vs 'lo zdani pe mi ku'
22:51 < justeno> oh
22:51 < ldlework> nah you wouldn't put the ku at the end
22:51 < ldlework> of the second one there
22:51 < justeno> and pe is outside of ku
22:51 < ldlework> yes
22:51 < ldlework> lo zdani (ku) pe mi
22:51 < justeno> awesome
22:52 < justeno> are there any baby's first books to begin learning/reading?
22:52 < justeno> something akin to http://en.lernu.net/helpo/kiel_komenci.php
22:53 < ldlework> I imagine this is the thing I should tell you about, http://mw.lojban.org
22:53 < justeno> "baby's first books" - meaning reading in general, not necessarily books per se
22:53 < ldlework> however, I highly encourage you to just jump into conversation in here or in #ckule
22:54 < ldlework> also, we have an opensim instance where you can hang out and be immersed in a place where there are actually things to talk about
22:54 < ldlework> where you can flex your spatial relations like, "ontop" "under" "give that to me" ,"lets fly over there" and so on
22:54 < justeno> how do you swap x2 and x3?
22:54 < ldlework> you can add multiple SE modifiers
22:54 < ldlework> each one modifies the result of the previous
22:55 < ldlework> you tell me :)
22:55 < zipcpi> ainai! We must continue to talk about bergu, airy abstract concepts, semantic quibbles, and make everyone's head hurt! zo'o
22:56 < zipcpi> xu lo'i badna cu ja'a badna
22:56 < justeno> ro do tavla <skip> ma
22:56 < justeno> i'd like to keep x1 though
22:57 < zipcpi> x1 of what?
22:57 < zipcpi> Oh
22:57 < justeno> oh, zo'e? not to rotate, but to skip?
22:57 < ldlework> justeno: that's one way
22:57 < zipcpi> We tend to use fa fe fi fo fu
22:57 < ldlework> another way is to just specify your argument positions absolutely
22:57 < justeno> fi fa fo fe ?
22:57 < ldlework> right
22:57 < ldlework> I recommend making them a little song
22:57 < ldlework> to remember the order
22:57 < ldlework> any will do
22:57 < justeno> ro do tavla fi ma
22:58 < zipcpi> fi fa fo fa I smell the blood of an Englishman :p
22:58 < zipcpi> Could be fi fai fo fa too :p
22:58 < justeno> ro do tavla fi ma - what do you all talk abut? (correct?)
22:58 < ldlework> right
23:00 < justeno> ro do se te tavla ma (also correct?)
23:00 < zipcpi> Not many people chain SEs together. They are hard on human parsing
23:00 < ldlework> inded
23:01 < justeno> what is an 'openism instance'?
23:02 < zipcpi> Opensim... it's a Second-Life like thing that Idlework has been working on
23:02 < zipcpi> Codename la jbogu'e ("Lojbanistan")
23:03 < justeno> OpenSimulator?
23:03 < ldlework> yeah
23:03 < ldlework> justeno: its like a little island where anyone can build or script things right inside the world
23:03 < ldlework> but mostly its for having a setting
23:03 < ldlework> for which to use as a backdrop for things to talk about
23:03 < ldlework> most importantly, those that depend on senses other than reading text
23:03 < justeno> i see
23:04 < ldlework> my girlfriend is currently making a big solar system board
23:04 < ldlework> with all the names of the planets
23:04 < ldlework> zipcpi: did you see the IPA vowel sound board?
23:04 < zipcpi> Not yet
23:04 < justeno> mi viska *
23:04 < ldlework> justeno: hehe
23:07 < zipcpi> Cool. OK how do we map them to Lojban sounds?
23:07 < ldlework> zipcpi: what do you mean
23:07 < zipcpi> It's kinda funny that the middle schwa doesn't have a sound
23:08 < ldlework> all the buttons should have sound
23:08 < ldlework> if not I missed one
23:08 < zipcpi> You know, mark them. "These are acceptable for Lojban E"
23:08 < zipcpi> No, it is a deficiency of the original chart. The sound right in the middle doesn't have a play button
23:08 < ldlework> Oh probably just have another board for that
23:09 < ldlework> its a bit tedious to make texture buttons, but its not hard
23:09 < zipcpi> Link it to this sound: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa
23:10 < zipcpi> If I click it everyone can hear it right?
23:10 < ldlework> yeah
23:11 < zipcpi> I just wished my magic ray was more obvious
23:11 < ldlework> hehe
23:12 < zipcpi> Better than looking up X-Sampa charts or copy-pasting IPA lerfu
23:13 < ldlework> ie
23:14 < justeno> ?ie
23:14 < justeno> .tra jbo en ie
23:14 < justeno> :(
23:14 < zipcpi> Lojban exclamation. "agreement"
23:14 < zipcpi> Lojban has a number of defined exclamations, called "attitudinals"
23:14 < ldlework> en: ie
23:14 < mensi> ie = [UI1] attitudinal: agreement - disagreement. |>>> See also tugni. |>>> officialdata
23:15 < justeno> ie means 'no' in japanese. :T
23:15 < zipcpi> lol
23:15 < ldlework> justeno: so what do you think about the relative simplicity of the language?
23:15 < ldlework> languages*
23:15 < ldlework> vs how you felt an hour ago
23:16 < zipcpi> *checks up a video*... Japanese "no" is iie
23:16 < zipcpi> Quite different
23:16 < zipcpi> Two syllables
23:16 < zipcpi> In Lojban it would break up to .i ie
23:17 < justeno> well, i still don't know how to pluralize, in esperanto you simply add a j to the end of a word
23:17 < zipcpi> "Plurals" aren't used in most contexts
23:17 < justeno> i think the rigidity of the bridi (without se/te/etc and fa/fe/fi/etc) make it more difficult at first
23:18 < ldlework> well I don't recommend trying to get by without them
23:18 < justeno> heh
23:18 < zipcpi> To explicitly mean "more than one cat", you say {lo za'u pa mlatu}
23:18 < zipcpi> But we don't use that the way we do plurals
23:18 < ldlework> su'o broda ku = some brodas
23:18 < zipcpi> in English
23:19 < justeno> kato is esperanto for cat. more than one cat: katoj
23:19 < ldlework> justeno: lo mlatu : su'o mlatu
23:19 < zipcpi> There is also {loi mlatu}, but that refers to cats (doesn't say how many, but probably more than one) treated as a group (rather than as individuals).
23:19 < ldlework> pa mlatu for one cat
23:20 < ldlework> justeno: in place of the "lo" you can use a number
23:20 < justeno> i think both languages are really simple - but each have their own difficulties
23:20 < ldlework> panono mlatu : 100 cats
23:20 < ldlework> so really, plurality is a simple extension on the lo - ku system
23:21 < justeno> ah
23:21 < justeno> that's neat
23:22 < ldlework> mi citka panono mlatu uo
23:22 < zipcpi> oi
23:23 < zipcpi> uusai kecti le mlatu
23:23 < zipcpi> uinaicai
23:23 < ldlework> uusainaidai le mlatu cu ca cinmo no da
23:24 < justeno> le/cu ?
23:24 < ldlework> .i ji'a mi gleki
23:24 < zipcpi> do mabla palci
23:24 < ldlework> justeno: le is simple a definite reference
23:24 < ldlework> justeno: xu do nelci le draci : do you like the play?
23:24 < ldlework> justeno: xu do nelci lo draci : do you like plays?
23:25 < ldlework> warning: lo contains *both* semantics
23:25 < ldlework> le just lets you be explicitly definite when you think it'll help understanding you
23:25 < justeno> ah
23:25 < ldlework> zipcpi doesn't pitty cat's in general
23:25 < ldlework> he pities the cats I ate
23:26 < justeno> so if you were to ask about the play just seen, you could either use le or lo, but le would be more focused on the context?
23:26 < ldlework> justeno: consider this dialog between a wife and husband upon the wife's late return home
23:26 < ldlework> w: coi
23:26 < ldlework> h: coi .i xu do se pluka le draci
23:26 < ldlework> w: na go'i ui nai
23:26 < ldlework> h: ue .i xu do nelci lo draci
23:26 < ldlework> w: je'a
23:27 < ldlework> h: je'e
23:27 < zipcpi> Yes, {lo} is very general. It basically just means "something that {draci}s"
23:28 < ldlework> indeed
23:28 < justeno> je'a/je'e?
23:29 < ldlework> je'a : "indeed!"
23:29 < ldlework> je'e : "gotcha/roger that"
23:30 < ldlework> I can't wait until we have the market setup in la jbogu'e
23:30 < ldlework> so we can invite new speakers for some really basic roleplay
23:30 < zipcpi> Mhm
23:30 < ldlework> "try to buy an apple off me"
23:30 < ldlework> "just you try..!"
23:32 < ldlework> justeno: would you like to do some verrrrry simple roleplay right here?
23:32 < ldlework> just for funsies
23:33 < justeno> i'm trying to get opensim setup right now, then once it works, sleep
23:33 < justeno> how about in about 20hrs?
23:34 < justeno> her 22hrs
23:34 < justeno> er*
23:34 < zipcpi> aipei do erve lo plise
23:34 < zipcpi> xu do djica lo ka erve lo plise
23:35 < zipcpi> Er, djica maps better to au than ai
23:36 < zipcpi> I just tend to use {ai} too much
23:37 < ldlework> justeno: you don't need to install opensim
23:37 < ldlework> you just need a client
23:37 < ldlework> much easier :P
23:37 < ldlework> this is a good one: http://www.singularityviewer.org/downloads
23:37 < ldlework> once you have it installed, pm me your lojban name, and the password you want and I'll create your account
23:38 < zipcpi> Well I hope this doesn't make your head hurt, but for "Do you like plays" I tend to use {xu do nelci lo'e draci}. The meaning of {lo'e} is subtle and sometimes a point of contention. But what I mean is that do you like plays in general, rather than anything that is a play
23:38 < zipcpi> {lo} is pretty much never really /wrong/ though
23:39 < zipcpi> I'm just want of those pedantic types that use those crazy articles more than everyone else :p
23:39 < zipcpi> *one of those
23:40 < ldlework> zipcpi: then what does lo'i mean to you?
23:40 < zipcpi> The set of those defined as
23:40 < ldlework> so ro broda?
23:40 < zipcpi> xu lo'i remna cu danlu
23:40 < ldlework> xu ro remna cu danlu
23:41 < zipcpi> Well... in my mind {lo'i} depends more on what the definition of {remna} is, rather than the state of the things that {remna} at the moment
23:41 < ldlework> zipcpi: this is how I feel; its nice to have an anti-le, IE, an explicit indefinite article, like your lo'e, but I do think lo'i is a bit superflous
23:42 < ldlework> and I hear that li might not be needed and I wish we used li for it because then we'd have the three core description gadri all nicely monosyllabic
23:42 < justeno> yay, i installed all of mono for no reason :(
23:42 < zipcpi> Well... for example I won't use {xu lo'i remna cu mroka'e} for "Are all men mortal"
23:42 < ldlework> justeno: loll
23:42 < ldlework> zipcpi: not sure why
23:42 < zipcpi> I would mean "Is mortality part of the definition of humans"
23:43  * justeno purges mono
23:43 < ldlework> justeno: xu do ka'e sampla
23:43 < zipcpi> And in my mind the correct answer would be no. Even though all humans are mortal, mortality is not part of the definition of humanity
23:44 < justeno> ldlework: ?
23:44 < zipcpi> So yeah, subtle difference between {lo'i} and {ro}. But that's just my opinion; hardly anyone else uses these gadri :p
23:44 < ldlework> zipcpi: so lo'i dressed descriptions can only talk about the necessary conditions for the predicate?
23:44 < zipcpi> Yes
23:44 < ldlework> I think that's an interesting concept, especially for fopl
23:46 < ldlework> I don't understand the distinction between that and "broda's in general" though
23:46 < justeno> ldlework: ka'e? sampla?
23:46 < ldlework> justeno: just look up the definitions
23:46 < ldlework> oh did we give you a dictionary yet?
23:46 < ldlework> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/#sisku/sampla
23:48 < justeno> ldlework: i do not understand the definition of ka'e
23:48 < justeno> or maybe i do?
23:48 < ldlework> justeno: {do citka} asserts, that you indeed eat
23:48 < ldlework> justeno: {do ka'e citka} does not assert that you eat, but that you are capable of doing so
23:49 < justeno> oh, so "Are you capable of programming?"
23:49 < ldlework> correct
23:49 < justeno> go'i
23:50 < ldlework> ma skami bangu
23:50 < justeno> python/javascript/rust/c++(very ish)
23:50 < ldlework> ua
23:50 < justeno> mi iste
23:50 < ldlework> do iste ma
23:50 < justeno> sampla
23:50 < ldlework> lo sampla xu
23:50 < ldlework> ua .i mi'u
23:51 < justeno> :)
23:51 < ldlework> xu do pilno la'oi Docker
23:52 < zipcpi> Though {ka'e} doesn't imply agency or impute ability to any particular object. For that we use {kakne}. {ka'e} just changes "this statement is true" to "this statement is possibly true"
23:52 < ldlework> its certainly in the same semantic space as kakne
23:52  * zipcpi nods
23:52 < ldlework> its like
23:53 < ldlework> ko'a ka'e broda ~= le munji cu kakne lo ka ko'a broda
23:53 < ldlework> zo'o
23:53 < ldlework> munje*
23:53 < zipcpi> *munje :p
23:54 < ldlework> I have been distracted by lojban literally all day
23:54 < zipcpi> lo ka ne'i ce'u ko'a broda :p
23:54 < justeno> na go'i (but know of it and have used it a bit)
23:54 < ldlework> zipcpi: heh
23:54 < ldlework> i'e cai
23:54 < ldlework> justeno: srana lo mi jibri
23:55 < justeno> do iste ma
23:56 < zipcpi> But yeah, just yet another pedantic quibble. Seriously you can ignore about 90% of what I say, especially when you're starting out :p
23:56 < ldlework> mi finti la zmiku zbasu pe la'oi Docker
23:56 < ldlework> zipcpi: well, I *think* I'm on board, or at least standing in line to get on but I'm not sure
23:57 < ldlework> zipcpi: I feel like, lo'e makes a good anti-le explicit indefinite article, but I need lo'i to be more distinguished
23:57 < zipcpi> Huh {iste}... interesting word
23:57 < ldlework> something like, when the speaker uses lo'i, its an indefinite reference, *but* demonstrating what the speaker believes to be included in the minimum set of nessecary conditions for the predicate
23:58 < ldlework> IE
23:58 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'i draci is probably always false
23:58 < ldlework> but mi nelci lo'e draci is a nice explicit version of the lo usage
23:58 < ldlework> if this is a good synopsis of what you mean.... I think I am on board
23:58 < zipcpi> Yes
23:59 < zipcpi> Maybe I should write all this out somewhere
23:59 < ldlework> I would love to help
23:59 < ldlework> I'm a huge advocate of le
23:59 < ldlework> and lo'e makes natural reflective sense to me
23:59 < justeno> ldlework: ma kagni lo jibri (where do you work? - i think)
23:59  * zipcpi nods
23:59 < ldlework> and lo'i is just interesting extension...
--- Day changed Wed Jun 03 2015
00:00 < ldlework> justeno: its a bit of a strange question but I think it works
00:00 < ldlework> I think you mean: ma jibri do
00:00 < ldlework> or do you really mean employer?
00:00 < justeno> i meant employer. and yeah, the x2 was bad
00:01 < justeno> (it's personal, so i don't mind for a no answer)
00:01 < ldlework> zipcpi: non-veridicality is not part of your definitions pei
00:01 < ldlework> justeno: docker
00:01 < ldlework> I built the automated build system
00:01 < justeno> that's in go, right?
00:01 < ldlework> python
00:02 < justeno> :)
00:02 < demize> Heh, {iste} is "ice tea" in Swedish. Weird.
00:02 < justeno> yay language overlap :)
00:02 < ldlework> zipcpi: you don't care about veridicality right?
00:03 < zipcpi> Oops sorry I was away for the moment
00:03 < ldlework> you use pe'a for that I believe
00:04 < justeno> anyhow, i'm off to bed. ldlework thank you very much. see you around
00:04 < ldlework> justeno: come back when you have singularity viewer installed!
00:04 < zipcpi> Hmm... maybe I'll tell you what I think {lo} means and you can tell me whether it includes veridicality or not
00:04 < ldlework> zipcpi: ii
00:04 < ldlework> zipcpi: doesn't it make the most elegant sense
00:04 < ldlework> if lo is simply an context driven le/lo'e
00:04 < justeno> ldlework: i do, it doesn't work (currently). I need to troubleshoot a bit. My fault though...debian chroot on a chromebook (with crouton)
00:05 < ldlework> justeno: ah
00:05 < demize> Trying to run SL on a chromebook does not sound like a pleasant experience.
00:05 < ldlework> true
00:05 < ldlework> our island is pretty minimal tho
00:05 < justeno> haha, it'll be interesting
00:05 < ldlework> turn down the draw distance
00:05 < ldlework> probably be fine if the thing can do 3d at all
00:06 < zipcpi> {lo broda} = something that {broda}s. Note that this might not be in the frame of the reference of the "real world"; one could use {lo besna} to refer to a brain within a game or a story. But it should still mean a literal brain, to make metaphorical expressions like "Tom is the brains of the study group", use pe'a
00:07 < demize> Somehow that made me think of Ender’s Game.
00:07 < ldlework> I really feel like with le and lo'e you don't need a definition for lo at all
00:08 < demize> With the hive queen more or less literally being the brains of the group.
00:08 < ldlework> I don't think "something that broda's" pushes the understanding of the word further than a combined understanding of le and lo'e
00:08 < justeno> ok, no sleep
00:09 < justeno> gotta scratch the itch
00:09 < ldlework> so we should benefit from the ability to claim the elegance, by refraining from trying to give lo a definition that doesn't really add much value and distracts from its contextual elegance
00:09 < ldlework> justeno: o/
00:09 < justeno> \o
00:09 < zipcpi> Yeah perhaps literality it's not part of the definition of {lo} at all
00:09 < zipcpi> After all {pe'a} can also be attached to the selbri
00:09 < ldlework> lo might be mean that play, or it might just mean "plays"
00:09  * zipcpi nods
00:09 < ldlework> context usually points to one in most cases
00:10 < ldlework> people like selaphi "just use lo" in the opinion that context probably provides -every time-
00:10 < zipcpi> something(s) that {broda}s
00:10 < ldlework> and an explicit article in either direction is superflous
00:10 < ldlework> I agree, up until the point of taking it as an extremism
00:11 < ldlework> and find le of practical use
00:11 < zipcpi> Under that definition mi nelci lo draci is still not *wrong*; if I like the archetypical play, I most probably actually like an actual play :p
00:11 < ldlework> li'a
00:11 < ldlework> the only reason the wife interprets lo draci as lo'e draci is because its being distinguished against a previous use of le
00:12 < ldlework> but there's usually some similar force in most contexts
00:12 < ldlework> if the husband had started with lo draci to mean le draci
00:12 < zipcpi> Though maybe for the more direct sense of (there exists a draci) I suppose {da poi draci} is usable for that
00:12 < ldlework> he'd need lo'e draci to make the eventual distinction
00:12 < ldlework> pei
00:12 < zipcpi> ie
00:13 < justeno> so, i did not have a DE in the chroot and some crouton stuff broke (packages not available in stretch that it wanted). So, trying a new chroot to test for possible success
00:13 < justeno> trusty (ubuntu) this time
00:13 < ldlework> zipcpi: we need to distinguish between lo'e broda and ro broda a bit more clearly
00:13 < ldlework> need some good wording
00:13 < zipcpi> I kinda wonder how la selpa'i will handle this in Toaq Dzu. There probably won't be equivalents to these gadri. Maybe it'd be a discursive or an adverb
00:13 < ldlework> it should be addressed in whatever is written about this
00:14 < justeno> ldlework: wait, do have a docker image for this? :P
00:14 < ldlework> justeno: not for the client no
00:14 < zipcpi> Well {mi nelci ro draci} is a rather strong statement
00:14 < justeno> maybe i should make one for future use
00:14 < zipcpi> And probably false
00:14 < ldlework> justeno: but docker is not a security product
00:15 < justeno> no, no it is not
00:15 < ldlework> it provides 'incidental isolation'
00:15 < zipcpi> Even the biggest fan of plays would probably hate certain plays :p
00:15 < ldlework> zipcpi: that's a great refutation
00:15 < zipcpi> In fact he might hate it all the more because of his interest in the archetypical play
00:15 < ldlework> and illuminates the 'generalizing speech' of the indefinite article
00:16 < ldlework> rather than referring to all referents
00:16 < ldlework> ie sai
00:16 < ldlework> its almost like we satisfy those that will make criticisms related to ro
00:16 < ldlework> with lo'i
00:17 < ldlework> where lo'i is specifically about what we expect the average characteristics of a broda, rather than literally asserting every broda features an x, y, and z
00:17 < zipcpi> You mean lo'e
00:17 < ldlework> no lo'i
00:17 < zipcpi> Oh
00:17 < ldlework> lo'i is *almost* as strong as ro
00:17 < ldlework> but different
00:17  * zipcpi nods
00:17 < ldlework> its ro, but in a different sense
00:18 < ldlework> its like, if you were to chisel a statue of "A cat", what features would it have?
00:18 < ldlework> (very greek of me, meh)
00:18 < zipcpi> Hah
00:18 < zipcpi> Well, more like, if you were a minor deity and asked to create a cat
00:18 < ldlework> and lo'e allows us to generalize about cats, without defining cats.
00:18 < ldlework> zipcpi: heh
00:19 < zipcpi> I need a blog
00:20 < ldlework> zipcpi: I definitely think we should formalize this a bit. not /formalize/ but explain all 4 gadri in one place
00:20 < zipcpi> I have a laldo laldo one from back in the day
00:20 < ldlework> with examples
00:20 < zipcpi> With only a single post
00:20 < ldlework> we can't let le die
00:20  * zipcpi nods
00:20 < ldlework> let alone the interesting properites of lo'e and lo'i go unknown
00:20 < ldlework> :)
00:20 < zipcpi> Hehe... yay my first supporter for zipcpinomgadri
00:21 < ldlework> I'm not a supporter of ridiculous lujvo ;)
00:21 < zipcpi> lol
00:21 < dutchie> ldlework: i would like to read such an explanation
00:21 < ldlework> dutchie: well this channel's recent scrollback is full of it if you can't wait
00:21 < ldlework> le : that/those broda
00:22 < ldlework> lo'e : y'know, "brodas"
00:22 < ldlework> lo'i : plato's broda
00:22 < ldlework> lo : le/lo'e - use the context, luke!
00:22 < ldlework> mu'o
00:22 < dutchie> my connection died so i lost 8 hours of scrollback .uinai
00:22 < zipcpi> * lo : da poi / le / lo'e :p
00:23 < ldlework> da poi is the same as le really
00:23 < zipcpi> No, it means da poi broda means "there exists some broda that..."
00:23 < zipcpi> Maybe that's just su'o broda too
00:23 < ldlework> I think all numerical gadri are definite
00:23 < vensa> coi rodo .i xu da djica lonu ca'a tavla bau lo jbobau
00:24 < zipcpi> Nah. That's {le pa broda}
00:24 < ldlework> well, maybe it should be lo
00:24 < ldlework> yeah
00:24 < ldlework> "one man could never win such a fight"
00:24 < ldlework> lo
00:24 < ldlework> lo'e, specifically
00:24 < ldlework> not lo
00:25 < zipcpi> That'd be lo'e pamei remna
00:25 < ldlework> lo is not anything, I have to get used to this
00:26 < ldlework> if the speaker is saying that there is exists, they are aware of that thing, so it must be definite
00:26 < ldlework> if you can pin a tail on the broda, then it is a definite reference
00:26 < zipcpi> da poi remna = "There exists a person". I don't see definiteness there
00:27 < zipcpi> *pa da poi remna
00:27 < zipcpi> Which in my mind = pa remna
00:27 < zipcpi> *human, sorry, there is a subtle difference between {remna} and {prenu} :p
00:27 < ldlework> okay so {da poi broda} is just as generic as {lo broda}
00:28 < ldlework> in that it can be definite or indefinite depending on context
00:28 < ldlework> so they are different forms of the same grammar
00:28 < zipcpi> No, it is about whether something exists or not
00:28 < ldlework> there isn't a third kind of reference
00:29 < zipcpi> xu da cevni = "Is there a god?"
00:29 < ldlework> I'd say indefinite reference
00:29 < ldlework> xu lo cevni cu zasti
00:29 < ldlework> "do gods exist?"
00:29 < ldlework> "a god, any old god, none in particular"
00:30 < ldlework> "a man who sleeps two winks, loses another."
00:30 < ldlework> its just indefinite pe'i
00:30 < zipcpi> da in my mind is like that upside down E
00:30 < ldlework> I agree
00:30 < ldlework> that's exactly what it is
00:30 < zipcpi> lo is more general than that
00:31 < ldlework> but lo'e isn't
00:31 < zipcpi> Mhm
00:31 < ldlework> and da could be quantified
00:31 < ldlework> in which case its probably definite
00:31 < ldlework> I think da is just lo formed with fopl sensibilities
00:32 < ldlework> or rather, lo is a more natural formulation of existential quantification
00:33 < ldlework> there exists a da, for which that da is my birth mother
00:33 < ldlework> this isn't really definite or indefinite really
00:33 < ldlework> because its a raw quantification
00:33 < ldlework> language injects definiteness
00:33 < ldlework> logic itself has not sense of it
00:33 < zipcpi> I don't even remember what my old blog was called
00:34 < zipcpi> Or whether I'd be embarrased with whatever I made for my first post
00:34 < ldlework> IE, I think da and lo represent the raw quantification ofa description
00:34 < ldlework> and le and lo'e are the quantification considered under actual context of language
00:34 < zipcpi> I could put it on the Wiki. Under something that starts with "zipcpi:"
00:34 < zipcpi> And link it on my userpage
00:34 < ldlework> in which case it must be definite or indefinite
00:34 < ldlework> pei
00:35 < ldlework> this is why lo has no interpretation of its own
00:35 < ldlework> it is either le or lo'e, given some context
00:35 < zipcpi> Hm... yeah
00:35 < ldlework> da just provides a raw propositional quantification
00:35 < ldlework> lo is a more natural form of that
00:35 < ldlework> but in context, its either le or lo'e
00:35 < vensa> pau ma poi minji cu basti la gerna
00:36 < ldlework> zipcpi: like, "there exists an X for which X has climbed a mountain" in context will likely become an indefinite reference
00:37 < ldlework> zipcpi: "there exists an X for which X is standing before this writer at the time of writing" in context will likely become an definite reference
00:40 < vensa> coi la'oi alaricsp
00:41 < zipcpi> vensa: We're discussing gadri again. Doesn't that sound like fun? :p
00:41 < vensa> u'i
00:42 < zipcpi> Specifically, how I use {lo'e} and {lo'i} much more than the average Lojbanist
00:42 < vensa> mi neizma lonu ca'a pilno lo'e gadri kei lonu casnu ri
00:43 < ldlework> zipcpi: I like to think the content of this conversation has to do with us reaching a shared understanding on their semantics
00:43 < ldlework> :)
00:43 < zipcpi> Yes it's a lot less argumentative than most gadri discussions that's for sure :p
00:43 < vensa> lo'ai neizma sa'ai zmanei le'ai
00:44 < vensa> to mi zmanei zo zmanei zo neizma
00:44 < ldlework> zipcpi: do we agree that "loi" and "le" are *merely* indefinite and definite forms of the "speak about the properties the collective cohesive mass" gadri?
00:44 < vensa> toi
00:44 < ldlework> loi and lei
00:45 < zipcpi> Yes
00:45 < ldlework> and also have nothing at all to do with veridicality
00:45 < ldlework> nice
00:45 < ldlework> I'm in heaven tonight
00:45 < zipcpi> Ah so what you mean by "veridicality" is all pushed into lo'e and lo'i
00:46 < ldlework> I think that most speech is veridical
00:46 < ldlework> and we use non-veridicality to achieve understanding in face of our need to be brief, lack of vocabulary, or insight, ignorance, or anything else
00:46 < zipcpi> Hm
00:47 < ldlework> sometimes we take it to an extreme and you have poetry
00:47 < ldlework> where nothing is directly referred to, or described
00:47 < ldlework> but only indirectly through metaphor
00:47 < zipcpi> Essentially an entire text wrapped in fu'e pe'a ... fu'o
00:47 < ldlework> ie
00:47 < ldlework> loi xagji gerku cu ckape
00:47 < ldlework> "masses of hungry dogs are dangerous"
00:48 < ldlework> lei xagji gerku cu ckape
00:48 < zipcpi> The mass of hungry dogs is dangerous
00:48 < ldlework> that mass of hungry dogs is dangerous
00:48 < ldlework> ie
00:49 < ldlework> le tadni cu sruri le ckule
00:49 < ldlework> lei tadni cu sruri le cukle
00:49 < ldlework> etc etc
00:49 < vensa> coi la gleki
00:50 < ldlework> zipcpi: u'i .i lo'i xagji gerku cu ckape
00:50 < zipcpi> :p
00:50 < ldlework> "It takes being dangerous, to be a pack of hungry dogs."
00:50 < ldlework> :D
00:50 < zipcpi> lol
00:51 < ldlework> totally reasonable when you change it to lo'e
00:51 < ldlework> .i lo'e xagji gerku cu ckape
00:51 < ldlework> because that's the same thing I meant when I used lo after all
00:51 < ldlework> and it was reasonable then, when you interpreted lo as lo'e
00:51 < ldlework> perhaps without realizing it
00:52 < ldlework> (though I'm sure you did, but do most?)
00:52 < vensa> coi la tsani
00:53 < ldlework> zipcpi: just trying to drive home the idea that lo isn't defined on its own
00:53 < ldlework> so that when we write it out, this detail is manifest :3
00:53 < zipcpi> {lo broda} = Something(s) that {broda}s. Is the most general gadri, and could bean either {le} or {lo'e} depending on contexts.
00:54 < ldlework> But do you need that?
00:54 < ldlework> It might not even be something that broda's
00:54 < zipcpi> Well I will like to start with lo
00:55 < zipcpi> Well, something that {broda}s within a frame of reference
00:55 < ldlework> dunno, I think there is an insight here
00:55 < ldlework> worthy of reprioritization and how we model descriptions for nintadni
00:55 < ldlework> I have good success teaching le and lo
00:55 < ldlework> I teach lo as lo'e, without mentioning lo'e
00:55 < zipcpi> Whether that frame of reference is the real world, a game, your imagination, or the metaphorical context of a poem wrapped in implicit fu'epe'a
00:56 < ldlework> but I think that certain indefinite propositions do not assert any referent
00:56 < zipcpi> But it's the most general gadri, and is pretty much "never wrong", just like xorxes lo or selpa'i lo
00:56 < ldlework> sure, I agree, our's retains se ckaji
00:57 < ldlework> that se ckaji*
00:57 < ldlework> le se ckaji :P
00:57 < ldlework> especially if we use the idea of 'generalizing speech'
00:58 < ldlework> by explaining lo'e and generalizing speech, and le as speech describing specific things, lo is easily introduced as a shell that merely contains the two
00:58 < zipcpi> Yeah true...
00:58 < ldlework> and so that lo is the safest, because it can mean either, and you can use either le or lo'e when you feel like being specific
00:58  * zipcpi nods
00:59 < ldlework> I wonder if teaching lojban this way
00:59 < ldlework> would actually lead to more explicit descriptions...
00:59 < ldlework> I think a lot of the dependence on lo is the failure to properly and elegantly explain the gadri
00:59 < ldlework> the -nature of descriptions- in a lay way
00:59 < zipcpi> And people will actually start to learn to use {lo'e}, {lo'i}, and {le} properly
00:59 < zipcpi> Yeah I'd like that :p
00:59 < ldlework> its all too confusing, "just use lo"
01:00  * zipcpi nods
01:00 < ldlework> but I think if you throw veridicality the mabla out
01:00 < ldlework> it becomes far more simple to explain
01:00 < zipcpi> It's like what the &*#(*&%*(#& is this just use lo since it's "never wrong"
01:00 < ldlework> "if you want to call a thing by a name for which it really isn't that thing"
01:00 < ldlework> mabla.
01:00 < ldlework> there are definite descriptions and there are indefinite ones.
01:00 < ldlework> that's it
01:01  * zipcpi nods
01:01 < ldlework> lo'i being a special more logically informed case
01:01 < zipcpi> Yeah {le broda} as {lo broda pe'a} is just wrong in my opinion
01:01 < ldlework> da being the method to explain how lo can be logically defined without being pressed to be resolved to a definite or indefinite form
01:01 < zipcpi> Mhm
01:01 < ldlework> since definiteness is irrelevant for consdiering the propositional properties of some existential quantification
01:02 < ldlework> there's no context in the happenings of logic systems except those presuppositions of any progression of 'argument'
01:03  * zipcpi nods
01:03 < ldlework> forming things in terms of da would be tiresome in normal speech, so lo is an equivalence
01:03  * zipcpi nods
01:03 < ldlework> it doesn't imply any definiteness either way
01:03 < ldlework> but inside some context, it is forced one way or the other
01:03 < ldlework> due to all descriptions in actual language being definite or indefinite inherently
01:04 < zipcpi> Yeah we don't need le broda to mean lo broda pe'a. We *have* pe'a :p
01:04 < ldlework> exactly
01:04 < ldlework> also its polysemy in our gadri, making le a 'dirty' cmavo
01:04  * zipcpi nods
01:04 < ldlework> to be brushed under the rug
01:06 < zipcpi> Still trying to find my old blog...
01:06 < ldlework> we should remember the xagji gerku example
01:07 < zipcpi> Oh hey it's here
01:07 < ldlework> ui
01:09 < zipcpi> http://jboselpei.blogspot.com/
01:09 < zipcpi> (yeah this is *way* back
01:09 < zipcpi> 2007
01:09 < zipcpi> Not sure if I want to use it
01:10 < zipcpi> Maybe I should just start a new blog
01:11 < zipcpi> Name is probably wrong anyway. Nonce lujvo + did I even use that gadri correctly
01:11 < ldlework> zipcpi: the venue isn't that important
01:11 < ldlework> we can just put it on the wiki
01:11 < zipcpi> Yeah I agree
01:12 < ldlework> zipcpi: I'm walking up to you to start a conversation
01:12 < ldlework> "There's a man I want you to meet."
01:13 < zipcpi> da poi prenu zo'u mi djica lo nu do penmi da
01:13 < ldlework> so
01:14 < zipcpi> I want you to meet someone
01:14 < zipcpi> mi djica lo nu do penmi lo prenu
01:15 < ldlework> right that's what I was going to say
01:15 < ldlework> if lo is an equivalence to da poi
01:15 < zipcpi> Yeah they're probably logically equivalent
01:15 < ldlework> so
01:15 < ldlework> herein is my actual question
01:15 < zipcpi> I just translated "there's a man" as "da poi prenu zo'u" to preserve the "forwardness"
01:15 < ldlework> since a logical quantification cannot exist in actual speech
01:15 < ldlework> as a description
01:16 < ldlework> since it must resolve to definite or indefinite
01:16 < ldlework> which is the case here
01:17 < ldlework> then there is the follow up question, how to do you explicitly provide the referentiality of a description provided in da form?
01:17 < ldlework> such as when using prenexes
01:18 < zipcpi> That one I don't know. All this is probably better with UI really
01:18 < zipcpi> I'm just using the existing gadri since they already exist
01:18 < ldlework> I think we're on the right track
01:18 < zipcpi> lo'e me da ; le me da?
01:18 < ldlework> not bad
01:19 < ldlework> maybe, du
01:19  * zipcpi shrugs
01:19 < ldlework> since it literally is the same thing
01:19 < zipcpi> Yeah
01:19 < ldlework> you're just attaching referentiality
01:19 < ldlework> to help your listener because you think they might think you're generalizing
01:19 < ldlework> when you're not
01:19 < ldlework> or vice versa
01:20 < ldlework> I like that it gives a reason to have du over just mintu
01:20 < ldlework> for brevity of a technical descriptive form
01:21 < ldlework> da poi prenu zo'u mi djica lo nu do penmi lo'e du da
01:21 < ldlework> don't even have to change the grammar
01:22 < ldlework> "There are people I want you to meet."
01:22 < ldlework> or rather
01:22 < ldlework> "I want you to meet people."
01:23 < ldlework> literally the same as just lo'e prenu
01:23 < ldlework> its so clean
01:25 < ldlework> da poi broda cei prenu zo'u mi djica lo nu do penmi lo'e du da
01:25 < ldlework> ~=
01:26 < ldlework> err
01:26 < ldlework> shit I'm tired
01:26 < ldlework> co'o zipcpi
01:29 < zipcpi> co'o
01:54 < gocti> za'a lo ja le ja la ja loi ja lei ja lai ja lo'i ja le'i ja la'i ja lo'e ja le'e gadri na bartu lo djasro pe lo bauspo
02:00 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
02:01 < gocti> .u'i mi ze'i se jetmlu lo du'u xamselsku po'o
02:02 < zipcpi> Yes, yes, I'm going there :p
02:02 < zipcpi> la cadgu'a encouraged me
02:02 < zipcpi> Because he noticed I use {lo'e} and {lo'i} a lot
02:03 < zipcpi> And asked me why I like to use them
02:03 < zipcpi> So I explained how I was using it
02:03 < zipcpi> And he liked the contrast against {le}
02:04 < gocti> .ai mi xoi krefu cu tcidu lo me zo lo'i moi .i sei pa moi co nu frati zo'u ci'izra
02:04 < zipcpi> So the difference between {lo'e} and {le} is definiteness
02:04 < zipcpi> {le} is then divorced from the notion of veridicality
02:04 < zipcpi> That seems to be the bugbear of the Lojban community
02:06 < gocti> lo ka me'oi nonveridical zo'u mi senpi lo du'u ri ca da ja'a se ckaji tu'a zo le mu'a .i va'o zo'u ba'a nandu sai fa lo ka baupli fau lo nu ro roi jai nu me'oi veridical
02:07 < gocti> .i va'i pe'i va'o lo CLL jbobau so'e mai'i zo'u lo nu smusku mai'i cu se sarcu lo nu pilno zo le
02:09 < zipcpi> Now updated for {lo}
02:09 < zipcpi> I'm editing by part because the wiki co'e can be unreliable
02:09 < gocti> ie
02:11 < gocti> fu'eru'eni'ofu'o zo lo'i .i lo se jinvi ne ri zo'u mi se cizra .i xu da ke mu'a uitki papri gi'e jai se pi'o be ka'e tcidu lo srana be le se jinvi
02:11 < gocti> .i lo te cizra cu ka sinxa lo gu je nai selcmi gi ke simsa be lo me zo lo'e moi
02:14 < gocti> (to ku'i la'a xagmau fa lo nu denpa lo nu la cadgu'a di'a cikna toi)
02:26 < zipcpi> Updated for lo'i
02:27 < gocti> ue
02:30 < gocti> ja'o pei lo du'u lo ka remna cu nibli lo ka mroka'e cu dunli lo du'u lo'i remna cu mroka'e
02:30 < zipcpi> ie
02:31 < zipcpi> je'u
02:31 < gocti> mi za'o se ci'izra .i ro sai roi se ctuca fi lo du'u lo selcmi na ckaji lo se ckaji be lo cmima be ri
02:32 < gocti> .i je'u mi clira dukse frati
02:34 < gocti> .i mo lu lo'i ci broda li'u .i ma ka'e jai ta'i mangle lu bu
02:35 < zipcpi> lol I'm still not that good at Lojban to conduct philosophical discussions in it :p
02:35 < gocti> ko va'o lo nu valsi claxu cu pilno lo glico
02:36 < zipcpi> co'oru'e .i ei mi citka su'oda
02:36 < gocti> co'o
02:45 < ctefa`o> .uicoi
02:46 < ctefa`o> Err
02:46 < ctefa`o> uicoi li'a
02:46 < Ilmen> coi co'o
02:47 < gocti> coi
03:07 < ctefa`o> doi la gocti were you the other guy on mumble yesterday?
03:08 < gocti> go'i
03:09 < gocti> .i do je mi je la .ilmen.
03:31 < zipcpi> OK changed the lo bit... hopefully makes the difference between it and le/lo'e more clear.
03:33 < ctefa`o> zipcpi: regarding yesterday...is the "merge" idea just to make selbri of cmevla-FORM legal?
03:33 < zipcpi> Yes... it's already implemented in the experimental parser, and thus part of what I call "level 3 Lojban"
03:34 < zipcpi> It's the semantics of "ti .spagetis." that are under argument
03:34 < ctefa`o> But the selbri of cmevla-form is not actually a NAME?
03:34 < zipcpi> No. cmevla are no longer tied to cmene
03:35 < ctefa`o> Well that is something else
03:35 < ctefa`o> So you basically want to allow cmevla-form zi'evla?
03:36 < zipcpi> No. cmevla, although grammatically merged with brivla, are not brivla
03:36 < zipcpi> brivla are still to be defined with a single meaning, ideally
03:36 < ctefa`o> ...but cmevla selbri can have multiple?
03:36 < zipcpi> cmevla just mean whatever the speaker intends them to mean; they are considered to have a permanent {za'e} attached to them
03:36 < zipcpi> Grammatically, yes.
03:36 < ctefa`o> Uhm okay
03:37 < zipcpi> Oh I thought you mean multiple places
03:37  * ctefa`o na impresso
03:37 < zipcpi> But yes, cmevla will remain inherently polysemous
03:38 < zipcpi> But that's just a good reason to eventually define brivla for most concepts
03:38 < ctefa`o> So...they will basically act like simple fu'ivla?
03:38 < zipcpi> je'a
03:39 < ctefa`o> Except that fu'ivla ideally should/must have a single meaning
03:39 < zipcpi> You're thinking of zi'evla
03:39 < zipcpi> Don't be too mixed up by the historical usage there
03:39 < zipcpi> cmevla are just what used to be called "stage-2 fu'ivla"
03:39 < ctefa`o> No. Fu'ivla as a subset of zi'evla
03:39 < zipcpi> No, fu'ivla refers to all loan words
03:39 < ctefa`o> zi'evla with a non-lojban origin
03:40 < ctefa`o> Uh
03:40 < zipcpi> There are four stages of Lojban fu'ivla - only the last two are zi'evla
03:40 < ctefa`o> uanai
03:40 < zipcpi> Neither are a subset of each other
03:40 < zipcpi> They overlap
03:40 < ctefa`o> That's..another way to look at it
03:40 < ctefa`o> I see fu'ivla as a subset of zi'evla. Period.
03:41 < zipcpi> Then what would you use for the concept of "loan word"?
03:42 < zipcpi> THat's all fu'ivla means. If you don't use it that way then you are not using it by its defined meaning.
03:42 < zipcpi> fu'ivla doesn't just apply to Lojban either
03:42 < ctefa`o> I wasn't aware fu'ivla had had its meaning replaced
03:43 < zipcpi> For example, it makes sense to talk about {lo fu'ivla be fi lo glibau} and {lo fu'ivla be fi lo ponbau}
03:43 < zipcpi> It was "replaced" because the CLL misused it
03:43 < ctefa`o> I still find its meaning relevant
03:44 < zipcpi> fu'ivla je zi'evla
03:44 < zipcpi> What's so difficult about that
03:44 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/fu'ivla
03:45 < ctefa`o> To go back to your earlier question "loan word" isn't actually "fukpi valsi"
03:45 < ctefa`o> That would be "jbera valsi"
03:45 < zipcpi> No, they decided to base it on {fukpi} "copy" because loan words are never actually borrowed
03:45 < ctefa`o> Depending on what you actually mean...
03:45 < ctefa`o> You said loan word
03:46 < zipcpi> Because that's the usual English word
03:46 < zipcpi> But loanword and fu'ivla mean the same thing
03:46 < ctefa`o> How about monfu'i valsi
03:46 < zipcpi> Why do we need new words?
03:47 < ctefa`o> Why do we *need* cmevla as selbri?
03:47 < zipcpi> fu'ivla is defined as loanword. It was always defined as loan word
03:47 < zipcpi> The CLL was using it wrong
03:47 < zipcpi> I never changed the definition; only added that "historical note"
03:48 < ctefa`o> Shall we debate lojban semantics now?;)
03:49 < zipcpi> In fact the CLL gets confused and describe the "four stages of fu'ivla"
03:49 < zipcpi> "four stages of loan words (in Lojban)"
03:49 < zipcpi> *But* only the third and fourth stage are actually zi'evla
03:50 < zipcpi> First stage: CLL prescribes "me la'o gy. spaghetti .gy". We have the experimental cmavo {me'oi} to simplify that = "me'oi .spaghetti."
03:51 < zipcpi> Essentially sacrifices audio-visual isomorphism in order to import a foreign word unchanged.
03:51 < zipcpi> Second stage: CLL prescribes "me la .spagetis."
03:52 < zipcpi> Under cmevla-brivla grammar merge, ".spagetis." is allowed as a selbri by the grammar.
03:52 < zipcpi> Only the third stage and fourth stage are true zi'evla, and true brivla.
03:52 < ctefa`o> And can it mean something else than spaghetti?
03:52 < ctefa`o> In addition to omnom pasta
03:53 < zipcpi> It means whatever the shared culture of the speakers define .spagetis. to mean
03:53 < ctefa`o> That's...ambigious?
03:53 < zipcpi> So was "me la .spagetis."
03:53 < ctefa`o> ambiguos*
03:54 < ctefa`o> At least it didn't masquerade as a standardized selbri
03:54 < zipcpi> It's still morphologically a cmevla
03:54 < zipcpi> It still has those mandatory pauses which so many Lojbanists love {xo'o}
03:54 < ctefa`o> But nvm I get the idea. You want "names for concepts"
03:55 < ctefa`o> Which fu'ivla/zi'evla were supposed to be
03:55 < zipcpi> I want "nonce names that I can use right now without defining a brivla yet"
03:55 < ctefa`o> Nonce name, thank you
03:55 < zipcpi> Or "za'e + a poor attempt to make a zi'evla"
03:56 < ctefa`o> Well okay
03:57 < ctefa`o> Have fun with the ensuing place structure debates;)
03:58 < ctefa`o> But I get it
04:00  * nuzba @uitki: nuzyfle/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzyfle/en by Mukti - Use /en twitter feed [http://bit.ly/1ePcAhl]
04:01 < zipcpi> If you want a useful place structure just make it a tanru
04:02 < zipcpi> Say for example I just invented a new language called "Magificos", but not defined a brivla for it yet
04:03 < zipcpi> Under cmevla-brivla merge I can call it "ti .majifikos. bangu mi" (This is Magificos, which I speak")
04:03 < zipcpi> Well... not sure about the appropriateness of {ti} here
04:03 < zipcpi> But yeah
04:03 < b_jonas> zipcpi: just add a {me la}
04:04 < zipcpi> me la ... ku!
04:04 < b_jonas> no
04:04 < ctefa`o> So how would I say the same thing in non-merge lojban?
04:04 < ctefa`o> *Exactly* the same thing
04:04 < zipcpi> ti me la .majifikos. ku bangu mi
04:05 < ctefa`o> I thought you were saying "me" didn't reallly do the trick?
04:05 < zipcpi> Maybe it doesn't but there is no other way under "level-2" lojban
04:06 < ctefa`o> Can you put it in another way then?
04:06 < zipcpi> No
04:07 < Ilmen> well arguably {mintu be la .majifikos. be'o bangu mi} would be better, altought longer
04:07 < zipcpi> If you want to stick with level-2, that's what you get
04:07 < ctefa`o> I just want to see the equivalent expression
04:07 < ctefa`o> No matter if it is 100 syllables long
04:08 < Ilmen> also, me X me'u = menre be X be'o
04:08 < zipcpi> Well... ti me la'e zo .majifikos. bangu mi
04:08 < zipcpi> Forgot about that
04:08 < zipcpi> That's also acceptable level 2
04:09 < zipcpi> Although it wasn't the prescribed method by the CLL
04:09 < zipcpi> off: ti me la'e zo .majifikos. bangu mi
04:09 < zipcpi> Er...
04:09 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: So basically, an actual, literal name for a concept/relation?
04:09 < ctefa`o> Compared to fu'ivla/zi'evla which aren't really names...
04:09 < zipcpi> So yes, "ti me la'e zo .majifikos. bangu mi" is your answer
04:10 < Ilmen> what is a literal name for a concept/relation?
04:10 < Ilmen> Sorry I'm only mildly attentive
04:10 < mensi> ([ti CU] [{me <la'e (¹zo majifikos¹) LUhU> MEhU} bangu] [mi VAU])
04:10 < zipcpi> Took a while
04:11 < ctefa`o> Well I was thinking in the metaphor of loan-words being "names for very specific concepts"
04:11 < Ilmen> Well, but the referent of a proper name always depends on context, unless there's only ne thiing having the name
04:11 < dutchie> coi
04:12 < Ilmen> *only one
04:12 < Ilmen> coi
04:12 < niftg> la mensi piso'oroi masno spuda
04:13 < Ilmen> the relation labeled by a brivla word is defined within the language, it's part of the language
04:13 < Ilmen> the referent of a proper name isn't defined by the language but by the context
04:14 < ctefa`o> Right
04:15 < Ilmen> If context is enough and the information passes through, all is fine. If context isn't enough, extra details ca always be added
04:16 < Ilmen> {lo se cmene be zo .albert. gi'e rajycla gi'e dasni lo xunre mapku} -- the one called Albert, that is tall and wear a red hat"
04:17 < Ilmen> I think {la .albert. poi ...} works too
04:17 < Ilmen> "the Albert that..."
04:17 < ctefa`o> I see
04:18 < Ilmen> {la .albert. poi rajycla} -- the Albert that's tall
04:18 < Ilmen> *who's tall
04:18 < zipcpi> b_jonas: I know you are a fan of level-2, but I can't go back. I can't get used to how the sumtcita worked in level 2, or the question connectives
04:18 < b_jonas> what level-2? what?
04:18 < zipcpi> Official-parser
04:18 < b_jonas> oh
04:18 < b_jonas> you call that "level-2"? ok
04:19 < zipcpi> level-1 is CLL
04:19 < ctefa`o> doi Ilmen And how would this help to make sense of say "ti cmevlas"?
04:19 < zipcpi> level-2 is official parser and all changes from the desk of the BPFK
04:19 < zipcpi> level-3 is experimental parser; sumtcita merge, simplified connectives, cmevla-brivla merge
04:19 < ctefa`o> Maybe not the best example
04:19 < dutchie> doi zipcpi e'u "level" is not the best word
04:20 < dutchie> e'u "tier", "stage"
04:20 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: basically "cmevlas" would mean "x1 is the one(s) called [Cmevlas]"
04:20 < ctefa`o> Simplified connectives?
04:20 < zipcpi> dutchie: OK, you may have an argument here
04:20 < Ilmen> as if it was a shorthand for "se cmene be zo .cmevlas."
04:21 < zipcpi> Anyway stage-4 = cekitaujau + 2 letter rafsi; which don't have a parser yet
04:21 < zipcpi> Or support from JVS
04:21 < b_jonas> zipcpi: I said it already, and I'm saying it again, that treating cmevla like brivla breaks the grammar in a very incompatible way, so that's one of the extensions I'll never support.
04:22 < zipcpi> If I were to hypothetically agree with you, I'd be forced to use the official parser
04:22 < zipcpi> And I can't get used to that
04:22 < ctefa`o> The simplified connectives, is that the one where you only have 1 type of connective as long as both arguments are the same?
04:22 < zipcpi> Yes
04:23 < ctefa`o> Nice
04:23 < ctefa`o> So which becomes the "basic" "and"?
04:23 < zipcpi> je
04:24 < zipcpi> Just read this: http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/how-to-substantially-simplify-the-lojban-connective-system-my-connective-system
04:24 < zipcpi> All you need to know about the simplified connective system
04:24 < ctefa`o> ...that was the one I had in mind
04:25 < b_jonas> zipcpi: no, I didn't say you ahve to use the official parser. I'm also not saying that some other, more compatible changes to the language are definitely wrong.
04:25 < zipcpi> Then I'd have no parser to use
04:26 < ctefa`o> I thought that connective system was a glorious idea
04:26 < zipcpi> Cause if I use the exp parser I still have to put the {cu} in {la .djan. cu klama}
04:26 < ctefa`o> One simple change and a lot less cmavo to leaen
04:26 < ctefa`o> Learn
04:26  * zipcpi nods
04:27 < zipcpi> Besides if you're worried about monoparsing of old texts; there is {jo'au}
04:28 < ctefa`o> Besides backwards compatibility, are there any actual problems with that system?
04:28 < zipcpi> There is no backwards compatibility problems with the simplified connective system
04:28 < zipcpi> The exp parser accepts both the old connectives and the simplified ones
04:28 < ctefa`o> ...so you can still use the old system?
04:29 < zipcpi> Yes.
04:29 < ctefa`o> Wow
04:30 < ctefa`o> Well I am not going to bother to properly memorize the current system if I can have this instead
04:33 < ctefa`o> uisai
04:34 < zipcpi> Join the stage-3 side :p
04:35 < ctefa`o> I have another side actually
04:36 < ctefa`o> Years in the making
04:36 < zipcpi> lol
04:36 < ctefa`o> Still trying it out to see that it works
04:37 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni/eng
04:38 < ctefa`o> Where do I sign up?
04:38 < zipcpi> Just add yourself to "Members" and give yourself an appropriate title :p
04:38 < zipcpi> Do you have a Wiki account yet?
04:38 < zipcpi> If not you'd need one
04:38 < ctefa`o> It was more of a joke
04:38 < zipcpi> lol :p
04:39 < ctefa`o> But my idea has to do with the beloved place structures
04:39 < ctefa`o> Don't wanna discuss it here as it is not finished, pm me if you are interested
04:40 < zipcpi> Ah
05:06 < gocti> zipcpi: domozolo
05:06 < gocti> vau sai
05:13 < zipcpi> I like {lo}. I use it a lot
05:13 < zipcpi> But I also use {le}, {lo'e}, and even {lo'i}
05:15 < gocti> va'i sa'e: ma'i la xorlo lu «ko'a djica lo nu lo broda cu brode» li'u ka'e se smuni ga lo du'u su'oi broda jai se djica ko'a fai lo nu ke'a brode
05:16 < gocti> gi lo du'u ko'a djica lo nu su'oi broda cu brode
05:16 < gocti> vu'o ja lo drata ku ji'a
05:16 < gocti> .i xu do ja'a stidi lo du'u lo pa moi ku po'o (to lo sko'opu jai ganrai toi) cu smuni
05:17 < gocti> exp: ga ti gi ta vu'o je tu
05:17 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "u" found.
05:17 < gocti> oi
05:17 < gocti> exp: fa ga ti gi ta vu'o je tu
05:18 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "u" found.
05:27 < zipcpi> Er, fau'u gocti, but are you saying I defined {lo} in a way that is incompatible wiith xorlo?
05:27 < gocti> Yes, basically
05:28 < zipcpi> What is wrong with it?
05:28 < gocti> Your version looks like it's pre-xorlo lo except that it always leaps up to the widest scope
05:29 < gocti> (where pre-xorlo would have {ko'a djica le nu lo broda cu brode} == {ko'a djica le nu su'o broda cu brode},
05:29 < gocti> yours has the {su'o} quantifier at the top level)
05:29 < zipcpi> Oh...
05:29 < zipcpi> You mean the whole logical-prenex thing
05:29 < gocti> And xorlo lo doesn't quantify at all by default
05:29 < gocti> Yep
05:30 < zipcpi> Yeah I'm not too sure about that one
05:30 < zipcpi> Maybe I'll just comment it out for now
05:30 < gocti> I found guskant's article excellent for understanding xorlo
05:31 < zipcpi> But the English thing about "somethings that broda" isn't wrong, is it?
05:31 < gocti> Yeah it can (but doesn't have to be) just as vague as "some thing(s) that broda"
05:32 < zipcpi> That is why I still use {le} and {lo'e}
05:33 < zipcpi> Like I said, I use {lo} a lot, but I still like my {le}, {lo'e}, and {lo'i}
05:33 < zipcpi> Got rid of the logical prenex thing for now. At least until I understand it a bit better
05:34 < gocti> (I'm not looking to argue about {lo}-only or not - I also use {lo'e} and {loi} and {le})
05:34  * zipcpi nods
05:34 < gocti> (sometimes with unofficial definitions though!)
05:34 < zipcpi> lol
05:34 < zipcpi> Well my own definitions aren't exactly official either
05:35 < zipcpi> JVS still has the laldyrai je mabla ma'oste definitions :p
05:36 < gocti> ba'a pu lo nu BPFK jdice tu'a zo le kei no'u lo nu lo daptutra cu dujbi'o zo'u lo laldo velski cu stali lo ka se jbovlaste
05:37 < zipcpi> u'i
05:42 < dutchie> .u'isai coi merry
05:43 < zipcpi> Oh dutchie have you read my article?
05:43 < dutchie> not yet, link?
05:43 < zipcpi> You got kinda caught in my discussion with Idlework and I thought you might want to see the result
05:43 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
05:44 < dutchie> .eisai mi gunka
05:44 < dutchie> .i ku'i mi tcidu
05:49 < ComradeBecca> ok so ba'o = perfective... "in the future of having..." but what if i wanted to demonstrate movement into the ba'o tense... i.e. "finish". is there an easy way to do that?
05:49 < ComradeBecca> sorry if that makes no sense
05:49 < gocti> {co'a ba'o} works pe'i
05:50 < ComradeBecca> cool
05:50 < ComradeBecca> thanks
05:51 < ComradeBecca> yeah it works at least in my sentence. thanks!
06:00 < zipcpi> Complitive is mo'u
06:00 < zipcpi> *completive
06:00 < zipcpi> There's also co'u, cessative
06:00 < Ilmen> And indeed {de'a}
06:00 < zipcpi> Both imply the point of finishing... but mo'u also means that the event is "complete"
06:01 < zipcpi> While co'u implies interruption
06:01 < zipcpi> {de'a} implies a temporary pause
06:01 < Ilmen> {co'u} is vaguer than {mo'u}
06:01 < zipcpi> Mhm
06:02 < Ilmen> at least I think so
06:04 < Ilmen> otherwise it wouldn't be possible to not specify whether the process is complete or not
06:04 < Ilmen> pei
06:04 < zipcpi> Hmm... makes sense... co'u is like {sisti}, while mo'u is like {mulno}
06:04 < Ilmen> mulfau
06:05 < zipcpi> Right
06:05 < zipcpi> Oh sisti is agentive
06:05 < Ilmen> jbo: sisti
06:05 < mensi> sisti = x1 co'u zukte ja ckaji x2 .i lo nu x1 zukte ja ckaji x2 cu tolcfa |>>> zukte .i ckaji .i tolcfa |>>>
06:05 < mensi> xorxes
06:05 < zipcpi> se fanmo isn't
06:05 < Ilmen> it seems sisti is not necessarily agentive
06:05 < zipcpi> zukte?
06:05 < zipcpi> Oh ja ckaji
06:06 < Ilmen> "zukte ja ckaji"
06:06 < zipcpi> An agent isn't necessarily a person
06:06 < zipcpi> There is still something that's stopping lo ka or lo nu
06:06 < Ilmen> X rinka lonu Y tolcfa
06:07 < Ilmen> ta'o mi de'a jundi
06:32 < durka42> zipcpi: agreed 100% with your definitions of le, lo and lo'e, I have no idea what lo'i is/has been/should be used for
06:33 < durka42> so I'm not sure if you're proposing a new definition for {lo'i} or not but it seems like you are
06:33 < durka42> and it seems to be the same as one of the proposed meanings of {ka'e}
06:39 < zipcpi> Haha... well if no one uses it ca'i BSFK I can define what it means :p
06:40 < durka42> new idea, {le'i} is for mixed lerfu/number strings :p
06:40 < zipcpi> Haha
06:40 < gocti> bu'a'a'a'a'a'a'a'a dai
06:42 < zipcpi> Anyway, as I accidentally said in jbosnu incurring the wrath of the jbocei, I'm thinking of making le "anaphorical". It means that it either refers to something mentioned earlier, or within the immediately shared subtext between the speakers
06:42 < zipcpi> In the sense, the subtext also "mentions" things. As someone put it (forgot where), it's as if the world itself is a speaker
06:43 < zipcpi> {ni'o lo fetspe cu xrukla lo zdani bazi lo nu fy catlu lo draci
06:43 < zipcpi> Something like that
06:44 < zipcpi> That way lo is still a superset of le / lo'e, but also covers non-anaphorical usage
06:44 < zipcpi> definite, but non-anaphorical
06:44 < zipcpi> Not sure if that'd cause problems though
06:45 < zipcpi> But I guess there's always {poi}
06:46 < zipcpi> Er, zgana would probably be better than catlu
06:46 < durka42> people have been debating whether {le} is anaphorical or definite or something else entirely for approximately 100 years
06:46 < zipcpi> u'i
06:46 < durka42> I don't see how you can "make" it one way or the other, sorry :/
06:46 < zipcpi> OK
06:47 < zipcpi> I guess "definite" is probably the most "general" definition then
06:47 < zipcpi> And the note about anaphorical usage should be sufficient
06:48 < zipcpi> "Definite article. le broda = the broda(s) that I have in mind. Often used anaphorically, to refer to either something mentioned earlier, or to something in the immediately shared context of the speakers. Roughly equivalent to English "the", though used a lot less often; lo is generally preferred if the implication of definiteness or anaphoric presence is not needed."
06:50 < zipcpi> pei
06:50 < durka42> sure
06:50 < durka42> have you seen Ilmen's ri'oi
06:50 < zipcpi> Yes. But ri'oi is probably... too specific?
06:50 < durka42> well it's the anaphorical sense only
06:50 < zipcpi> Right
06:52 < zipcpi> Though ri'oi probably doesn't cover "subtext"
06:52 < zipcpi> It's roughly like le bi'unai
06:52 < durka42> yes
06:53 < zipcpi> OK get rid of "anaphoric" then.
06:53 < zipcpi> "Definite article. le broda = the broda(s) that I have in mind. Often used to refer to either something mentioned earlier, or to something in the immediately shared context of the speakers. Roughly equivalent to English "the", though used a lot less often; lo is generally preferred if the implication of definiteness or contextual presence is not needed."
06:53 < durka42> I dunno why listen to me :)
06:53 < durka42> I'll probably end up writing my own gadri article someday right
06:53 < durka42> it's a rite of passage
06:54 < zipcpi> Eh it's just "anaphoric" has a specific meaning and I might not be using it correctly
06:54 < zipcpi> It's not really you that convinced me to drop "anaphoric", but how ri'oi was defined and also how "anaphoric" is used in the linguistic materials I skimmed
06:54 < durka42> je'e
06:55 < durka42> I'm a big fan of how the word "veridical" doesn't show up anywhere
06:55 < zipcpi> Yes
06:55 < zipcpi> If you want "non-veridical" there's always pe'a or je'unai
06:56 < zipcpi> da'i, xa'i, or even the kurtynomvla li'i'e :p
06:58 < zipcpi> Definiteness / contextual-sharedness is much more useful and reflects usage better pe'i :p
06:58 < zipcpi> Lojban already has a lot of ways to mark that something isn't quite "real"; doesn't need gadri for that
07:06 < gleki> at least i got some reply from duolingo
07:09 <@xalbo> zipcpi: I think that's a really good description/definition.
07:11 < durka42> gleki: spuda fi ma
07:11 < durka42> xu spuda fi lo se du'u doi fanza najnimre ko cliva
07:11 < durka42> zo'o
07:17 < gleki> mi na birti
07:18 < gleki> i sa'u ba'e caku dy na pensi tu'a le bangu
07:26 < gleki> i mi pu stidi lo traji poi mi pu kakne lo ka stidi ke'a
07:27 < zipcpi> doi gleki: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
07:30 < Ilmen> You forgot {ri'oi} :p
07:30 < Ilmen> "lo broda" seems to be equivalent to "lo ro broda", by the way
07:30 < gleki> i understood nothing in xorxe's proposal
07:31 < gleki> zipcpi: you forgot gleki's {le}
07:32 < durka42> that's because he wrote about zipcpi's {le} :)
07:32 < durka42> Ilmen: I already mentioned ri'oi
07:32 < gleki> heh. Nuzba page of LMW is broken in firefox
07:32 < Ilmen> Actually, lo and lo'i are very similar, except that lo is a plural and lo'i a set (as for whether the distinction is very useful, that's another debate)
07:33 < Ilmen> Sometimes "lo" is used when {su'o} or {su'oi} would probably be more appropriate
07:34 < durka42> ie
07:34 < durka42> zipcpi's note about {lo'i} seems to begging for another one of those 100-page Mr. Broda discussions, .oi
07:35 < zipcpi> lol
07:35 < zipcpi> What is that even?
07:35 < durka42> Mr Prenu (i.e. {lo prenu} under some interpretations of {lo}) is the plural embodiment of all people, of which you and I and Ilmen are mere appendages
07:35 < durka42> or something to that effect
07:35 < zipcpi> lol
07:36 < zipcpi> That would make a very trippy bripre jikca :p
07:36 < durka42> bripre jikca is already quite trippy
07:36 < durka42> especially the first one with the powers of two
07:37 < ctefa`o> "loi srasu cu jelca"
07:37 < ctefa`o> Means the "grass" is burning but not each and single straw of grass, right?
07:37 < durka42> ie
07:38 < durka42> but {lo srasu} doesn't have to mean every strand either
07:38 < Ilmen> I think "loi srasu cu broda" is true as long as there are some srasu that brodas
07:39 < zipcpi> gleki: I dunno, don't you just use {le} as "pronouns"? That's definite + anaphorical, right?
07:41  * nuzba @drjtwit: OH: "oh I _really_ want to use lojban". lol [http://bit.ly/1JkQmjY]
07:41 < ctefa`o> Uh oh you just called "le" definite
07:41 < zipcpi> Yes
07:42 < zipcpi> deeeeeeeefiiiiiniiiiite
07:42 < ctefa`o> What I can't hear you
07:42 < zipcpi> I dare invoke the wrath of the jbocei
07:42 < zipcpi> Come and strike me where I stand
07:43 < Ilmen> ue I've found back this by googling "myopic singular" lol -- http://pastebin.com/hZF3tBNz
07:43 < gleki> well, "pronoun" is ambiguous. Take "He hit him".
07:43 < zipcpi> Isn't selpa'i one of the strongest opponents of {le}?
07:43 < Ilmen> 01:09 < fpcalep> So, {lo broda} refers to Mr. Broda, the mass-individual, the myopic singular Broda, the Broda God and an outer quantifier is used to distribute over instances, manifestations or even "avatars" of it (as you can see, there are many ways to describe this concept).
07:44 < zipcpi> Not even sure what he thinks of glekynomyle :p
07:44 < gleki> Ilmen: this should be in the wiki, even if trunctaed and freed from jokes
07:44 < gleki> selpa'i primarily doesnt use {le}. in its old sense. as for my {le} idk. i just took it from usage. the usage that existed before xorlo happened
07:45 < zipcpi> I don't use {le} in its old sense either :p
07:45 < zipcpi> If you haven't noticed I never mentioned the v-word anywhere
07:46 < Ilmen> zipcpi: You should read the discussion I linked above when you have time
07:46 < gleki> zipcpi: by old usage i mean usage, not CLL
07:46 < Ilmen> (note that fpcalep = selpahi)
07:47 < zipcpi> Oh
07:48 < gleki> does xorxe's proposal means in short that math expression will continue be valid by R2D2 wont since it's nonsene in math?
07:48 < gleki> *nonsense
07:48 < gleki> does xorxe's proposal means in short that math expression will continue be valid but R2D2 wont since it's nonsense in math?
07:48  * gleki sorry of mistypes
07:48  * gleki sorry for mistypes
07:49 < zipcpi> Well durka42 brought up my "midway" proposal
07:49  * gleki ><
07:49 < zipcpi> That anything in LI ... LOhO will continue working the way it does now
07:49 < gleki> no, i mean xorxe's one. am i correct in undderstanding him?
07:49 < zipcpi> Outside Li...LOhO xorxes can do whatever nu bauspo he wants :p
07:50 < zipcpi> That way it preserves both my date system and the use of me'o for "spelling" character-strings that may include mixed digits and letters
07:51 < gleki> All these worlds are yours except LI. Don't attempt landing there
07:51 < zipcpi> Yep
07:51 < durka42> .u'i
07:51 < Ilmen> I have also Xorlo Part I in my archives za'a
07:52 < durka42> hmm?
07:52 < gleki> isnt it the same as bear goo discussion?
07:53 < Ilmen> It doesn't seem to be the same thing
07:53 < Ilmen> hm
07:53 < Ilmen> maybe it is
07:53 < gleki> they all need to be added to the wiki and cleaned. the secondpart maybe later
07:55 < Ilmen> I don't find "Surely, in a ready-made universe, bear goo must seem terrifying." in Xorlo episode I, so I think it's not the same thing as Bear Goo
07:56 < gleki> btw interesting that mensi no longer download broken dumps from vrici. so it's all downtime again or RAM issues on vrici
07:56 < gleki> probably a check of dumps for vailidity must be done.
07:57 < durka42> I remember that quote
07:57 < durka42> selpa'i said that, right?
07:57 < durka42> kinda patronizing
07:57 < Ilmen> yeah
08:01 < Ilmen> http://pastebin.com/pixTcAh5
08:01 < Ilmen> Xorlo part I
08:02 < Ilmen> http://pastebin.com/hZF3tBNz -- Xorlo part 2  (ke'u)
08:02 < Ilmen> .a'o plixau
08:02 < zipcpi> Uh oh
08:02 < durka42> is this recorded somewhere other than pastebin?
08:02 < Ilmen> No idea
08:03 < Ilmen> it's on my HD
08:03 < Ilmen> so it's recorded somewhere else zo'o ru'e
08:03 < zipcpi> xorxes-lerspo breaks {jo'au}
08:03 < durka42> troo
08:03 < durka42> well
08:03 < durka42> sorta
08:04 < durka42> {bysyfyky jo'au} is ok still
08:04 < durka42> {pa pi'e recivo pi'e pano jo'au} is fine
08:04 < zipcpi> Oops press wrong button
08:04 < durka42> but not {.camxes. bu re ci jo'au}
08:04 < zipcpi> {cylylypapi'epa jo'au} won't though
08:04 < Ilmen> [17:04:16] <durka42> {pa pi'e recivo pi'e pano jo'au} is fine
08:04 < zipcpi> Yeah
08:04 < durka42> right
08:04 < durka42> does {xi} work there?
08:04 < durka42> camxes: cy xi pa mai
08:04 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected ['h] or [uU] but "i" found.
08:05 < durka42> nope
08:05 < durka42> so you'd need another experimental
08:05 < zipcpi> New selma'o JOhAU zo'o
08:05 < durka42> now _that_ would have to be unformalizable :p
08:06 < zipcpi> zau BSFK
08:06 < durka42> a cmavo looks _backwards_ over an arbitrary number of lerfu-xor-number strings?
08:06 < durka42> .ii sai
08:06 < Ilmen> How about COI
08:06 < durka42> heh that might work
08:06 < zipcpi> COI + LI :p
08:07 < durka42> yeah it's not exactly COI because COI only captures one
08:07 < durka42> the more I think about it this proposal creates more confusing situations than it resolves
08:08 < Ilmen> COI la .ilmentufa xi papare
08:08 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Oh yes and it's gotta be COI3 too :p
08:08 < durka42> it's like {la} used to be, where you could put in a sequence of brivlacme or a sequence of cmene, but don't mix them or lojban explodes!
08:08 < durka42> but we fixed that
08:08 < Ilmen> COI la dzejbo xi pasosovo
08:08 < zipcpi> Because COI2 didn't break vlasisku enough
08:08 < durka42> it would be a new selma'o
08:09 < durka42> which is unfortunate
08:09 < durka42> because {jo'au} is a neat solution without writing new grammar rules
08:09 < zipcpi> You use cmene for cmevla again :p
08:09 < durka42> yeah I did
08:09 < zipcpi> Do ten pushups now! zo'o
08:09 < durka42> I blame CLL
08:09 < Ilmen> What's wrong with {COI la dzejbo xi pasosovo}? It seems pretty economic
08:10 < zipcpi> I think it's fine, ca'i BSFK :p
08:10 < zipcpi> Though like I said, COI3
08:10 < Ilmen> co'o dzejbo coi cabjbo
08:11 < durka42> well you still wouldn't be able to say {COI la dzejbo xi cylylypapi'apa}
08:12 < durka42> pi'e*
08:12 < zipcpi> Use joi'i
08:12 < durka42> vlaste: joi'i
08:12 < vlaste> joi'i = mekso string operator (n-ary): formal left-concatenation; X1+X, where Xi is a string/word/text
08:12 < zipcpi> Wait does VUhU even work the way I think it does?
08:12 < zipcpi> Probably not
08:12 < Ilmen> exp: cylylyxipapi'epamai
08:12 < durka42> kinda
08:12 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [0123456789] but "m" found.
08:12 < durka42> Ilmen: I tried that already :)
08:12 < durka42> VUhU works but you need {ge'a} with more than 2 operands
08:12 < Ilmen> pu na jundi jai banzuni ja'o
08:12 < durka42> plus mex doesn't work with MAI apparently
08:12 < zipcpi> exp: cylyly vu'u papi'epa mai
08:12 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected ['h] but "i" found.
08:13 < zipcpi> vu'u doesn't work either
08:13 < durka42> not with MAI
08:13 < Ilmen> exp: vei pa su'i pa mai
08:13 < durka42> the grammar is not strong enough
08:13 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected ['h] but "i" found.
08:13 < durka42> probably because of old LR(1) crap
08:13 < durka42> so probably it could be fixed
08:13 < durka42> camxes: li cylyly vu'u pa pi'e pa
08:13 < camxes> ([li {<(¹cy [ly ly]¹) BOI> <vu'u (¹pa [pi'e pa]¹) BOI>} LOhO] VAU)
08:14 < Ilmen> Why the hell having a left-branching selmaho like MAI in a mostly right-branching language
08:14 < gleki> use LR(42). It's the answer to everything. try it :) it will probably parse the whole corups.
08:14 < gleki> *corpus
08:14 < zipcpi> Yeh see? LI can contain several BOI strings
08:14 < zipcpi> QED
08:14 < zipcpi> ca'i BSFK
08:14 < durka42> camxes: +exp cylyly vu'u pa pi'e pa moi
08:14 < camxes> (CU [{<(¹cy [ly ly]¹) BOI> <vu'u (¹pa [pi'e pa]¹) BOI>} moi] VAU)
08:14 < zipcpi> :p
08:14 < durka42> camxes: +exp cylyly vu'u pa pi'e pa mai
08:14 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected ['h] but "i" found.
08:14 < durka42> :/
08:14 < gleki> yes, like with this {re boi pamoi kabri} i wish moi was a prefix.
08:15 < durka42> kinda seems like that's the real fix
08:15 < durka42> instead of screwing with mex
08:15 < durka42> but it's probably too big of a change
08:15 < durka42> MOI and MAI and ROI could work more like ME
08:16 < zipcpi> re'uza'u
08:17 < durka42> re'uz'uku mi zukte lo moipa be lo co'e
08:17 < durka42> re'uza'uku mi zukte lo moipa be lo co'e
08:17 < durka42> aaah it sounds so wrong .u'i
08:17 < zipcpi> lol
08:19 < Ilmen> I sometimes wanted something like a KOhA taking a number on its right, as to avoid using xi
08:19 < Ilmen> it would have helped not having 10 cmavo for the ko'a series
08:19 < zipcpi> xixixixixixixixixixixixixi
08:19 < zipcpi> xaxaxaxaxaxaxoxoxoxoxuxuxuxuxexexexe
08:20 < zipcpi> xoxaxexixoxuxaxexixixoxuxixa
08:20 < Ilmen> kopa, kore, koci...
08:20 < durka42> use {koi} :p
08:20 < Ilmen> just as long as ko'a, ko'e, ko'i
08:20 < durka42> it even rhymes with {moi}
08:20 < durka42> in CKTJ you can use {ko'oi} instead
08:20 < zipcpi> lol
08:20 < durka42> mi zbusufukai
08:20 < zipcpi> And current koi will be ko'o'oi :p
08:21 < durka42> oh I forgot {koi} was already defined
08:21 <@xalbo> All monosyllables that don't start with x- are defined.
08:21 < zipcpi> And all those that are have been assigned in JVS
08:22 < zipcpi> Well there are still some monosyllables left
08:22 < zipcpi> iVV and uVV
08:22 < durka42> there are 116 hits in the corpus
08:22 < durka42> they seem to be 99% typos of {coi} or {poi} or people using CKTJ
08:23 < durka42> or "valsi koi", we really need to filter those out of KZS, .u'i
08:24 < durka42> maiuei.orzy'aiuei
08:24 < durka42> camxes: maiuei.orzy'aiuei
08:24 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "m" found.
08:24 < durka42> er
08:24 < durka42> camxes: lo'u maiuei.orzy'aiuei le'u
08:24 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "m" found.
08:25 < zipcpi> exp: cmaiuei'orze'aiuei
08:25 < mensi> (CU [cmaiuei'orze'aiuei VAU])
08:25 < zipcpi> x1 is my way or the highway
08:26 < zipcpi> :p
08:26 < durka42> why won't it accept {maiuei} as a cmavo uanai
08:26 < zipcpi> Breaks up as mai uei
08:26 < durka42> that would be fine
08:26 < durka42> instead it catches fire and explodes though
08:27 < zipcpi> exp: uei'orze'aiuei
08:27 < mensi> (CU [uei'orze'aiuei VAU])
08:27 < gocti> camxes: lo'u maiuei orze'ai uei le'u
08:27 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "m" found.
08:27 < zipcpi> exp: pa mai uei'orze'aiuei
08:27 < mensi> ([{pa BOI} mai] [CU {uei'orze'aiuei VAU}])
08:27 < durka42> camxes: +exp lo'u maiuei le'u
08:27 < camxes> ([lo'u {mai uei} le'u] VAU)
08:27 < durka42> ok
08:27 < gocti> camxes: orze'ai
08:27 < camxes> (orze'ai VAU)
08:27 < durka42> camxes: +exp lo'u maiuei.orze'aiuei le'u
08:27 < camxes> ([lo'u {mai uei orze'aiuei} le'u] VAU)
08:27 < durka42> there we go
08:28 < durka42> zipcpi: cmaiueiorze'aiuei is better
08:28 < zipcpi> ie u'i
08:29 < gocti> ua .i fliba ki'u lo nu za'o na ningau lo morfologi pagbu
08:29 < gocti> camxes: lo'u maiuei orze'ai uei le'u
08:29 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "m" found.
08:29 < gocti> camxes: lo'u mai uei orze'ai uei le'u
08:30 < camxes> ([lo'u {mai uei orze'ai uei} le'u] VAU)
08:30 < durka42> ba'o ningau do'e lo cipra
08:30 < durka42> mensi: ko ningau
08:30 < gocti> ie
08:31 < durka42> mensi: ko ningau lo nei
08:31 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
08:31 < durka42> .y.o
08:32 < gocti> re roi co'e
08:32 < durka42> masno spuda
08:32 < zipcpi> "first three cups"? Isn't that pabi'ocimoi kabri
08:32 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
08:33 < durka42> well {ci boi pamoi kabri} means three cups which are first [of something]
08:33 < gocti> la mledjauitki cu se vanbi la vrici ji la jukni .i mi kanpe tu'a la vrici
08:33 < zipcpi> Yes...
08:33 < durka42> actually it should be {ci kabri pamoi} and there is no problem
08:33 < zipcpi> lol
08:34 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
08:34 < mensi> i na kakne lo ka jai gau cnino fai la'e zoi zoi es ru en jbo fr zoi
08:34 < zipcpi> {boi}s will be {boi}s
08:34 < durka42> ue
08:34 < durka42> ba'o cnino no da .u'i
08:34 < durka42> xu ningau la'e zoi zoi ja zoi
08:34 < gocti> la'a
08:34 < durka42> en: cmaiueiorze'aiuei
08:35 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
08:35 < durka42> spo'ofu
08:36 < durka42> mi ca kibycpa XML .i xu ba spofu
08:37 < gocti> narju'o
08:40 < zipcpi> I hardly see nar-lujvo, except with beginners who have not learned to avoid forming nonce lujvo :p
08:41 < durka42> xu na spofu sa'e .iku'i lo vlataimei ba'o cenba
08:43 < durka42> lo'ai xu sa'ai ua le'ai
08:44 < zipcpi> zo lo'i zo'u: I think it's very useful when talking about taxonomy and/or the definitions of words though
08:45 < zipcpi> That's what I tend to use it for
08:45 < durka42> I think that is a redefinition though
08:45 < gocti> mi'u
08:45 < zipcpi> No one uses it
08:45 < durka42> think hard on whether you actually want to propose a new definition for a gadri
08:45 < zipcpi> lol
08:46 < zipcpi> Well, according to laldo ma'oste
08:46 < zipcpi> veridical descriptor: the set of those that really are ..., treated as a set.
08:46 < durka42> lo na tadni be lo citri cu se dapma fi lo nu krefu lisri
08:46 < zipcpi> So here we have that dreaded V word
08:46 < durka42> sorry when did I ever, ever, ever bring up the laldo ma'oste in anything regarding gadri?
08:47 < zipcpi> No I'm just comparing my definition to it
08:47 < durka42> its gadri defs have been totally and completely superseded by the BPFK's xorlo
08:47 < zipcpi> Did xorlo ever redefine lo'i?
08:47 < durka42> ma'oste definitions of gadri are inscrutable and irrelevant anyway
08:47 < zipcpi> Does anyone use lo'i in another way? :p
08:47 < durka42> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri#cmavo:_lo.27i_.28LE.29
08:48 < durka42> interesting..
08:48 < durka42> the example fits quite nicely with your {lo'i}
08:48 < zipcpi> ma cnano lo junta lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena
08:48 < zipcpi> Wait what
08:48 < durka42> though the BPFK's {lo'i} is not yours
08:48 < durka42> strange
08:49 < zipcpi> Erm, I'd use lo'e there
08:49 < durka42> ie
08:49 < durka42> that's a pretty bad example .u'i
08:49 < zipcpi> How does this use of {lo'i} refer to "set"?
08:49 < zipcpi> How do "set"s even differ from "mass"es?
08:50 < durka42> only because cnano3 says it wants a set, anyway
08:50 < durka42> oh god don't ask that question
08:50 < durka42> lol
08:50 < zipcpi> lol
08:50 < zipcpi> Yes I have really invoked the wrath of the jbocei on my head
08:50 < durka42> anyway the "simplest" definition of {lo'i} is "like {lo}, but refers to a set"
08:50 < zipcpi> It's like I'm a Lojbanic atheist or something :p
08:51 < Rat_> How so?
08:51 < durka42> the only effective answer I've gotten to that question is "sets are useless"
08:51 < zipcpi> Useless? Then ca'i BSFK
08:51 < zipcpi> co'e co'e co'e
08:51 < durka42> that's getting old...
08:51 < zipcpi> Sorry X3
08:51 < Rat_> co'e
08:52 < zipcpi> But seriously though if they're useless why not redefine them?
08:53 < durka42> I guess?
08:53 < durka42> if we really have a new definition that's super useful and can't be easily said another way
08:53 < durka42> I mean it's hard to let everyone know about a new definition at all, let alone to get people to accept a new meaning for a gadri
08:53 < durka42> so it needs to be justified
08:53 < durka42> just practically
08:53 < Rat_> When is Lojban going to be added to Duolingo?
08:54 < durka42> right after half-life 3 is released
08:54 < Rat_> co'e
08:54 < durka42> Gabe promised
08:54 < zipcpi> But really all zipcpi's {lo'i} is is just my... probable misunderstanding of the word "set" :p
08:54 < Rat_> >Gabe >keeping his promises
08:54 < zipcpi> And an attempt to distinguish it from "mass"
08:54 < durka42> well in the case, join the club :)
08:54 < zipcpi> It's just that I some how found it super useful
08:55 < durka42> je'e
08:56 < Rat_> mi lo prami gerku
08:56 < zipcpi> er... mo
08:56 < Rat_> co'e
08:57 < zipcpi> Rat_: about the Lojbanic atheist thing... that's because I seem to be using a lot of "bad words" in my discussion about gadri (which is in itself a "bad word")
08:57 < durka42> I think I need to go outside or something
08:57 < durka42> sorry for being oppositional
08:57 < zipcpi> oppositional?
08:57 < zipcpi> Oh the lo'i thing?
08:57 < Rat_> Aha! Oppressive
08:57 < Rat_> co'e
08:58 < zipcpi> I mean, how would you reword my {lo'i} examples?
08:58 < gocti> en: cmaiueiorze'aiuei
08:58 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
08:58 < mensi`i> cmaiueiorze'aiuei = x1 must go to x2 from x3 via x4's way or highway x5 |>>> durka42
08:58 < gocti> .u'i
08:59 < zipcpi> I don't know how useful essetialism is to the average person on the street, but it actually crops up pretty often in Lojbanic discussion of the definitions of words :p
08:59 < durka42> ie
08:59 < durka42> some claim that's what {ka'e} was intended for, but it also gets used as basically a {kakne} tag
08:59 < zipcpi> Yeah...
09:00 < durka42> like {mi na kakne lo ka limna .iku'i mi remna .i ja'o mi ka'e limna}
09:00 < zipcpi> Yeah, don't think anyone uses ka'e that way x.x
09:00 < zipcpi> ka'e is now in BAI :p
09:00 < zipcpi> ca'izo'e
09:02 < durka42> jbo:ka'e
09:02 < mensi> ka'e = [CAhA] fi'o se cumki
09:02 < mensi`i> ka'e = [CAhA] fi'o se cumki |>>> cumki |>>> xorxes
09:02 < zipcpi> Well, 1. fi'o again, 2. cumki has got nothing to do with essentialism, pe'i
09:04 < zipcpi> Wait you actually defined cmaiueiorze'aiuei
09:04 < durka42> well all tags are eventually defined in terms of {fi'o} (or {xoi})
09:04 < zipcpi> do zbusufukai :p
09:04 < durka42> I put "u'ivla" in the jargon field! don't sue me! zo'o
09:05 < zipcpi> :p
09:05 < zipcpi> x4 should be "default: speaker"
09:05 < zipcpi> :p
09:06 < zipcpi> There :p
09:07 < durka42> hey! :p
09:07 < durka42> oh huh, I didn't get any of the requisite annoying emails
09:07 < zipcpi> Ain't a proper u'ivla without silly defaults :p
09:07 < durka42> not when I created the word nor when you edited it
09:07 < durka42> maybe something at vrici is actually spofu
09:10 < zipcpi> Though... huh... actually since sumtcita are merged it doesn't matter whether ka'e is in BAI :p
09:10 < durka42> of course
09:11 < durka42> it only matters what it's a fi'o of
09:11 < zipcpi> Mhm
09:12 < gocti> (to lo nu pilno la mensi'i ku ne se ba'i la mensi zo'u: jmina lo pa me'o sai bu poi lidne lo se mi'esku toi)
09:12 < gocti> !jbo: juknyxarju
09:12 < mensi`i> juknyxarju [< jukni xarju ≈ Jukni* xarju*] = x1 ckaji ro selkai be lo jukni xarju |>>>
09:12 < mensi`i> durka42
09:13 < durka42> ua
09:13 < durka42> !ie pei
09:13 < mensi`i> ba'e mi na tugni
09:13 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
09:13 < durka42> oi
09:13 < gocti> u'i
09:14 < durka42> xelso sagymei
09:14 < zipcpi> Did the BPFK even define {lo'e}?
09:14 < durka42> yes but in a different section
09:15 < durka42> LE1 and LE2 I guess :p
09:15 < durka42> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Typicals
09:16 < zipcpi> Don't see anything that really contradicts
09:16 < zipcpi> Though maybe the "typical" sense is better expressed by na'o
09:17 < zipcpi> "The typical English person dwells not in Africa but in England."
09:17 < zipcpi> Yeah I would probably render that with {na'o} instead
09:19 <@xalbo> I think those are different directions. {lo'e} is about which people you're counting as typical, {na'o} is about what those people are typically doing.
09:19 < durka42> I was going to say that but I wasn't sure if it was a malglico complaint :p
09:20 < zipcpi> Hmm... then again it still might not be so contradictory
09:20 < zipcpi> As I have brought up as an example earlier... {lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da}
09:20 < ldlework> zipcpi: what has been the result of your conversation above? did I lose you on some stuff? :3
09:21 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
09:21 < ldlework> ta'o coi
09:21 < zipcpi> coi
09:21 <@xalbo> (I'll admit, though, I didn't read all the backscroll so I may have missed something.)
09:21 < zipcpi> Well I call it "archetypical" instead of "typical". I'm not sure what difference it makes
09:21 < durka42> ehm
09:21 < ldlework> plato's mlatu
09:21 < durka42> does {lo'e} have scope then?
09:22 < durka42> it sure ain't the case that these four legs that I have here are attached to every typical cat
09:22 < zipcpi> ldlework: Wait isn't that lo'i? :p
09:22 < ldlework> Yeah
09:22 < ldlework> I misread
09:22 < durka42> {so'a mlatu cu se tuple vo da}, sure
09:22 < zipcpi> Yeah but that doesn't translate to "Cats have four legs"
09:23 < ldlework> i'e
09:23 < durka42> lo'e mlatu cu se tuple lo vomei
09:23 < ldlework> "cats have for legs"
09:23 < zipcpi> OK yeah mei
09:23 < durka42> cats have what for legs, ldlework?
09:23 < ldlework> heh
09:23 < durka42> bananas?
09:23 < ldlework> haha
09:23 < zipcpi> Ugh maybe I was right about avoiding using {da} ever
09:23 < zipcpi> {da} to me is like {le} to selpa'i :p
09:24 < ldlework> zipcpi: I thought we agreed on what da does
09:24 <@xalbo> badna te pi'o lo jai ckilu
09:24 < zipcpi> ldlework: I thought so too but gocti told me the scope was wrong
09:24 < durka42> ma kuspe nabmi mupli
09:25 < zipcpi> Or that the scope in *that particular example* was OK, but treating all {lo} as variations of {da poi} can cause scope issues
09:25 < zipcpi> Or something
09:25 < ldlework> >_>
09:25 < zipcpi> I suck at scope x.x
09:25 < durka42> well yes
09:25 < durka42> {da} introduces a scope and {lo} doesn't
09:25 < ldlework> Does this actually change the semantics?
09:25 < durka42> so it's going to be rather difficult to make an expansion of {lo} in terms of {da} that *never* creates a problem
09:25 < ldlework> IE, da or lo constructions don't inherently have a defined referntiality
09:26 < ldlework> That's the only important thing
09:26 < ldlework> If they have different consequences for scope that seems fine
09:26 < Ilmen> ro da na ku sipna = roldza fa loka jitfa fa lodu'u ce'u sipna
09:26 < ldlework> just as long as neither da, nor lo has a default referentiality I think I'm okay
09:26 < Ilmen> naku ro da sipna = jitfa fa lodu'u roldza fa loka ce'u sipna
09:26 < durka42> I don't know what expansion you guys were discussing so I can't specifically comment
09:26 < zipcpi> Using roldza doesn't help here :p
09:27 < zipcpi> It just makes me even more confused x.x
09:27 < ldlework> zipcpi: do you know what I mean?
09:27 < ldlework> lo perhaps creates a default da formulaization
09:27 < ldlework> where da is more flexible
09:27 < durka42> what does that even mean
09:27 < ldlework> like, when you're using lo, you're really using some da pattern underneath
09:27 < zipcpi> "	x1 (property) is common to everything in the domain of discourse"
09:28 < zipcpi> OK maybe I can work with that...
09:28 < ldlework> but a specific one
09:28 < Ilmen> zipcpi: each scope-creating cmavo is a shorthand for one level of hidden bridi
09:28 < ldlework> da allows you to create quantifications more flexibly than what lo gives you perhaps
09:28 < ldlework> but all that is important is that da and lo are not definite or indefinite by themselves
09:28 < durka42> it's more flexible but also more heavy-handed :)
09:28 < Ilmen> scope-cmavo-1 scope-cmavo-2 scope-cmavo-3 selbri ---> scope-selbri-1 fa losu'u scope-selbri-2 fa losu'u scope-selbri-3 fa losu'u selbri
09:28 < ldlework> right
09:29 < Ilmen> zipcpi ^
09:29 < Ilmen> so the order matters
09:29 < zipcpi> For every x, x does not sleep / not true that: for every x: x sleeps
09:29 < ldlework> do make lo or da explicitly definite or indefinite you need le or lo'e
09:29 < durka42> Ilmen: this looks like a parser output transformer waiting to happen xD
09:29 < ldlework> to make*
09:29 < Ilmen> zipcpi: yeah
09:30 < zipcpi> Those are simple enough but then when {da} interacts with {lo} or, even worse, {lo'e}, {lo'i} or whatever, my head starts to hurt
09:30 < ldlework> zipcpi: why? da merely provides the quantification
09:30 < durka42> they don't interact though
09:30 < ldlework> then you simply do lo'e du
09:30 < durka42> because the gadri aren't scope cmavo
09:30 < Ilmen> lo is like a constant, it has no scope
09:31 < Ilmen> or you could see it as having always topmost scope
09:31 < Ilmen> maybe
09:31 < ldlework> daku you get a scope-breaking da
09:31 < ldlework> probably can't work
09:31 < durka42> eh?
09:31 <@xalbo> Parsefail.
09:31  * ldlework hides.
09:32 <@xalbo> (Or at least, grammatically completely different.)
09:32 < zipcpi> OK then is {ti aste mu da} wrong? If it is I'd quit using {da} forever :p
09:32 < durka42> vlaste: aste
09:32 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/aste
09:32 < durka42> en:aste
09:32 < mensi> aste = x1 is a star polygon, with regular protrusions x2, and regular intrusions
09:32 < mensi> x3
09:32 < mensi`i> aste = x1 is a star polygon, with regular protrusions x2, and regular intrusions
09:32 < mensi`i> x3
09:32 <@xalbo> That's fine.
09:32 < durka42> that seems fine
09:32 < durka42> assuming you're pointing at a star
09:32 < Ilmen> zipcpi: as for things like "lo broda be da", if "da" hasn't be declared outside of the lo-sumti, then da is captive of the lo internal bridi
09:32 < zipcpi> Yeah
09:33 < ldlework> you can lie in lojban
09:33 < durka42> usually not in examples though
09:33 < ldlework> truth values shouldn't effect grammatic validity
09:33 < zipcpi> lo jetnu cu jitfa
09:33 < ldlework> still grammatical
09:33 < Ilmen> lo kenka ku ji'a go'i
09:33 < zipcpi> lo mlatu cu plise
09:33 < durka42> {lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da} is also grammatical
09:33 < zipcpi> lo finpe cu sorpeka
09:33 <@xalbo> There's nothing wrong with {ti se tuple vo da}, or even with {lo mlatu cu se tuple vo da} if you're talking about a single cat. It's when you're using it for several cats that things get iffy.
09:33 < ldlework> kukte fa lo mlatu
09:34 <@xalbo> {ro lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da}, I think, would work.
09:34 < durka42> ie
09:34 < ldlework> not plato's cat, or the even the general cat
09:34 < ldlework> no need for ro
09:34 < durka42> plato's cat is kept in a cave all the time
09:34 < durka42> someone call PETA
09:34 <@xalbo> .u'i
09:34 < ldlework> uu mlatu
09:34 < Ilmen> .u'i
09:35 <@xalbo> Schrödinger's Plato's Cat both is and is not in a cave.
09:35 < ldlework> lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da : cats, generally speaking, have 4 legs
09:35 < ldlework> lo'i mlatu cu se tuple vo da : Cats have 4 legs.
09:36 < Ilmen> You can also say {su'a lo mlatu cu...}
09:36 <@xalbo> Clearly you've made up a new meaning for {lo'i}. Don't do that.
09:36 < ldlework> lo'i demonstrates the speakers conceptualization of true propositions of the minimal set of nessecary conditions for cat-ism
09:36 < zipcpi> ldlework: Use lo vomei
09:36 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'e mlatu
09:36 < zipcpi> da gets very iffy when you start to talk about possibly plural entities
09:36 < ldlework> "I like cats, generally speaking"
09:37 < ldlework> but being liked by me, isn't one of the nessecary conditions for cat-dom
09:37 < Ilmen> zipcpi: It's what su'oi is for
09:37 < ldlework> but not all cats are liked by me either
09:37 < ldlework> so ro is out
09:37 < zipcpi> Because lo re mlatu cu se tuple vo da = Two cats have four legs (in between them)... I think
09:37 < ldlework> that becomes a le interpretation
09:38 < ldlework> lo'e re mlatu cu se tuple vo da is nonsense
09:38 <@xalbo> Unless {lo'e} introduces a new scope (and I don't think it does), then {lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da} is the same as {vo da tuple lo'e mlatu}, and I could ask you four things in the world there are such that each of them, and nothing else, is the leg of a typical cat.
09:38 < zipcpi> Yeah I guess numbers don't work with lo'e
09:38 < ldlework> You're always making a platitude with lo'e
09:39  * zipcpi nods
09:39 < ldlework> hungry dogs is the best
09:40 <@xalbo> (Now, there is a very xorlo answer, which is that the four things are the left front leg, the right front leg, the left hind leg, and the right hind leg. But I don't know whether you want to go there.)
09:40 < ldlework> pe'i zo'o ru'e
09:40 < zipcpi> xalbo: u'i
09:41 < ldlework> I don't know why, with {vo da cu tuple lo'e mlatu} the da's don't refer to each leg
09:41 <@xalbo> I'm not entirely kidding. My mental model of xorxes is that he would suggest exactly that, and mean it.
09:41 < ldlework> doesn't {vo da} make the sentence literally uttered 4 different times
09:41 < ldlework> each for a different referent of da?
09:41 < zipcpi> da .e de .e di .e daxivo
09:41 < ldlework> right which also causes the sentence to replicated for each conjoined sumti
09:42 < zipcpi> .e daxi ci'ici'ici'ici'ici'i
09:42 < ldlework> da broda .i je de broda etc etc
09:42 < zipcpi> Just use ci'i and break xorxes zei skami then
09:43 < ldlework> I think that consequences of scope come before any considerations of referentiality
09:43 < ldlework> You figure out the scope of the form of the statement
09:43 <@xalbo> ldlework: The problem is that there are not four things that are legs to typical cats, there are around 2 billion of them.
09:43 < ldlework> Then you use the gadri to understand the meaning of the statement, by way of the referentiality of the descriptions
09:43 < ldlework> xalbo: you can't get away from a ro interpretation
09:43 < justeno> coi
09:43 < ldlework> ro isn't involved with lo'e at all
09:44 < ldlework> there are 4 things for each cat
09:44 < ldlework> for things for the one general cat
09:44 < ldlework> four*
09:44 < zipcpi> lo vomei then
09:44 < justeno> ma do'oi mi (where am i?)
09:44 < ldlework> not four things to cover all instances of cats
09:44 <@xalbo> Yes, there are four things for each cat, but {lo'e} doesn't intruduce another "for each" scope. That's the whole point!
09:44 < zipcpi> Just use lo vomei. Problem solved ;py
09:44 < ldlework> no I wa contrasting
09:45 < ldlework> between "four things for each cat" and "four things for the general cat"
09:45 < ldlework> its just the latter
09:45 < ldlework> there's only one generalized cat
09:45 < ldlework> I like cats
09:45 < ldlework> Doesn't mean, I have a state of likeness for each cat
09:45 < ldlework> it is probably very unlikely that I like all cats
09:45 < ldlework> even if I like lo'e mlatu
09:46 < ldlework> same for legs and cats
09:46 < Ilmen> justeno: "where am I?" is {mi ma zvati}
09:46 < zipcpi> do'oi? o.o
09:47 < ldlework> le, I'm actually talking about cats that live and breathe, lo'e I'm talking about cats as we know them, lo'i I'm talking about cats as I understand them
09:47 < Ilmen> Literally, "I am at what (location)?"
09:47 < justeno> oh, i should have actually read the description. oops. I searched "vhere" in 'la sutysisku" and that was the first result
09:47 < zipcpi> Haha
09:47 < ldlework> lo, le / lo'e and context 99% of cases makes it obvious which
09:48 < zipcpi> I was like... where did you learn to use do'oi that way
09:48 <@xalbo> Stop redefining {lo'i}.
09:48 < ldlework> xalbo: that's exactly what we're doing
09:48 < ldlework> sorry
09:49 < ldlework> its just talking
09:49 < ldlework> not like anyone will even start using le after this
09:50 < zipcpi> ldlework: Did you read my article yet?
09:50 < ldlework> but I dunno about you, I look at this set of gadri and see very useful tools, not a heartbreak about the muddy ones we're trampling on.
09:51 < ldlework> zipcpi: I did. I would like to refine it over it time
09:51  * zipcpi nods
09:51 < ldlework> zipcpi: I think it is too 'shotgun'
09:51 < ldlework> we should lead our reader to water
09:51 <@xalbo> How do you distinguish between "There are four people who like cats" (you, me, and two weirdos on reddit, and everyone else hates them), and "The typical cat is liked by four people" (that is, for each of them there are four people who like that particular cat, say, two owners, a vet, and a breeder, or something)?
09:51 <@xalbo> (I could try to come up with a better example, but work with me.)
09:51 < zipcpi> Second one I'll use na'o
09:52 < zipcpi> Maybe it's just malglico but when I see typical I want to use na'o
09:53 <@xalbo> For me, those are {vo da nelci [ro] lo'e mlatu} and {ro lo'e mlatu cu se nelci vo da}, respectively. And the {ro} is important in the latter.
09:53 < ldlework> this is what I mean
09:53 < ldlework> scope should be considered first
09:53 < zipcpi> But "Children need love" -> {lo'e verba cu nitcu lo ka prami ce'u}
09:53 < ldlework> by putting the mlatu description first
09:53 < ldlework> scope is effected
09:53 <@xalbo> Yes, and {lo'e} doesn't introduce a new scope.
09:53 < ldlework> and you *can't* make a platitude
09:53 < ldlework> its forced into definite referentiality
09:54 < ldlework> lo'e mlatu ku se nelci vo prenu is nonsense
09:54 < ldlework> just like
09:54 < ldlework> re lo'e mlatu cu broda is nonsense
09:55 < ldlework> or rather, it doesn't have any obvious useful interpretation
09:55 < ldlework> I guess I can see someting like
09:56 <@xalbo> That doesn't answer my question. How do you say each of those, or do you consider at least one of them to be nonsense unworthy of being expressible?
09:56 < ldlework> lo'e re bruna cu se dimna lo ka damba
09:56 <@xalbo> (I guess another view is that one of them requires completely different mechanisms, which isn't necessarily wrong.)
09:56 < ldlework> I just think it makes a platitude that is obviously false
09:56 < zipcpi> You want remei, ldlework :p
09:56 < ldlework> "Two brothers are bound to fight" is a quantified platitude
09:57 < ldlework> it works because it is sensical, not because it is gramatical
09:57 < zipcpi> ... maybe {mei} is the new {le} lol
09:57 < ldlework> "Cat are liked by four people" is a legit platitude
09:57 < ldlework> but its nonsense
09:57 < ldlework> the grammar works, but scope makes the assertion unreasonable
09:58 < ldlework> which is fine
09:58 < ldlework> scope exists
09:58 < ldlework> and has consequence
10:00 < zipcpi> ldlework: Wait, is our {lo'i} essentialistic or idealistic? :p
10:00 <@xalbo> I don't understand what you mean.
10:01 < zipcpi> Cats don't stop being mlatu if they lose a leg
10:02 < Ilmen> Yes. Arguably they aren't archetypal cats anymore, but still are cats
10:02 <@xalbo> They do stop being {lo'e mlatu}, though.
10:02 < zipcpi> Mm
10:03 < Ilmen> Boolean truth value is too simplistic, you can think then they are like 97% mlatu or something
10:03 < zipcpi> u'i
10:03 < Ilmen> they still have almost all of the properties attributed to the cat archetype
10:03 < Ilmen> but not all of them
10:03 <@xalbo> li pi so'a jei mi mlatu
10:03 < Ilmen> but still way enough
10:04 < ldlework> they don't stop being lo'e mlatu
10:04 < ldlework> there is no actual lo'e mlatu's anywhere
10:04 < ldlework> there are only le mlatus
10:05 < ldlework> if a le mlatu loses a leg, it is still a le mlatu
10:05 < ldlework> zipcpi: lo'e is for generalizing about cats, lo'i is for demonstrating your understanding of what makes cats cats
10:06 < ldlework> you only ever use lo'i broda in statements that demonstrate your knowledge of what it means to be broda
10:06 < ldlework> lo'i broda cu brode
10:06 < ldlework> "it takes being able to brode, to be a broda"
10:06 < ldlework> its still a generalization, but constrained
10:07 < ldlework> you'd never say
10:07 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'i broda
10:07 < ldlework> well more concretely
10:07 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'i mlatu
10:07 < ldlework> "It takes being liked by me, to be a 'Cat'."
10:07 < ldlework> you can say it, just like you can say any false or nonsense thing
10:08 < ldlework> but mi nelci lo'e mlatu is totally fine
10:08 < ldlework> and {lo'e mlatu cu se nelci mi} is also gramatically fine, but scope makes the semantic result, nonsense
10:09 <@xalbo> "if I don't like it, it ain't a cat." seems not quite non-nonsensical to me.
10:09 < ldlework> that's exactly right
10:10 < ldlework> well depends on what you mean I guess
10:10 < ldlework> if you mean it seems likely...
10:10 <@xalbo> "and {lo'e mlatu cu se nelci mi} is also gramatically fine, but scope makes the semantic result, nonsense" You lost me there.
10:10 < ldlework> or merely comprehendable?
10:10 < ldlework> because the result is
10:12 < ldlework> Cats are liked by me.
10:13 < ldlework> vs I like Cats.
10:13 < ldlework> And as you observed, scope has consequence for how wide-reaching the claim is.
10:13 < ldlework> If you think both statements are equivalent taken as indefinite descriptions, well that makes things easier.
10:13 < ldlework> I was just following you with the observation that the former is a wider platitude then the latter.
10:14 < ldlework> If I squint, I can see them being semantically the same.
10:14 < ldlework> Cats ARE generally liked by be, because generally speaking I like Cats.
10:14 < ldlework> by me
10:14 < ldlework> the strangeness comes about when you quantify the liker
10:15 < ldlework> Four le people like lo'e Cats
10:15 < ldlework> lo'e Cats are liked by Four le people
10:15 < uuZIT> So you are saying that “lo broda cu brode lo brodi” has NOT the same meaning as “lo brodi cu se brode lo broda”. o_O
10:15 < ldlework> uuZIT: Depends if you inject an implicit ro for no reason at all pe'i
10:15 < ldlework> making the statement definite in its referent to all cats
10:16 < ldlework> but I think this is a crude interpretation of lo'e
10:16 < uuZIT> lo!!! not no'e
10:16 < ldlework> with lo'e mlatu, there are 0 referents, or rather, 1 referent, the general cat
10:16 < zipcpi> uuZIT: We're talking about *our* lo'e :p
10:16 < ldlework> ie
10:16 < uuZIT> ugh, what?
10:17 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
10:17 < uuZIT> I was talking about the se
10:17 < Ilmen> .u'i ua nai ru'e
10:18 < zipcpi> Who gave me the idea that this is what the gadri mean? I have no idea
10:18 < zipcpi> But that was how I was using it all this time
10:18 < ldlework> zipcpi: I think it is a natural evolution from the situation of
10:18 < uuZIT> OK I give up.
10:18 < ldlework> "lo is thing thing that has some strange generic semantics... sometimes and le is this thing that probably means definite reference but also maybe non-verdicality?"
10:19 < ldlework> if you decide, "no le just means definite reference"
10:19 < ldlework> then you have
10:19 < zipcpi> situation of what? Having mabla muddy definitions?
10:19 < ldlework> yes
10:19 < ldlework> "lo is this wierd always right thing and le is this always definite thing"
10:19 < Ilmen> One of Xorlo's purpose was to remove all implicit quantifiers from articles
10:19 < ldlework> the natural thing to do is
10:19 < ldlework> "well we should have a gadri for explicitly denoting the sense of lo, that isn't le"
10:19 < ldlework> voila, lo'e
10:20 < ldlework> then lo'i comes in as a recovery of the mirroring sense between original lo'e and lo'i
10:20 < ldlework> and I think your 'internal model' sense of lo'i is a great insight
10:20 < ldlework> I can't agree more with the resulting set of gadri.
10:20 < ldlework> They are refined to being used *specifically* for denote description types
10:21 < ldlework> which is a very good duty for the gadri, our -description creating articles- to do
10:21 < ldlework> lo becomes this completely rational binary article that stands on the power of context to make the language easy to speak
10:24 < ldlework> of course this brings le to the forefront for most non-generalizing speech
10:25 <@xalbo> I consider "Cats are liked by me" and "I like cats" the same, and I consider {lo'e mlatu mi se nelci} and {mi nelci lo'e mlatu} the same. I don't think {lo'e} introduces a new scope, and even if it does it wouldn't matter because {mi} is a constant.
10:25 < ldlework> or _at least_, le interpretations of lo usage
10:25 < ldlework> xalbo: awesome!
10:25 < ldlework> that makes it much easier to explain and use
10:25 <@xalbo> That's why I insist on {ro lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da}, because the {ro} does introduce a new scope for the {vo} to scope under, so each of the typical cats gets its own four legs.
10:26 < ldlework> xalbo: I see {ro lo'e mlatu} be referring to a thing that is like {re lo'e bruna}
10:27 < ldlework> in "Two brothers are bound to fight."
10:27 < ldlework> but I guess that's loi
10:27 < ldlework> hmm
10:27 < Ilmen> Sounds like "lo'e re bruna"
10:27 < ldlework> yeah
10:27 < ldlework> or that
10:27 <@xalbo> "Two brothers are bound to fight" seems to me like {lo'e re bruna}, where the two is an inner quantifier.
10:27 <@xalbo> "The typical pair of brothers"
10:27 < ldlework> zipcpi: do outer quantifiers on lo'e make sense?
10:28 < Ilmen> {lo'e re bruna cu se dimna lo ka dambysi'u}
10:28 < ldlework> I think lo'e already means "Cats, all of them, but in general"
10:28 < ldlework> You are aiming at the blanket that drapes over all cats
10:28 < ldlework> Not making any statement about each cat
10:29 <@xalbo> I'll admit that the {ro} is a little bit of a cheat, but it's to introduce an explicit quantifier with its own scope.
10:29 < ldlework> I think outer quantification of lo'e may be a confusing tautology
10:29 < ldlework> xalbo: I think the observation is, when speaking generally, quantification literally makes no sense
10:30 < ldlework> 5 Cats create a quarrel. never means "mu lo'e"
10:30 < ldlework> ever
10:30 <@xalbo> Cats, in general, have four legs (each), and 38 chromosomes.
10:31 < ldlework> the escaping of scope perhaps that ilmen observed of lo earlier
10:31 < Ilmen> su'a lo nu lo mu mlatu cu jbisi'u cu rinka lo nu dambysi'u
10:31 < ldlework> that sense of lo he was thinking of is really just the lo'e half of lo
10:31 < ldlework> so he was observing about lo'e anyway
10:31 < ldlework> xalbo: and 38 chromosomes (each) and literally any other property (each)
10:32 < ldlework> do you feel my observation at all?
10:32 < ldlework> even if you make an observation of the collective
10:32 <@xalbo> I think both "cats have four legs" and "There are four people who like cats (and everyone else hates them)" are both meaningful statements.
10:32 < ldlework> "Jews have a home in Israel"
10:33 < ldlework> It still true of each jew, generally.
10:33 < ldlework> va'i ma
10:34 < durka42> xu da poi gugde gi'e se cmene zo .izrel. cu se xabju lo'e xebro
10:35 < ldlework> It doesn't say each jew resides in israel
10:35 < durka42> no
10:35 <@xalbo> I don't know what part of "I think both "cats have four legs" and "There are four people who like cats (and everyone else hates them)" are both meaningful statements." needs to be paraphrased.
10:36 < ldlework> xalbo: I don't know what the point you are trying to make by quoting two sentences.
10:36 < ldlework> Can you use more words to illuminate your implied point?
10:37 <@xalbo> Because the difference between them is exactly a scope difference, that we need to first quantify over cats, then legs in the first, and in the second we need to first quantify over people, and then over cats.
10:37 < ldlework> the problem is that there is only one lo'e mlatu
10:37 < ldlework> a single blanke
10:37 < ldlework> that each person likes
10:37 <@xalbo> The typical cat, there are four things that leg it.
10:37 < ldlework> yep, and only 4 things
10:37 <@xalbo> For four people, each of them likes the typical cat.
10:38 < ldlework> yep they all like the same cat blanket
10:40 <@xalbo> Ok, hypothetical world: There's one guy who likes all (typical) cats, and every cat is owned. Every cat is liked by two people: The super cat-lover, and its own owner.
10:40 < ldlework> you have such a bias
10:40 < ldlework> "all typical cats"
10:40 < ldlework> stahp
10:40 < ldlework> there's no such description
10:41 < ldlework> you either have "all cats" or "cats, typically"
10:41 <@xalbo> Ok, there's one guy who likes cats in general. There's one guy who just likes cats. Everyone else hates the blanket cat.
10:41 < ldlework> There's no difference between the first and second guy
10:41 <@xalbo> They like their own cat, but they hate cats in general.
10:42 < ldlework> xalbo: are you saying the first guy likes lo'e mlatu, and the other guy likes su'o le mlatu and everyone else xekri lo'e mlatu?
10:42 < zipcpi> Sorry was showering
10:44 < ldlework> I still think that lo'e can't be outer quantified, sensibly
10:44 < ldlework> it makes no semantic sense
10:44 < zipcpi> xebni, not xekri
10:44 <@xalbo> I'm saying that Bob likes cats. Everyone else, hates cats. Some of them have cats, and they love their own cats, but they hate cats in general.
10:44 < zipcpi> xekri is black
10:44 < ldlework> xalbo: ok
10:44 < ldlework> zipcpi: ki'e
10:45 < ldlework> if you try to outer quantify a general description, you just get the same cat blanket each time
10:45 <@xalbo> So cats, in general, are each loved by two people, their owner, and Bob.
10:45 < ldlework> no
10:45 < ldlework> wrong
10:45 < ldlework> 'are each'
10:45 <@xalbo> Why not?
10:45 < ldlework> nothing is true of each cat here
10:45 < ldlework> lo'e != ro
10:45 < ldlework> ever
10:45 < ldlework> it doesn't duplicate the sentence for each cat
10:45 <@xalbo> Any typical cat is such that it is liked by two people.
10:45 < ldlework> and assert it is true for that cat
10:45 < ldlework> no
10:46 < ldlework> it isn't "pick a cat any cat"
10:46 < ldlework> there is no actual cat for which can be the referent of lo'e mlatu
10:46 < ldlework> ever
10:46 < ldlework> it is an indefinite description
10:47 < ldlework> it is a blanket that lays over all cats, but you cannot access those cats by talking about the blanket
10:47 < ldlework> you can only ever talk about the blanket
10:47 < ldlework> or specific cats, possibly all of them
10:47 < ldlework> there's no fuzzy greyness inbetween
10:47 < ldlework> this is the division between lo'e and le
10:47 <@xalbo> Then you can't say that typical cats have four legs, or have two parents, or are loved by two people.
10:47 < ldlework> you really can
10:48 < ldlework> xalbo: ro prenu cu nelci lo'e mlatu
10:48 < ldlework> the sentence is duplicated for each person
10:48 < ldlework> but each person likes the same cat blanket
10:48 < ldlework> lo'e mlatu cu se nelci ro prenu
10:48 < ldlework> same exact semantic content in this sentence as the previous one
10:49 < zipcpi> ldlework: PM
10:49 < justeno> ldlework: know of any decent flashcard android apps (or non OSXiOS) that have a decent set of cards for lojban?
10:49 < ldlework> if you outer quantify lo'e you are likely saying something completely non-sensical
10:49 < justeno> ldlework: scratch that
10:49 < justeno> the wiki has stuff
10:49 <@xalbo> Meaning that {lo'e mlatu cu se nelci ro prenu} also means that everyone loves cats, yes? For all people, that person loves cats.
10:49 <@xalbo> (likes cats, whatever)
10:50 < ldlework> yes
10:51 < ldlework> what you're about to discover is that {lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da} means that "Cats have four cat legs."
10:51 < ldlework> not "Cats have these 4 butchered legs sitting here on the cutting board before you."
10:51 < ldlework> :P
10:52 <@xalbo> So for each of four things, that thing is a catleg, and there's nothing else in the world that catlegs?
10:52 < ldlework> vomei
10:53 < ldlework> I don't understand where the po'o comes from
10:53 <@xalbo> {vo da broda} means that there are exactly four things (in the UoD) that broda, no more, no less.
10:54 < zipcpi> Don't you know? {po'o} is the new {pe'a}, ldlework :p
10:54 <@xalbo> So I guess I mean "and there's nothing else in the Univere of discourse that catlegs"
10:55 < ldlework> I don't understand why that interpretation is required
10:56 <@xalbo> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/goatleg_gotcha
10:57 < ldlework> It seems like an arbitrary and guilt striking default
10:58 < zipcpi> {lo'e} again
10:58 < ldlework> Obviously exactly and at least are two equally justifiable defaults
10:58 < ldlework> default po'o vs default su'o
10:58 < ldlework> How can anyone be resonposible for counting how many people were in the crowd when they only care to speak about two people they saw.
10:59 < zipcpi> And I pe'i "at least" is better because humans are not omniscient :p
10:59 < ldlework> I saw two people. They were dancing. It was beautiful.
10:59 < ldlework> Said after walking away from a crowd.
10:59 < ldlework> indeed
10:59 < ldlework> this whole "you can't lie in lojban"
10:59 < ldlework> telling people they can only utter a phrase, if its true
10:59 < ldlework> its neurotic
11:00 < ldlework> try hard sera'a saphir much?
11:00 < ldlework> :)
11:00 <@xalbo> The point is that if you say "I saw two people. They were dancing. It was beautiful." that's fine if you were watching a couple (even in the midst of a crowd). But if you say it while watching a chorus line, but you only liked two of them, you're violating non-gluteality.
11:01 < ldlework> I was watching a chorus line.
11:01 < ldlework> I saw two people.
11:01 < ldlework> They were smiling at each other while singing.
11:01 < ldlework> It was cute.
11:01 < ldlework> its a horrible default.
11:01 < ldlework> a fetish conclusion of logicians
11:02 <@xalbo> All you need there is to make it "I saw two of the people", and you're fine. But saying "I saw two people" when you saw dozens is just plain misleading.
11:03 < justeno> ldlework: any recommended flashcard sets?
11:05 < ldlework> you're telling me to provide su'o explicitly
11:05 < ldlework> I'm telling you provide po'o explicitly
11:05 < ldlework> It should work exactly like lo does
11:05 < ldlework> There is a hidden po'o or su'o and it doesn't matter to the speaker to utter unless the semantic differnece would be important
11:06 < ldlework> just like definite and indefinite is illuminated by context, if I'm watchin a chorus line and I saw two people smile at each other my listener -comprehends-
11:06 < ldlework> it makes the language -easier to use- as a language
11:07 < ldlework> not a spoken formalism of fopl
11:07 < ldlework> justeno: http://www.memrise.com/course/17295/gismu-frequency-order/
11:08 <@xalbo> Quoting nitcion from that page: "The Gotcha is that Lojban here does behave like English, and natural languages in general. In strict logical terms, when you see three people, it is true to say that you saw two people. (In fact, "2=2" is a defeasible implicature even in English: I saw two people... in fact, three.) Because this is uncooperative speaker behavior, however, this has been judged inappropriate for Lojban. Early victory for Pragmatics!"
11:08 < zipcpi> What the heck is fopl?
11:08 < ldlework> first order predicate logic
11:08 < zipcpi> Ah
11:08 < ldlework> Except its arbitrary which default is determined to be cooperative
11:09 <@xalbo> Everyone but you agrees. You are wrong. Change your mind, or take it to the mailing list to try to convince the rest of the world.
11:09 < ldlework> if I always insert su'o where I don't mean po'o, I'm just as cooperative as if, su'o is the default and I use po'o explicitly when I don't mean su'o
11:09 < ldlework> xalbo: so far I see a few logicans on a wiki page, and you equivocating them with everyone
11:09 < ldlework> even those who do what they are taught and do pine over the righteousness of the design they learn
11:10 < ldlework> what a weak and frail way to end a discourse
11:10 < ldlework> do not pine*
11:10 < ldlework> zipcpi: do *you* agree? No? Funny, looks like xalbo's quantification is inaccurate!
11:11 < zipcpi> Humans are not omniscient
11:11 < ldlework> what a pragmatist of him
11:11 < ldlework> "count each person in the crowd, we're pragmatists after all!"
11:11 < ldlework> rinka me rolling my eyes
11:11 < justeno> ldlework: 1342. O_O (yes, I know that's a 'small' amount, but dang)
11:12 < ldlework> justeno: that's just the core non-compound words! :)
11:12 < ldlework> justeno: languages need lots of words, yo
11:12 < justeno> ha, yeah
11:12 < zipcpi> Maybe you'd fine Gleki's dictionary better to start with, but there is no flashcard modality that I know of
11:12 < gocti> Is anyone suggesting that {mi viska lo re prenu} is false if I saw more than two??
11:12 < gocti> s/??/?/
11:12 < ldlework> gocti: logicians who fetish over conversational maximality and cooperation apparently
11:13 < gocti> {mi viska re prenu}, I agree that that means no more, no less than two
11:13 < ldlework> who think that, increasing the ease in formulating some presuppositions and a given argument, in some academic setting is the same thing as being pragmatic in _language_
11:13 < gocti> {mi viska lo re prenu}, pe'i, doesn't conflict with {mi viska lo re prenu jo'u lo 30 prenu}
11:14 < ldlework> gocti: I agree, that means, I don't care to introduce into context, more or less than two people that I saw
11:14 < ldlework> Not that, I'm lying because I saw three.
11:14 < ldlework> mi viska re prenu : "I saw two people that I'm introducing into the UoD with this statement."
11:15 < ldlework> nothing more, nothing less
11:15 < ldlework> you don't get to have context both ways
11:15 < ldlework> either it is the context of discourse, or it is the context of the objective reality
11:15 < ldlework> pick one.
11:15 < zipcpi> justeno: Gleki's dictionary: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-03
11:16 < zipcpi> Contains a lot of newer, but useful words
11:16 < justeno> does lojban have a xor?
11:16 < zipcpi> And the definitions are a bit simpler
11:16 < zipcpi> Yes
11:16 < zipcpi> jonai
11:16 < justeno> that's awesome
11:17 < zipcpi> Yes, I thought so too :p
11:17 < zipcpi> I hate saying "and/or" and "either but not both"
11:17 <@xalbo> My point is that that page has been substantially unchanged since 2001, when it was imported from the previous wiki (this is one sad consequence of changing wikis, we lose history of changes). And in that time, it's been referenced many, many times, and no one objected or changed it. Until now, until you. So that's what I mean by "everyone" agreeing except you. You are the one who is trying to change the status quo, so I suggest that you take it to t
11:18 <@xalbo> he mailing list, where you will either convince people, be convinced yourself, find out that the views aren't all that different, or who knows what else?
11:18 < zipcpi> No one knows what BPFK {lo'i} means
11:19 < ldlework> xalbo: we have been having a conversation using our own mertis
11:19 < ldlework> including the re-definition of gadri
11:19 < ldlework> if everything we introduce into the conversation is rational, sensible and reasonable, I don't need the authority or approval of the entire community to feel justified in having a conversation
11:19 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Do you mean {lo'e}?
11:19 < ldlework> "Shutup" is what you really meant.
11:20 < zipcpi> Well, if people didn't know what {lo'e} means, even less know what {lo'i} means
11:20 < zipcpi> Like I said, how is a "set" different from a "mass"?
11:21 <@xalbo> Sets are really, really well defined mathematical objects. It's masses that "no one" knows what they mean.
11:21 < ldlework> zipcpi: a mass can contain the same member twice!
11:21 < zipcpi> Why do we need a gadri for that? It should be a brivla
11:21 < ldlework> masses, "objects who exist only as a constituency"
11:21 < ldlework> that was hard.
11:22 < ldlework> So we can use different partitioning semantic and so on
11:22 < ldlework> some of the men, vs some water
11:22 < ldlework> each child, vs the children
11:22 < justeno> ldlework: would you say you are fluent in lojban yet?
11:23 < ldlework> the ability to predicate about consitutencies
11:23 < ldlework> justeno: not even close
11:23 < ldlework> vocab is a very very high mountain
11:23 <@xalbo> I think the problem with {lo'i} is that we know too well what sets mean, which is why we know that they're not terribly useful things for most purposes.
11:23 < ldlework> we just benefit from grammar being an emabarassingly small hill, in lojbanistan :P
11:24 < ldlework> I think the problem with lo'i is that zipcpi's definition is a bajillion times more useful as a tool of language and communication and reaching shared understanding
11:24 < justeno> so, which is the language of the internet? Lojban or Esperanto? Or is there not one because the 'net is global :)
11:24 < ldlework> justeno: english, clearly
11:24 < justeno> (constructed)
11:24 < ldlework> says the glico
11:24 < ldlework> justeno: ah, well lojban isn't interesting because of its population
11:25 < ldlework> its interesting because it is a bad-ass language
11:25 < justeno> haha, fair
11:29 < justeno> oooh, docker is hiring an automation engineer in SF right nowe...
11:31 < justeno> ldlework: does docker actually care about having a CS degree?
11:31 < ldlework> justeno: well it does now
11:31 < ldlework> when it was a startup, interviews were a bit less sterile
11:31 < ldlework> they have people implementing stuff on whiteboards now
11:31 < justeno> haha
11:31 < justeno> whiteboards should always be in use
11:32 < justeno> please tell me docker has walls of whietboards
11:32 < ldlework> xalbo: {lo'e mlatu cu co'e (su'o) vo se tuple} "There are 4 things that are legs to A Cat"
11:32 < ldlework> justeno: everywhere
11:32 < justeno> :)
11:33 < ldlework> xalbo: sorry, if the listener is to determine the right quantifier by way of context:
11:33 <@xalbo> I think you mean {vo tuple}, not {vo se tuple}
11:33 < ldlework> xalbo: {lo'e mlatu cu co'e (po'o) vo se tuple} "There are only 4 things that are legs to A Cat"
11:33 < ldlework> yes ki'e
11:34 < ldlework> I didn't mean su'o the first time. But as a listener, you already know the su'o interpretation is non-sensical, because of the implication that there might be more.
11:34 < ldlework> Also, I've been meaning to use lo'i
11:34 < ldlework> to drive the point even more strongly
11:34 < zipcpi> Erm not sure that lo'i works
11:34 < justeno> runtime engineer doesn't need a degree. though, i know not the language of go
11:35 < zipcpi> It's not part of the definition of {mlatu} how many legs they have
11:35 < ldlework> sure it is
11:35 < zipcpi> If they lose a leg do they stop being {mlatu}?
11:35 < ldlework> lo'i mlatu cu co'e vo tuple : It takes 4 legs to make scultp plato's cat.
11:35 < ldlework> Not at all
11:35 < ldlework> lo'i is a generalization
11:35 < ldlework> and does not speak of -any- cat under the blanket
11:35 < zipcpi> That's lo'e
11:35 < ldlework> no they're both generalizations
11:35 < ldlework> lo'i is my internal understanding of what it takes to be a cat
11:36 < zipcpi> lo'e is archetypical or idealistic. lo'i is essentialistic
11:36 < ldlework> its not idealistic
11:36 <@xalbo> I'll agree with the equivalence of {lo'e mlatu cu co'e (su'o) vo se tuple} with "There are 4 things that are legs to A Cat"
11:36 < ldlework> xalbo: ue
11:36 < ldlework> zipcpi: let's pm
11:36 <@xalbo> And I consider those two to both be equally false, while I consider "cats have four legs" true.
11:38 <@xalbo> I have trouble saying "Cats have four legs" explicitly without introducing an "each", but that's what I need. There aren't four catlegs out there, there are two billion. But each cat has four of them.
11:38 <@xalbo> (with "each" and "typically" inserted or removed as appropriate)
11:38 <@xalbo> Mr Cat has four legs.
11:40 < ldlework> xalbo: accept our gadri
11:40 < ldlework> as they are defined
11:40 <@xalbo> There aren't four things that are legs to a cat/the typical cat, there are 2 billion of them.
11:40 < ldlework> reconsider the semantics
11:40 < ldlework> there arnt actually 4 things at all
11:41 < ldlework> there are no legs on the butcher's block, bleeding out, catching flies, that is the referent of vo tuple
11:41 < ldlework> in "{lo'e mlatu cu co'e vo tuple}
11:41 < ldlework> no legs.
11:41 < ldlework> I beg that you consider each gadri as we've defined them
11:41 < ldlework> then make a real attempt to interpret the utterances through them
11:41 < ldlework> and see if you're confused
11:42 < ldlework> rather than reusing your own definitions
11:42 < ldlework> and saying "Tehy don't work when used that way!"
11:42 < ldlework> if you're predicating 4 *actual* bleeding legs, you must also be predicating actual cats.
11:43 < ldlework> lo'e tells us your statement is a platitude, meaning there are not actually four legs that you refer to, when you ascribe them to Cats in general.
11:43 <@xalbo> I'm having trouble finding the url.
11:43 < ldlework> fu'i nai
11:44 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
11:44 <@xalbo> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
11:45 < ldlework> le : cats I have known myself, or learned to exist
11:46 < ldlework> lo'e : the blanket that lays ontop of cats, allowing me to generalize about cats, without predicating anything specific about every actual cat. IE, no actual cat is referred to.
11:46 <@xalbo> I'm saying that {vo tuple} creates four legs as referents, and it can do that under a particular scope, but I don't see anything about the definition of {lo'e} there that creates a scope.
11:46 < ldlework> lo'i : cats as I understand them to be defined. What I sculpt when our teacher Plato asks the class to each sculpt statue of A Cat.
11:47 <@xalbo> {vo tuple} doesn't stop referring to actual legs just because something else in the sentence doesn't refer to actual cats. That's the whole point of the problem, we may need to mix those.
11:47 < ldlework> xalbo: I am starting to understand the problem. And this is why I think Ilmen said "Maybe lo escapes to top-level scope."
11:48 <@xalbo> That's why I brought up the case of one actual person (Bob) who likes cats ({lo'e mlatu}) in general.
11:48 < ldlework> {lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo tuple} - There are 4 things which are legs of Cats. (Cat Legs).
11:49 < ldlework> {lo'e mlatu cu se nelci la bab} Bab is a liker of Cats. (A Cat Liker)
11:49 <@xalbo> Because "Cats have one head (each)" is different from "There's one guy (Bob) who likes cats". And the difference is exactly the scope of {pa}.
11:49 < ldlework> lo'e broda cu brode pa brodi : pa broda cu broda brode
11:49 < zipcpi> Yeah I think there might be a problem there
11:50 <@xalbo> {pa da nelci ro mlatu} vs {ro mlatu cu se stedu pa da}. But with {lo'e} in place of {ro}.
11:50 < zipcpi> Why does {vo tuple} not refer to four actual legs, but {la .bab.} refer to an actual person?
11:50 < ldlework> I just provided a way for the legs to exist.
11:50 < ldlework> Please read it.
11:51 < zipcpi> But when I say "Cats have four legs" I am not referring to definite legs either
11:51 < zipcpi> And the count of "four", as a group, is more important
11:51 < ldlework> {lo'e broda cu brode pa brodi} = {pa brodi cu broda zei brode}
11:51 < ldlework> zipcpi: right you only need to move your quantifier I think?
11:52 < zipcpi> lo'e mlatu cu se tuple lo'e vomei
11:52 < ldlework> Cool.
11:53 < ldlework> xalbo: how do you like {lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo tuple} means "There are 4 actual legs, which are Legs of a Cat."
11:53 < ldlework> IE
11:53 < ldlework> "There are 4 cat legs."
11:53 < ldlework> we don't know which cat
11:53 < ldlework> Because indefinite.
11:54 <@xalbo> That sounds roughly right as an equivalence, but both of them sound false, bordering on nonsensical, to me.
11:54 < ldlework> uh
11:54 < ldlework> if I cut off the legs of a cat
11:54 < ldlework> Are they not cat legs?
11:55 < ldlework> without telling you about the cat from which they came?
11:55 < ldlework> Seems cromulent to me.
11:55 <@xalbo> Ok, yes, I think I see what you mean.
11:55 < zipcpi> Or, if you use {lo'i} Platonically, {lo'i mlatu cu se tuple lo'e vomei} should work too
11:56 < ldlework> yep
11:56 < ldlework> it just happens to be true of Plato's cat
11:56 < ldlework> likability is one that only applies to lo'e tho
11:56  * zipcpi nods
11:57 < ldlework> So the conclusion is, scope doesn't screw things up, the proposition is simply predicating the quantified thing, with an indefinite description
11:58 < ldlework> IE, legs that comes from Cats. Rather than legs that come from That Cat.
11:59 <@xalbo> So do we have only {mei} if we want to say "Cats have four legs" or "Cats have two parents"?
11:59 < ldlework> I just think we're not used to talking in terms of indefinite and definite descriptions because lo has never been fully qualified as definite + indefinite, but definite + some crazy always right thing that we sometimes agree upon a da expansion thereof
11:59 < ldlework> xalbo: if you count the number of referents in the english
11:59 < ldlework> the number of referents match up
11:59 < ldlework> IE lo vomei doesn't really refer t oanything
11:59 < ldlework> its the root selbri + the vomei that make a single referent
12:00 < ldlework> four "things" which is-a-broda
12:00 < ldlework> "Four is the number of legs a cat has."
12:01 < ldlework> so I think yes, but its the result we want
12:01 < ldlework> you have to say *something else* is the four legs that Cats have, if you want to use anything other than mei
12:02 < ldlework> which I think you agree, probably not many something elses, other than cat legs, that can be cat legs
12:02 < ldlework> certainly in terms of lo'e and lo'i
12:02 <@xalbo> lo'e mlatu cu ckaji lo ka vo da ce'u tuple
12:02 < ldlework> its possible a le pirate cat, has pegs for legs
12:02 < ldlework> oh sure
12:02 < ldlework> I thought you meant as a raw predication with a lo'e description
12:02 < ldlework> i'e
12:03 <@xalbo> Well, always in the past I saw {ckaji lo ka} as being like a useless use of cat. (No pun intended, honest!)
12:03 < ldlework> useless use of cat?
12:04 < ldlework> ah the rich difference between {lo'e broda cu ckaji} and {le broda cu ckaji}
12:04 <@xalbo> http://www.smallo.ruhr.de/award.html#cat
12:04 <@xalbo> Basically, redirecting in such a way that you end up right back where you started.
12:04 < ldlework> xalbo: ah gotcha.
12:04 < ldlework> a misleading tautology?
12:04 <@xalbo> Yeah.
12:05 < ldlework> xalbo: does the scoping issue feel more resolved to now?
12:05 <@xalbo> Failure to eschew obfuscation.
12:05 < ldlework> right
12:05 < ldlework> unfruitful tautology *
12:06 <@xalbo> I think so. So do we agree that {lo'e mlatu cu tuple vo da} does not, in fact, say that cats have four legs, and that it's not a useful or normal thing to say?
12:07 < ldlework> yes a platitude including cats and ANY four specific legs is probably grossly false
12:08 < ldlework> unless it's something mundane like ka'e visa
12:08 < ldlework> Lol
12:09 < zipcpi> *viska?
12:11 < ldlework> yeah
12:11 < ldlework> was on my phone
12:29 < justeno> lo mi vanbi ku masno
12:30 < justeno> ^ my surroundigs are slow
12:30 < ldlework> i'e
12:30 < justeno> the world around me is moving slowly
12:30 < ldlework> it works
12:32 < justeno> mi pinxe lo (a lot of) tcati
12:33 < ldlework> justeno: so'i tcati
12:34 < justeno> mi pinxe lo so'i tcati (the therefore) lo mi vanbi ku masno
12:34 < justeno> yay, log
12:34 < justeno> lag*
12:34 < akmnlrse> justeno: {.i ja'e bo}
12:35 < justeno> mi pixne lo so'i tcati .i ja'e bo lo mi vanbi ku masno
12:36 < justeno> instead of therefore, 'and now'
12:36 < dutchie> mi jukpa lo nanba
12:37 < akmnlrse> There was a discussion on how to get the  "and now" nuance some time ago
12:38 < justeno> nanba ku kukte
12:38 < justeno> can 'lo' be left out?
12:38 < akmnlrse> and I don't think we found a good solution
12:38 < akmnlrse> (yay lag!)
12:39 < justeno> joy
12:39 < akmnlrse> justeno: nope, {lo} is needed there
12:39 < ldlework> akmnlrse: .i ba ku
12:40 < ldlework> "and then"
12:40 < ldlework> er
12:40 < ldlework> .i jebaku
12:40 < Ilmen> coi
12:40 < akmnlrse> coi
12:40 < ldlework> coi pendo
12:41 < Ilmen> ua coi la postmo
12:41 < ldlework> Ilmen: how do you connect two sentences with "and then"
12:42 < Ilmen> {.e ba bo}
12:42 < akmnlrse> justeno: sumti can be of the form {[number] lo [number] <selbri> KU} or {[number] <selbri> KU}, among others
12:42 < ldlework> ah bo
12:42 < ldlework> Ilmen: and with connective reform, its je right?
12:42 < ldlework> so .i je ba bo
12:42 < Ilmen> It was already fine
12:42 < ldlework> je'e ki'e
12:42 < Ilmen> sorry, I meant {.i je ba bo}
12:42 < ldlework> right
12:43 < Ilmen> wasn't attentive enough
12:43 < akmnlrse> {ba bo} sounds a little off when the first sentence is true for most of the time the second one is
12:43 < ldlework> Ilmen: did you see the IPA chart?
12:43 < Ilmen> I did.
12:43 < ldlework> pei
12:43 < Ilmen> Good work. :)
12:43 < ldlework> ki'e
12:43 < akmnlrse> but now I see that that isn't even implied in the tea sentence
12:43 < ldlework> It isn't just a web-page on a prim
12:43 < Ilmen> .u'e
12:43 < ldlework> I literally -rebuilt- the chart using lsl and textures
12:43 < ldlework> figuring out the bounding points for each clickable spot on the texture
12:44 < ldlework> 0_0
12:44 < ldlework> nandu
12:44 < Ilmen> .oi dai
12:44 < Ilmen> I thought it was a creation of Zipcpi
12:45 < ldlework> na go'i
12:45 < ldlework> Ilmen: was jenca's solar system on display?
12:45 < ldlework> I saw her working on it last night, but didn't see if she finished
12:45 < Ilmen> So, is LSL easy enuff, not too impractical?
12:46 < ldlework> its quite easy
12:46 < Ilmen> I haven't seen such a thing as a solar system yet.
12:46 < ldlework> I don't recommend building huge systems in it
12:46 < ldlework> ue
12:46 < Ilmen> But I haven't explorated much today.
12:46 < ldlework> je'e
12:47 < Ilmen> I must have stayed a couple of minutes
12:48 < Ilmen> Let's move to #jboguhe, I think we're interfering with the previous discussion here
12:48 < dutchie>  /topic #jboguhe
12:48 < dutchie> .u'u
12:54 < ctefa`o> camxes doesn't handle capital letters for stress?
12:54 < akmnlrse> It should
12:54 < ctefa`o> Seems to bug out if I try to put any kind of capital letters to it
12:55 < akmnlrse> camxes: loSONcicuPAgreloBITmu
12:55 < camxes> ([{lo sonci KU} cu] [pagre {lo bitmu KU} VAU])
12:55 < ldlework> xalbo: ii dai ko'oi, lo'a nixli cu melbi => ta poi nixli cu melbi
12:55  * ldlework runs away
12:55 < ctefa`o> Hmm ok it worked for selbri
12:56 <@xalbo> {lo'a}?
12:56 < ctefa`o> camxes: la ctEfa'o
12:56 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "c" found.
12:57 < akmnlrse> camxes: la cteFA'o
12:57 < camxes> ([la ctefa'o KU] VAU)
12:57 < akmnlrse> (h-syllables count as normal ones for stress placement)
12:57 < ctefa`o> I can't put non-standard stress in ctefa'o?
12:58 < ctefa`o> Only in cmevla?
12:58 < akmnlrse> ^
12:59 < ldlework> xalbo: another nonce-redefinition. nothing serious. just came to mind is all.
13:00 <@xalbo> je'e
13:00 < akmnlrse> jo'o = {lo se xanri be mi be'o poi}
13:00 < ctefa`o> Ok I think I see why
13:00 <@xalbo> (Clearly, you also need to take {lo'o} and {lo'u}.)
13:00 < ctefa`o> ctefA'o it is then
13:01 <@xalbo> ctefa`o: Yes, brivla are always stressed on the penultimate syllable. It's a pretty essential part of the word resolution algorithm.
13:01 < akmnlrse> ctEfa'o can't possibly break up or absorb a word, but making the parser accept it would probably be hard
13:02 < ctefa`o> Yeah, and if I want to use a brivla as my name I have to accept its morphology rules
13:06 < ctefa`o> Can I use a hyphen to put together "ri'e" and "ma'a"?
13:06 < ctefa`o> Ett
13:06 < ctefa`o> Not hyphen
13:06 < ctefa`o> Buffer consonant I mean
13:07 < akmnlrse> ri'enma'a
13:07 < akmnlrse> si
13:07 < akmnlrse> ri'erma'a
13:07 < ctefa`o> Do both work?
13:07 < akmnlrse> (and it is called a hyphen, for better or for worse)
13:07 < akmnlrse> ri'erma'a gives a lujvo, ri'enma'a a zi'evla
13:08 < ctefa`o> Ok
13:08 < ctefa`o> Actually I inverted it
13:08 < ctefa`o> ma'anri'e?
13:08 < akmnlrse> yep
13:09 < ctefa`o> la ctefa'o ma'anri'e huh
13:09 < ctefa`o> How about that
13:10 <@xalbo> Nightend Mountainriver. Sounds like an elf in a D&D campaign.
13:10 < ctefa`o> lol
13:12  * nuzba @Djemynai: What are your expectations for the upcoming #lojban rap album, #ZAHO? (Release date June 21, 2015). Let's get excited together! [http://bit.ly/1RKb12r]
13:12 < ctefa`o> Maybe I can make some other lujvo out of zo .ginseburg.
13:13 < ctefa`o> ganse...
13:13 < ctefa`o> ...bunre?
13:14 < akmnlrse> gunse bergu
13:14 < akmnlrse> si si
13:14 < ctefa`o> lmao
13:14 < ctefa`o> Goose-bear goo-metaphysics
13:15 < ctefa`o> But gunse sure
13:16 < ctefa`o> la ctefa'o gunsybergu
13:17 < akmnlrse> Goo of a Bear about to Eat a Goose at Dawn
13:17 < akmnlrse> :^)
13:17 < ctefa`o> Awesome
13:18 < ctefa`o> Actually ma'anri'o was maybe not such a bad idea;o
13:18 <@xalbo> {gunsybargu} ("goose-arch") just isn't as cool.
13:18 <@xalbo> {ma'anri'o} is pretty cool, and I hope you didn't take my comment as anything against it!
13:19 < ctefa`o> No no, there are just different ways to jbo-fy it
13:19 < akmnlrse> ie
13:19 <@xalbo> ({ma'anri'e}, I meant, though {ma'anri'o} is neat too)
13:19 < cntr> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/06/oracle_v_google_klingon_and_copyrighting_language.html
13:19 < ctefa`o> Hmm
13:20 < ctefa`o> Nah it should be ri'e
13:20 < ctefa`o> from rirxe
13:20 < ctefa`o> ma'anri'e, not o;o
13:20 < ctefa`o> Original name is name of german river + mountain
13:21 <@xalbo> Not seeing anything but the URL, I see that Oracle is now fighting against an army of Klingon copyright lawyers hired by Google. Good fucking luck with that.
13:21 < cntr> lol
13:21 < ctefa`o> o_O
13:21 < cntr> basically oracle is trying to say that you can copyright language
13:21 < cntr> both artificial and programming
13:22 < ctefa`o> gunsema'a?
13:22 < akmnlrse> gunsyma'a, if it's to be a lujvo
13:22 < ctefa`o> Oh right ofc
13:24 < demize> cntr: Someone should point them to the Loglan thing ;)
13:24 < akmnlrse> Loglan was, if I remember right, about the trademark only
13:25 < demize> akmnlrse: No, TLI claimed copyright on all of loglan
13:25 < akmnlrse> (I mean the actual court case)
13:25 < ctefa`o> Eh I think I will stay with ma'anri'e for now
13:26 < ctefa`o> ki'e for the ideas
13:26 < demize> akmnlrse: As did I
13:27 < akmnlrse> http://www.leagle.com/decision/19922000962F2d1038_11839
13:28 < demize> Hmm, I'd read that the court case was about the copyright too.
13:30  * nuzba @zvevohi: doi la @Djemynai na ka'e kanpe su da .i ca'a pacna lo du tu'e: {bànli.ibànlimùtcelokabànlijecubànli.ibànli.iba'ebànli} tu'u | fa'o #jbobau [http://bit.ly/1RKdnym]
13:31 < akmnlrse> Same. I'm still a little surprised how some of Lojban's cmavo are taken directly from Loglan, with only a sound change rule separating them
13:32 < demize> Anyway, thanks for the link
13:34 < Ilmen> exp: du'u tu'e broda .i brode tu'u
13:34 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "u" found.
13:34 < mensi`i> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "u" found.
13:34 < akmnlrse> cipr: du'u tu'e broda .i brode tu'u
13:34 < cipr> (CU [{du'u <tu'e (¹[CU {broda VAU}] [i {CU <brode VAU>}]¹) tu'u> KEI} VAU])
13:34 < Ilmen> uanli
13:38 < niftg> la'a plixau fi lo nu ciksi lo barda je pluja javni
13:40 < akmnlrse> za'a lo mriste nu casnu lo mekso cu barda sai .i mi milxe co bixte'a lo ka tcidu
13:41 < akmnlrse> (to ba'a nai pu casnu tu'a lo smuni be zo bixte'a noi mi ca za'e zei pilno .i ma jalge lo nu go'i sei xu da morji toi)
13:46 < akmnlrse> (to xu ja'a xabju la nudbiia ku noi tedycakspi toi)
14:27 < ldlework> coi
14:39 < niftg> coiru'e
15:47 < anubiann00b> Saludos
15:47 < anubiann00b> Como estan?
15:49 < justeno> ldlework: coi
15:51 < ldlework> justeno: how go your studies?
15:52 < ldlework> You came in here pretty pro-esperanto, but I sensed your disposition being confused by the time I left last night.
15:52 < ldlework> How are you feeling about this new language?
15:52 < durka42> coi
15:53 < justeno> I still like esperanto, but lojban is making much more sense now
15:53 < ldlework> durka42: can you confirm my wiki account?
15:53 < ldlework> justeno: awesome
15:54 < ldlework> justeno: if you wanna do some simple roleplaying let me know
15:54 < ldlework> justeno: oh did you ever get logged into jbogu'e?
16:00 < justeno> I have the gridmanager up, what's the login URI?
16:01 < ldlework> justeno: http://sim.ldlework.com:9000
16:03 < durka42> huh, I set up a filter to forward the wiki emails to me
16:03 < durka42> guess it didn't work
16:03 < justeno> ldlework: login fails
16:03 < ldlework> justeno: are you logging in as "la justemos"
16:04 < ldlework> or whatever you told me
16:04 < justeno> i've tried both justeno and justenos as the user
16:04 < justeno> with the password i gave as well
16:04 < ldlework> justeno: you need "la "
16:04 < durka42> lol, my server rejected the mail from the wiki because it looks like spam
16:04 < ldlework> durka42: u'e
16:04 < durka42> ldlework: I can confirm your account but is "Cagdu'a" correct or would you like to send another request for the name "Cadgu'a"? :p
16:05 < ldlework> u'i sai
16:05  * ldlework dunda do lo cange
16:05 < ldlework> oops
16:05 < ldlework> anyway
16:05 < ldlework> I'll resend
16:06 < durka42> I didn't even know there was a spam filter on that address
16:06 < ldlework> Another pending account request uses the same email address.
16:06 < durka42> ok
16:06 < ldlework> I think you need to reject it
16:07 < justeno> "la justenos" "hunter2" is not working (not actual password, obv)
16:10 < dutchie> bazi mi sipna .i co'o rodo
16:19 < durka42> ldlework: sorry I got distracted
16:19 < durka42> turns out I can edit the username while confirming the account
16:19 < durka42> so I did
16:22 <@rlpowell> {ma sarcu lo nu do kelci ti} => "please can I have your phone"
16:22 <@rlpowell> That was cool.
16:23 < ldlework> thank you durka42
16:24 < durka42> rlpowell: .u'e
16:24 < justeno> ldlework: have you any luck with the account?
16:24 < ldlework> justeno: oops
16:25 <@rlpowell> durka42: I'm going to FB about this later, but:
16:25 <@rlpowell> mi kansa le se prami be mi no'u la [F] => I love you too!
16:25 <@rlpowell> Which fucking blew my mind.
16:25 < durka42> ue
16:25 <@rlpowell> Like, they're still *REALLY* young; they don't speak *any* language very well.
16:25 <@rlpowell> I was a bit surprised that she had room for that in her stack.
16:26 < durka42> you have to wonder how much of it is keywords?
16:26 < ldlework> justeno: strange it didn't get added. can you pm me the details again?
16:26 <@rlpowell> Very true, but not sure how much I care.  :D
16:26 < durka42> [mumble] prami [mumble] F
16:26 < durka42> :)
16:26 <@rlpowell> Yeah, sure.
16:26 < durka42> not that I don't believe she could be understanding
16:26 < durka42> how old are they now?
16:27 < durka42> 5ish?
16:28 <@rlpowell> 3.5
16:28 < justeno> ldlework: sent
16:28 < durka42> oh
16:28 < durka42> yes, young
16:28 <@rlpowell> Yeah.
16:28 <@rlpowell> pretty freaking sharp, though.
16:29 <@rlpowell> I'm having to be *very* careful to not praise attributes (especially Int) too much.
16:30 <@rlpowell> durka42: At that age, pattern matching seems nearly certain, but at that age, even *that* impresses me, given the amount of syllables I was throwing around.  :D
16:31 <@rlpowell> AFK.
18:17  * nuzba @kev_jg: @gregorykhillis @michaelbd personally I'm holding out for the lojban of weights and measures [http://bit.ly/1eQmTSi]
18:20 < durka42> sometimes these are missing context
18:52 < zahlman> "sometimes", heh. this is twitter after all
18:53 < zahlman> ... is bripre still a thing?
18:53 < durka42> well the weekly series ended after 9 episodes
18:54 < zahlman> -.-
18:55 < durka42> I haven't watched them all at an acceptable level of understanding yet
18:55 < durka42> so it's not over for me :p
19:08 < zahlman> heh, fair enough
19:09 < zahlman> I find I have to pause that kind of thing and work over a translation mentally
19:09 < zahlman> not at all fluent.
19:23 < ldlework> how do you set the langauge on the wiki
19:23 < ldlework> the localization
19:24 < ldlework> nm
19:26 < durka42> no no nm lists the symbols in an executable file
19:26 < durka42> very useful
20:30 < la_kristan> coi
20:30 < durka42> coi
20:31 < la_kristan> .i lo smacu cu nenri le mi zdani
20:32 < durka42> .oi dai
20:32 < la_kristan> .i .uu le mlatu na citka lo smacu
20:45 < ctefa`o> coi
20:46 < la_kristan> ctefa'o : coi
20:46 < ctefa`o> coi kristan
20:46 < ctefa`o> Sup
20:47 < ctefa`o> (I am Steffmeistro btw)
20:50 < ctefa`o> Switched back to my lojban name
20:52 < la_kristan> Yeah, I know.
20:53 < la_kristan> Sorry for my slowness, I'm reading the Lernu forum simultaneously with doing this.
20:53 < ctefa`o> Ah, didn't remember if;)
20:57 < la_kristan> .i mi tavla la durka. le mlatu la lojban.
20:58 < la_kristan> .i lo smacu cu nenri le mi zdani
20:58 < la_kristan> .i le mlatu na citka lo smacu
20:59 < ctefa`o> Sounds about right
21:00 < ctefa`o> Only you don't need a pause after durka
21:01 < durka42> but you do need one before lojban :)
21:01 < ctefa`o> Ah look it jumped;)
21:02 < la_kristan> ctefa'o : well, since it's a name, I figured there was s'posed to be a pause.
21:04 < ctefa`o> Only if it ends in a consonant
21:04 < durka42> the pauses are for names morphologically
21:04 < ctefa`o> There is more to it but that's a rule at least
21:04 < durka42> meaning words that end in consonants
21:04 < durka42> all such words are names
21:04 < durka42> but names can also be brivla-shaped (like "durka")
21:04 < ctefa`o> But not all names are such words*
21:04 < durka42> right
21:04 < durka42> this is horribly explained in the Book
21:05 < durka42> which even gets cmene/cmevla backwards IIRC
21:05 < ctefa`o> and outdated:p
21:05 < durka42> so I don't blame you for getting it wrong, la_kristan :)
21:05 < ctefa`o> Assuming dotside has actually become official now
21:05 < ctefa`o> Has it?
21:05 < durka42> it's as official as anything is ever going to be
21:05 < durka42> as far as I'm concerned
21:05 < ctefa`o> Nice
21:05 < la_kristan> durka42 : lojban starts with a consonant, and I usually see it without a pause at the beginning...
21:06 < ctefa`o> *Ends* in a consonant
21:06 < durka42> usually? usually where?
21:06 < durka42> in the CLL and L4B, definitely
21:06 < ctefa`o> I think she means "la. lan."
21:07 < durka42> because those were written before the change to "dotside" which made names much simpler
21:07 < ctefa`o> When people put it like that
21:07 < zipcpi> Yes, dotside is part of what I call tier-2 Lojban: "Official but not documented"... the last only because they are so slow in rewriting the CLL :p
21:07 < durka42> ctefa`o: I've never seen anybody put it like that
21:07 < ctefa`o> Uhm
21:07 < durka42> I'd say that's more rare than pre-dotside stuff
21:07 < durka42> but I might be wrong
21:07 < ctefa`o> I have seen it at least a few times in this channel this week
21:08 < la_kristan> ctefa'o : I said it starts with a consonant, and that's what I mean!
21:08 < ctefa`o> Huh
21:08 < ctefa`o> Then what are you refering to?
21:08 < la_kristan> it starts with L!
21:08 < ctefa`o> Old rule was that names started with vowels only
21:09 < durka42> er
21:09 < durka42> no
21:09 < zipcpi> tier-1 = documented (right now =CLL), tier-2 = official, tier-3 = experimental ideas that have popular use and is encoded into the commonly-used parser, tier-4 = really radical stuff that doesn't have a parser or other support yet
21:09 < ctefa`o> Other way around?
21:09 < durka42> old rule: cmevla end with consonants, can't contain the syllables LA or LAI, and end with a pause
21:10 < durka42> new rule: cmevla end with consonants, and have a pause on _both_ sides
21:10 < ctefa`o> Aahhh right it was LA
21:10 < zipcpi> la, lai, or doi
21:10 < ctefa`o> doi too
21:10 < la_kristan> I read that one only needs a pause at the *beginning* of a name if it starts with a consonant.
21:10 < durka42> yeah and what about la'i, was that ever resolved
21:10 < durka42> not only was the old rule hard to follow, it was ill-defined
21:10 < ctefa`o> Huh, where did you read that?
21:10 < durka42> that is incorrect
21:11 < durka42> in fact most words that start with vowels need a pause at the beginning
21:11 < durka42> like {.u'i}
21:11 < ctefa`o> camxes: la la'is
21:11 < camxes> ([la la'is] VAU)
21:11 < durka42> camxes follows dotside
21:11 < durka42> camxes: la lalalas
21:11 < camxes> ([la lalalas] VAU)
21:11 < durka42> so it can't answer my question :)
21:12 < ctefa`o> Ah you meant pre-dotside
21:12 < ctefa`o> la_kristan: ok, so rule now is, if you need pause for names then you always need 1 at beginning, 1 at end
21:12 < durka42> (vlatai says "la'is" breaks up as la + 'is but that doesn't make any sense)
21:13 < ctefa`o> Unless it is of a special form that can end in a vowel, no pause at all then
21:13 < ctefa`o> So I am curiois where you read that you only need it at beginning of word
21:13 < durka42> I think we're explaining this really badly
21:13 < durka42> it is simple
21:13 < durka42> cmevla end in consonants and must be surrounded by pauses
21:13 < ctefa`o> "'is"??
21:13 < durka42> brivla can also be names
21:13 < durka42> done
21:14 < ctefa`o> Well now you have to explain what cmevla and brivla are;)
21:15 < durka42> yeah but I was going to have to explain that anyway if I'm a lojban tutorial
21:15 < ctefa`o> Right:p
21:15 < durka42> la_kristan: confused yet?
21:16 < ctefa`o> (I also invented a new word today. ua-reka :p)
21:17 < durka42> ua re ka mo
21:17 < ctefa`o> Lol
21:18 < ctefa`o> camxes: ua re ka mo
21:18 < camxes> (ua [{re BOI} {ka <mo VAU> KEI} KU] VAU)
21:19 < ctefa`o> Well it was something I discussed with gocti
21:19 < ctefa`o> Dangerous heretic ideas I can't speak of in the open zo'o
21:19 < la_kristan> ctefa'o : sorry, I meant to say it needs a dot if it starts with a vowel.
21:20 < ctefa`o> Ah. Yeah that was the old rule I think?
21:20 < ctefa`o> Actually
21:21 < ctefa`o> That is the case for all lojban words
21:21 < ctefa`o> li'a
21:21 < la_kristan> not you only need it at the beginning of a word, you need it at the beginning of a word only if!
21:21 < ctefa`o> Yeah. But now today you always need a pause
21:21 < la_kristan> if im making any sense at all.
21:22 < la_kristan> stupid english.
21:22 < ctefa`o> Yeah but you have read outdated info
21:23 < ctefa`o> Read above for how it is now
21:24 < durka42> any word that starts with a vowel needs a pause
21:24 < zahlman> coi rodo .i mo
21:24 < la_kristan> all I know is that what I read makes sense and what you're saying doesn't.
21:24 < zahlman> nu ctuca xu
21:25 < durka42> nu cfipe mutce mutce gasnu
21:25 < durka42> cfipu*
21:25 < la_kristan> of course words that start with a vowel need a pause.
21:25 < durka42> ie
21:25 < zahlman> oi u'iru'e
21:25 < ctefa`o> ...and name-words starting in consonants
21:25 < durka42> ending!!!!!
21:25 < ctefa`o> And also*
21:26 < ctefa`o> like la .lojban.
21:26 < durka42> ending
21:26 < durka42> ending
21:26 < zahlman> pe'i lonu ctuca lo laldo cilre fo lo cnino cu nu cfipe gasnu
21:26 < durka42> ending
21:26 < durka42> ending
21:26 < durka42> zahlman: we're trying to teach dotside
21:26 < durka42> but tripping over ourselves and failing
21:26 < ctefa`o> Both la .lojban. and la .ojban.
21:26 < zahlman> jimpe
21:27 < la_kristan> whatever. why can't people leave well enough alone?
21:27 < durka42> leave what alone?
21:27 < zahlman> because the old rule caused unexpected complications.
21:27 < durka42> getting rid of that rule took decades
21:27 < zahlman> the way the parsing worked, you couldn't have names with {la}, {lai} or {doi} in them
21:27 < durka42> and the fix makes names so much simpler and more consistent
21:27 < zahlman> which is bad if you want to talk, e.g., about doyle brunson
21:27 < durka42> so it's not like it was a sudden change for no reason :)
21:28 < la_kristan> did they fix the date system while they were at it?
21:29 < la_kristan> does pi'e actually mean a part?
21:30 < zahlman> it's a separation for number groupings
21:30 < zahlman> e.g., between hours/minutes/seconds
21:30 < durka42> wait what's broken about pi'e
21:30 < la_kristan> 'cause in the book it said it meant parts...
21:31 < zahlman> (I imagine that in lojbanistan, it's also used for room numbers in apartments and hotels)
21:31 < durka42> there's been no change to pi'e ever
21:31 < durka42> as far as I'm aware
21:31 < la_kristan> seconds being parts of minutes,  and minutes being part of hours.
21:31 < zahlman> so what's the problem?
21:31  * ctefa`o was not yet aware of pi'e
21:32 < zipcpi> About the date system... well I had one idea that for some weird reason got really popular :p
21:32 < ctefa`o> Hey zipcpi
21:32 < zipcpi> Hi
21:32 < durka42> yeah zipcpi had a great idea to fix the date system
21:32 < durka42> but it doesn't change pi'e or anything :)
21:32 < la_kristan> but then later in the book, it showed dates like day pi'e month pi'e year.
21:32 < zahlman> ... it's broken?
21:33 < zipcpi> Well, for one thing there's a dispute as to whether it's Y-M-D or D-M-Y
21:33 < durka42> vlaste: detri
21:33 < vlaste> detri = x1 is the date [day,{week},{month},year] of event/state x2, at location x3, by calendar x4.
21:33 < durka42> the dictionary shows day-month-year
21:33 < la_kristan> and since I'd been told that pi'e meant parts...
21:33 < zipcpi> Either way "skipping" numbers is difficult, forcing you to go pihehpiheh
21:33 < durka42> la_kristan: it's a separator for different parts of the date
21:33 < durka42> but it says nothing about a hierarchy
21:34 < la_kristan> and a month's not part of a day.
21:34 < la_kristan> so I was confused.
21:34 < durka42> the month number and the day number are parts of the date
21:34 < zipcpi> So people avoided using detri for stuff like years and instead when {lo nanca pe li renopamu} instead
21:34 < durka42> that's the sense of "part" that I read
21:35 < zipcpi> But anyway I should stop complaining about what came before and just present my solution
21:35 < zipcpi> Here: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Proposal:_loi_lerfu_tcita_detri;_the_final_word_on_the_problem_of_dates_and_times%3F
21:36  * la_kristan tries to find the section of the book that was causing confusion ...
21:39 < la_kristan> If we want to be a bit more precise, we need to use pi'e. This introduces fractional parts of numbers like pi, but unlike pi it doesn't need to indicate decimal fractions in a number. In fact, the kind of fractional part it does indicate can vary within the same number. In normal counting, pi is a decimal point, in hexadecimal it's a hexadecimal point and so on, but the kind of fraction it indicates never changes its value. But pi'e
21:39 < la_kristan> oh, the above is a quote.
21:40 < durka42> pi'e is basically like the slash in 6/4/2015
21:43 < la_kristan> so it isn't as described above?
21:44 < durka42> I don't see the contradiction
21:44 < la_kristan> It says pi'e indicates parts.
21:44 < la_kristan> fractional parts.
21:45 < la_kristan> and a month isn't part of a day.
21:45 < durka42> okay
21:45 < la_kristan> nor is a year part of a month.
21:45 < durka42> it just needs a little reframing
21:46 < durka42> one way to think of a decimal point is separating two parts of a number
21:46 < durka42> the whole part, and the fractional part
21:46 < durka42> it doesn't even matter what they represent mathematically
21:46 < durka42> the decimal point separates the two parts
21:46 < durka42> in the notation
21:46 < durka42> pi'e is the same thing, but for any kind of "parts" of a sequence of numbers
21:46 < la_kristan> so, if it is as described above, it would have to be year, month, day.
21:47 < durka42> year, month, and day are three parts of the date
21:47 < durka42> for instance today is june 4th, 2015
21:47 < durka42> "6", "4", and "2015" are three parts of my expression of the date
21:47 < durka42> I can write them in various order
21:48 < durka42> for instance we crazy americans write 6/4/2015, which isn't a sane order at all
21:48 < durka42> pi'e is EXACTLY the same as this slash — the order of the parts has to be defined somewhere else! (like in the dictionary)
21:48 < la_kristan> but nobody accused Americans of being sane.
21:48 < durka42> am I making any sense?
21:48 < durka42> least of all me :p
21:49 < la_kristan> after all, we measure temperature in Fahrenheit, and that's not very sane...
21:50 < la_kristan> I've always thought that we should use the metric system, and the 24 hour clock.
21:51 < la_kristan> my phone's clock is set to 24 hour format; I wish I could do the same for the rest of the clocks in the house.
21:52 < la_kristan> I think you're making sense...
21:53 < la_kristan> It's just that if you're right, then the book isn't.
21:53  * la_kristan resumes ranting
21:53 < durka42> how would you edit the book's text to make more sense?
21:54 < durka42> I see why it confused you, but I don't see where it really says pi'e separates a container from a containee
21:55 < la_kristan> ever since someone pointed out that yr mon day was analogous to hr min sec, I've thought it would be better to do it that way...
21:56 < durka42> it's kinda awkward either way :p
21:56 < la_kristan> container and containee?
21:56 < durka42> see zipcpi's proposal for a nice way to do dates without pi'e at all
21:57 < la_kristan> I started reading that, but I can't be there and here at the same time.
21:57 < durka42> like month and day
21:59 < la_kristan> I'll have to go to bed soon.
21:59 < la_kristan> It's 22:58
21:59 < durka42> same here
22:00 < la_kristan> what time is it for you?
22:03 < durka42> 1am
22:03 < la_kristan> co'o
22:03 < durka42> tcika fa li pa
22:04 < durka42> alternatively, tcika fa li cy pa
22:19 < ldlework> durka42: you know how its easy in english to use spatial demonstratives to refer to units of discourse
22:19 < ldlework> "that is absurd."
22:21 < ldlework> ta fenki, or something, where we usually prefer something with di'u or even go'i
22:25 < ldlework> abu: .i zo'onai mi zukte lo ka ba zi farlu
22:25 < ldlework> ibu: .i pe'i lo'a seljdi cu se srera
22:27 < ldlework> "Seriously, I'll jump!" "That decision would be a mistake."
22:28 < ldlework> da'i in there if you need the subjunctive I guess
22:30 < durka42> lo'a?
22:30 < ldlework> the ability to provide demonstrative descriptions like any other description, rather than having to use poi with a demonstrative - that also works naturally on units of discourse
22:30 < ldlework> durka42: just, whatever, you know
22:31 < durka42> yeah
22:31 < ldlework> just a standin I'm using
22:32 < durka42> le do seldji?
22:32 < ldlework> .i lo'a nixli cu melbi
22:33 < ldlework> durka42: lo'a is a demonstrative form of le
22:33 < ldlework> its definite, but more specifically, its deictic
22:33 < durka42> like {ti noi}?
22:34 < ldlework> yes
22:34 < durka42> I see
22:34 < ldlework> well
22:34 < ldlework> ti poi
22:34 < durka42> whatever
22:35 < ldlework> with lo'a you can just grab at things around you with the ease of gadri descriptions
22:35 < ldlework> if you want to have a conversation, WHILE you and your wife collaborate on thanksgiving dinner in the kitchen...
22:37 <@Broca> lo'a BY1 shift letterals to Lojban (Roman) alphabet.
22:38 < ldlework> its just a cmavo I'm using to talk about an idea
22:39 < durka42> vlaste: class:BY1
22:39 < vlaste> 9 results: ga'e, ge'o, je'o, jo'o, lo'a, na'a, ru'o, se'e, to'a
22:39 < durka42> such a tempting pool of short cmavo forms that nobody ever uses :)
22:43 < ldlework> "ko dunda lo dakfu pe'u .i a'o lo xruki ku ba pluka .i ta'onai ie mi tugni lo du'u lo nanmu noroi sidju lo nu jukpa"
22:43 < ldlework> "ko dunda lo'a dakfu pe'u .i a'o le xruki ku ba pluka .i ta'onai ie mi tugni lo du'u lo'e nanmu noroi sidju lo nu jukpa"
22:46 < durka42> that's a real thin knife you're using to slice away from {le}
22:47 < ldlework> durka42: coming over the hills on the countryside, a mountain range breaks the horizon
22:47 < ldlework> "ua lo'a cmana cu melbi"
22:47 < ldlework> definitely, not the mountains you were just talking about, but /those ones/ over there.
22:50 < durka42> so you are pointing as you say it
22:51 < ldlework> sure, if you take that as a literal requirement rather than a way to help people understand what demonstratives mean.
22:53 < ldlework> definite]--la--lo'a--le/lei--[lo]--lo'e/loi--lo'i--[indefinite
22:53 < ldlework> lo is not on the scale since it designates no information about the referentiality of the noun phrase
22:54 < durka42> interesting
22:54 < durka42> the right side of that scale seems to hinge on the lo'i argument from before
22:54 < ldlework> when using lo, your listener will have to resolve to one side of the scale, based on context
22:54 < durka42> which I faded out from
22:54 < durka42> but yeah, lo'a is an interesting addition
22:54 < ldlework> which is usually fine most of the time
22:55 < ldlework> durka42: lo'i is an indefinite generalizing platitude, but constrained to propositions involving the minimum set of the speakers internal model of what it means for that description
22:55 < ldlework> and example would be like
22:56 < ldlework> lo'e xagji gerku cu ckape : "A hungry dog is dangerous"
22:56 < ldlework> lo'i xagji gerku cu ckape : "It takes being dangerous, to be a hungry dog."
22:57 < durka42> whoa radical man :)
22:57 < durka42> I would use {ganai} for that kind of thing
22:57 < zipcpi> ganai is logical. Which is different from essentialism
22:58 < ldlework> zipcpi: do you have a log of the safari?
22:58 < zipcpi> Yes
22:58 < ldlework> where we discover a broda, or do we? :)
22:58 < durka42> I don't get that example actually
22:58 < zipcpi> I've enabled logging for everything... will need to clean it up and post it somewhere though
22:58 < zipcpi> Have you seen it?
22:58 < durka42> my minimal set of hungry dogs is dangerous?
22:59 < ldlework> its not about the set of actual referents
22:59 < ldlework> indefinite descriptions have zero referents
22:59 < durka42> how did you get from {lo'i xagji gerku cu ckape} to {ro da ganai ckape gi xagji gerku}
22:59 < ldlework> there is no ro
23:00 < durka42> I just translated your english back into lojban to see if I could find a correspondence
23:00 < ldlework> the problem is that ro implies actual referents
23:00 < ldlework> every possible one
23:00 < ldlework> lo'e and lo'i don't refer to any referents
23:00 < durka42> "any thing that is dangerous is a hungry dog"
23:00 < ldlework> they refer to the blanket that lays over all the referents
23:00 < ldlework> no
23:01 < durka42> sounds similar to what you said "it takes being dangerous to be a hungry dog"
23:01 < durka42> anyway
23:01 < durka42> before we talk about referents
23:01 < durka42> can you explain your translation
23:01 < durka42> ignore my apparently wrong back-translation
23:01 < ldlework> you're conflating nessary and sufficient
23:01 < durka42> please I want to understand your example before we start a separate argument
23:01 < durka42> otherwise I can go to bed, it is about that time...
23:01 < ldlework> I'll respond to whatever you want
23:02 < ldlework> ke'o
23:02 < durka42> okay I'll try again
23:02 < zipcpi> Here http://pastebin.com/7CGfGsLt
23:02 < durka42> how did you get from {lo'i xagji gerku cu ckape} to "it takes being dangerous to be a hungry dog"
23:02 < ldlework> first of all
23:02 < ldlework> the point of the example
23:03 < ldlework> is that the content of this specific statement, is non-sense
23:03 < ldlework> because lo'i is a very restricted version of lo'e
23:03 < zipcpi> Because I completely misunderstood what {lo'i} meant, but Idlework really liked my misunderstanding, that's why :p
23:03 < ldlework> compare "mi nelci lo'e mlatu" "I like Cats."
23:03 < ldlework> with
23:03 < durka42> zipcpi: yeah apparently
23:03 < ldlework> "mi nelci lo'i mlatu" "It takes being liked by me, to be a Cat."
23:04 < ldlework> Its not, "Being liked by me is sufficient to be a Cat."
23:04 < ldlework> But it is nessecary
23:04 < zipcpi> You see, it's just like NLDCMS
23:04 < ldlework> It demonstrates my internal model of catism.
23:04 < zipcpi> I was just playing with the format of {lo detri}
23:04 < zipcpi> But then gleki said YOU MUST POST THAT NOW
23:04 < zipcpi> so I did
23:04 < durka42> gleki says that a lot
23:05 < zipcpi> :p
23:05 < durka42> ldlework: so it's kinda like saying that "mi nelci ce'u" is the only predicate that can apply to cats?
23:05 < durka42> well not quite
23:05 < durka42> it's turning it into a necessary condition somehow
23:05 < ldlework> no
23:05 < durka42> I don't quite see how
23:06 < ldlework> durka42: there can only be one necessary condition
23:06 < ldlework> "is the only predicate"
23:06 < zipcpi> Erm... hm... it's like... "Being-liked-by-me-ness is a part of cat-ness"
23:06 < ldlework> "into _a_ necessary condition"
23:06 < durka42> is there an expansion?
23:06 < zipcpi> {xu lo'i remna cu danlu}
23:06 < ldlework> durka42: its one of the things you sculpture might exhibit if plato asks you to sculpt "A Cat"
23:07 < zipcpi> I don't know... something with ckaji? kairpau?
23:07 < ldlework> durka42: this is the thing, its exactly how lo'e and lo and le and lo'a are expanded
23:07 < durka42> yeah none of the gadri really have expansions, dumb question
23:07 < ldlework> unless you want to expand that to include the different semantic of each gadri
23:07 < ldlework> but the point is lo, contains no referentiality designation
23:07 < ldlework> it is a shortcut of some other da form
23:07 < durka42> for some reason I can accept it better if I say {lo'i mlatu cu se nelci mi}
23:08 < ldlework> da and lo provide merely the logical form
23:08 < durka42> (which means "a set of cats is liked by me", but anyway)
23:08 < ldlework> the gadri designators, provide the type of referencing the noun phrase should be interpreted as
23:08 < ldlework> quantification is separate
23:08 < ldlework> you can argue about default quantification
23:08 < durka42> right
23:08 < ldlework> but lo'e, nor lo'i imply ro at anytime
23:09 < durka42> no that's not what I was asking for
23:09 < durka42> forget it
23:09 < ldlework> they create indefinite descriptions
23:09 < durka42> what if you have to lo'i in a statement though
23:09 < ldlework> you can never pin the tail on that to which an indefinite description refers
23:09 < durka42> lo'i mlatu cu citka lo'i smacu
23:09 < durka42> did I break the world?
23:09 < ldlework> no that's totally valid
23:10 < durka42> or is it more like two statements then
23:10 < ldlework> and probably in agreement with my own model of cats
23:10 < durka42> "eating mice is an essential part of being a cat, and being eaten by cats is an essential part of being a mouse"?
23:10 < ldlework> that's scope
23:10 < ldlework> works as normal
23:10 < durka42> lo'i has scope now?!
23:11 < ldlework> well consider the alternative
23:11 < durka42> wait did you agree with my translation or not
23:12 < ldlework> so
23:12 < ldlework> you're right in that this is an unreasonable platitude if it is symmetrical
23:12 < ldlework> just like say
23:12 < ldlework> lo'i mlatu cu se tuple vo da
23:12 < ldlework> is probably wrong too
23:12 < zipcpi> Erm, you used {da} again *hides from logicians*
23:13 < durka42> I didn't say it was unreasonable
23:13 < ldlework> vo tuple
23:13 < ldlework> durka42: it conflicts with _my_ model of mice
23:13 < ldlework> its not unreasonable translation
23:13 < durka42> I am an alien
23:13 < ldlework> its a good translation
23:13 < durka42> I don't even know what a mouse is
23:13 < durka42> I was just making up lojban exmaples :)
23:13 < ldlework> sure, but it makes an important point
23:14 < ldlework> you'd want {lo'i mlatu cu citka lo'e cmacu}
23:14 < durka42> yes
23:14 < ldlework> unless you're talking to a child maybe
23:14 < ldlework> who watches too much tom and jerry
23:14 < ldlework> who might have a similar internal model of miceness
23:14 < ldlework> zipcpi: can you paste the safari example?
23:15 < zipcpi> <ldlework> you can argue about default quantification
23:15 < zipcpi> Oops
23:15 < zipcpi> http://pastebin.com/7CGfGsLt
23:16 < ldlework> I should change ti poi broda to lo'a broda
23:17 < zipcpi> lol don't get too comfortable with using {lo'a} for it
23:17 < ldlework> right
23:17 < ldlework> hehe
23:18 < zipcpi> I think your "lo'a" may be a good counterpart to {ri'oi}
23:18 < zipcpi> {ri'oi} is explicitly anaphorical
23:18 < durka42> there are literally no actual usages of {lo'a} in the corpus
23:18 < ldlework> uaou
23:18 < durka42> you could use {lo'a'a} to be diplomatic :)
23:18 < durka42> and then CKTJ-switch lo'a and lo'a'a
23:19 < durka42> anyway I think this is an interesting idea for {lo'i} but I wouldn't use {lo'i} for it
23:19 < zipcpi> That's kinda what I said. Repurposing "bad" cmavo is CKTJ's job :p
23:19 < ldlework> you just have to wonder if anyone will actually stand up and make a stink, rather than a passive pointing it out
23:19 < durka42> mostly because of inertia, you'll get too many folks who won't even consider the idea because {lo'i} already has meaning
23:19 < zipcpi> BSFK's official dialect, btw :p
23:19 < durka42> so… choose one of the other lerfu shift cmavo :p
23:19 < ldlework> durka42: no one uses lo'i lol
23:19 < ldlework> what does the corpus say
23:19 < ldlework> what does the fox say
23:19 < zipcpi> :p
23:20 < durka42> .ai .ai .ai .ai
23:20 < zipcpi> .au .au .au .au .au .au .au
23:20 < ldlework> uo
23:21 < durka42> sure lo'i is probably the least-used out of lo/lo'e/lo'i
23:21 < durka42> my prediction about resistance to gadri changes stands
23:21 < zipcpi> Because I read the mabla velcki of {lo'i} and thought that's what it meant
23:21 < ldlework> heh sure no doubt
23:21 < zipcpi> I had no idea what would happen
23:22 < ldlework> nah
23:22 < ldlework> the description sounds very definite
23:22 < zipcpi> mi traji zbusufukai
23:22 < ldlework> its the set of referents that really are
23:23 < durka42> what about le'e and le'i btw
23:23 < zipcpi> If I knew I was defining a completely new gadri I would have chosen a different form for it
23:23 < ldlework> non-veridicality is out!
23:24 < ldlework> sets are out!
23:24 < zipcpi> Yes... without veridicality why do we even need le'i?
23:24 < durka42> so le'e and le'i are superfluous
23:24 < ldlework> they really are
23:24 < durka42> hmm
23:25 < durka42> and arguably so is lo'i which is why you see it as free to get a new definition
23:25 < ldlework> less gadri, lo is easily explainable, it is still 'always technically correct'
23:25 < durka42> still I would use a different form
23:26 < ldlework> lo people can keep on lo'ing
23:26 < ldlework> but they probably do mean le a lot more than they mean lo'e
23:26 < ldlework> and that will shock them for irrational reasons
23:26 < ldlework> I expect
23:27 < ldlework> and if lo'a is as useful as I suspect..
23:27 < ldlework> I like that lo'a specifically brings our eyes to the same things
23:28 < ldlework> where ti poi for some of my descriptions seems off-putting and I will just use a general definite reference rather than a demonstrative
23:29 < ldlework> but with lo'a I enjoy normal gadri determiner phrases
23:29 < ctefa`o> Anyone for .alo'a
23:29 < ldlework> I can poi my lo'a a lot easier than my ti poi
23:29 < ldlework> i'e
23:29 < ctefa`o> Nvm
23:30 < durka42> camxes: mi .alo'a do
23:30 < camxes> ([{mi <a (¹lo'a BOI¹)>} do] VAU)
23:30 < durka42> nice snippet I found in the corpus
23:30 < zipcpi> ki'ai mabla I'm using {le'i} for "lo'a" :p
23:31 < zipcpi> If non-veridicality is out it's even less useful than old {lo'i}
23:31 < ldlework> heh ok
23:31 < ldlework> more natural anyway since its le based
23:32 < durka42> yeah le'i really got the short end of the stick
23:32 < ldlework> set and non-veridical
23:32 < durka42> it's like a buggy whip manufacturer now that cars are common
23:32 < durka42> except horses are also extinct so there's nothing to whip either
23:32 < ldlework> lol
23:33 < ldlework> almost woke up jenca over here
23:34 < durka42> ie .ei mi sipna
23:34 < durka42> ie pei doi la mensi
23:34 < mensi`i> ba'e mi na tugni
23:34 < mensi> ei mi tugni
23:34 < ctefa`o> lo'i is that poor?
23:35 < durka42> your sentence has many dangling referents
23:35 < durka42> .u'i
23:36 < ldlework> definite]--la--le'i--le/lei--<referents] lo [no referents>--lo'e/loi--lo'i--[indefinite
23:37 < durka42> er
23:37 < durka42> lo/loi?
23:38 < ldlework> lo has no referential information
23:39 < zipcpi> I dunno... we kinda got the idea that it should be lo'e/loi now
23:39 < durka42> seems weird that lei would go with le but loi with lo'e
23:39 < ldlework> it doesn't tell the listener anything at all whether the listener is being definite or indefinite with that description
23:39 < ldlework> sure, but we have the lo people to think about
23:39 < durka42> my conception of {loi} is "these referents and/or not referents (the same ones I would get with {lo}) as a mass"
23:39 < ldlework> we can't move lo into pure indefinite reference territory
23:40 < ldlework> the idea is that
23:40 < durka42> is it different in your new gadri system?
23:40 < ldlework> yes but for lo'e
23:40 < zipcpi> {lo} is still xorlo. At least as I understand it
23:40 < ldlework> lo is the ambiguity between le and lo'e
23:40 < ldlework> lo'e is that missing side of lo that has never had a good definition
23:40 < zipcpi> {lo} is a merely "descriptive" gadri
23:41 < ldlework> yes, it is a "default determiner"
23:41 < ldlework> it only acts as the head of a determiner phrase, but doesn't actually tell us anything about it
23:41 < durka42> I see
23:42 < ldlework> the listener, to understand the statement, will of course have to interpret it as either or
23:42 < ldlework> but context, as selpahi will tell you, resolves this for the listener most if not all(?!) the time
23:42 < durka42> of course
23:43 < ldlework> le/lei and lo'e/loi are the "core gadri"
23:43 < ldlework> which provide the most important information
23:43 < ldlework> which side of the definite fence are we on
23:44 < ldlework> la, le'i and lo'i are all like, "utility gadri"
23:44 < ldlework> in that they provide a the definite / indefinite distinction, but also some other semantic
23:44 < ldlework> hopefully, agreeably, useful in realworld usage of the language
23:44 < ldlework> like in kitchens
23:44 < ldlework> or safaris
23:46 < ldlework> le'i filters a bunch of stuff out of the possible designations quickly, and lo'i allows us help each other come to a shared understanding of what things actually mean in the first place.
23:49 < durka42> I tentatively like it!
23:49 < durka42> modulo what I said earlier about using different cmavo of course
23:50 < durka42> …but I will probably continue using {lo} almost everywhere
23:50 < durka42> 'cause I'm a lazy merko
23:50 < ldlework> u'i
23:52 < zipcpi> We "could" come up with different cmavo for it but what should they be? There are... like... 6?
23:52 < zipcpi> THey need to fit together somehow
23:53 < zipcpi> Besides, {le} needs a definition
23:54 < zipcpi> And I don't see how {lo'e} really conflicts with the BPFK examples. Maybe there's some niggling logical issue somewhere I don't understand
23:55 < zipcpi> It's {lo'i} and {le'i} that are most in dispute
23:55 < zipcpi> But they're also the least understood and used ones
23:57 < durka42> yep
23:58 < gleki> my biggest problem with {lo'e} is how {lo'e mlatu cu xutla} differs from {lo mlatu na'o xutla} and {lo mlatu pe na'o cu xutla}
23:58 < zipcpi> What about mi nelci lo'e mlatu?
23:59 < zipcpi> Does that become mi na'o nelci lo mlatu?
23:59 < ldlework> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dustinlacewell/b78b3914ff094aa2fc41/raw/f60da402c50597f7be19dcfd1f452779c4b12233/gistfile1.txt
23:59 < gleki> well, rather mi nelci lo mlatu pe na'o
--- Day changed Thu Jun 04 2015
00:00 < gleki> but it might be that in some cases {lo'e} is equivalent to na'o in the main bridi. maybe there is ambiguity in this {lo'e}, im not sure.
00:01 < ldlework> less than lo certainly, since it is divorced from le
00:01 < gleki> so strange. guskant is working on LMW.And we are watching her. Looks like la guskant cu du la samyuan
00:03  * nuzba @uitki: Lo Lojbo Nuzba - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lo_Lojbo_Nuzba by Guskant - seva'u lo viska be la fagri lorxu [http://bit.ly/1H2Sc7o]
00:04 < gleki> je'e je'e
00:06 < gleki> zipcpi: can be edited again http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=bauspo_fazykamni/en&action=edit
00:06 < gleki> LMW: Flow extension disabled
00:06 < zipcpi> Cool... but I've already moved it to bsfk/eng
00:06 < zipcpi> Maybe I can make it redirect back
00:07 < gleki> now you may move it back following normal language code conventions
00:07  * zipcpi nods
00:07 < gleki> it was that just Flow blocked the db from being updated
00:09 < ldlework> Is it enough to be able to formulate gadri phrases logically? IE, all gadri descriptions are formulated the same way lo is formulated, but with varying semantic interprations. Does the logical form differ between an utterance interpreted definitely and the same utterance interpreted indefinitely?
00:09 < ldlework> I can see, how it is useful if you can find an illuminating semantic expression of the various gadri in order to help have a lojbanic definition
00:10 < ldlework> But do changes to gadri semantics really have any affect on how those descriptions are formed logically?
00:11 < ldlework> I'd say that, designating a noun phrase's referentiality is a concern of designation a matter entirely in the realm of communication and interpretation rather than logical formulation
00:11 < ldlework> y'know, what happens when you have a conversation, in the shadow of some context, rather than a progressive argument from a set of presuppositions.
00:13  * nuzba @uitki: Волны Ложбана - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%9B%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0 by Gleki - /* Ложбанские слова в качестве имён */ [http://bit.ly/1H2TVcY]
01:05 < gleki> zipcpi: i dont understand {loi'i}
01:07 < gleki> en: gunma modal
01:08 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
01:08 < mensi`i> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
01:08 < gleki> en:/full gunma
01:08 < mensi> 30 da se tolcri: gunma, dalgunma, datnyvaugunma, gungunma, mulgunma, pregunma, remgunma, rongunma, astrato, bende, ciste,
01:08 < mensi> cmigau, cmima, cmimei, datnyvau, girzu, gu'au, gugde'e'u, gumgau, i'i, jivnrfarzu'e, kansa, karvana, mei, pagbu, selgu'a,
01:08 < mensi> seljge, si'e, tinci, turni
01:08 < mensi`i> 30 da se tolcri: gunma, dalgunma, datnyvaugunma, gungunma, mulgunma, pregunma, remgunma, rongunma, astrato, bende, ciste,
01:08 < mensi`i> cmigau, cmima, cmimei, datnyvau, girzu, gu'au, gugde'e'u, gumgau, i'i, jivnrfarzu'e, kansa, karvana, mei, pagbu, selgu'a,
01:08 < mensi`i> seljge, si'e, tinci, turni
01:08 < gleki> en: gu'au
01:08 < mensi> gu'au = [BAI] non-distributivity tag: as a mass |>>> equivalent to fi'o gunma. gu'au je fa lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju is
01:08 < mensi> the same as loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju. |>>> gleki
01:08 < mensi`i> gu'au = [BAI] non-distributivity tag: as a mass |>>> equivalent to fi'o gunma. gu'au je fa lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju is
01:08 < mensi`i> the same as loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju. |>>> gleki
01:19 < zipcpi> gleki: It's basically "our" lo'i, but referring to masses
01:19 < zipcpi> I'm just booking it... the JVS description isn't meant to be a pedagogical one
01:19 < zipcpi> It can't be
01:20 < gleki> BPFK/LLG finally needs to discuss publishing a dictionary. Need to contact mukti
01:20 < ldlework> gleki: loi'i bifce cu sutra lo ka sruri lo'e gunta
01:20 < ldlework> hmm
01:21 < ldlework> assuming lo ka sruri lo'e gunta, is in my personal model of what swarms of bees are made of
01:21 < ldlework> loi'i lenku djacu cu ckape
01:22 < ldlework> well throw a piso'i on there
01:22 < ldlework> :P
01:23 < ldlework> lo'i and loi'i are so constrained their tricky
01:23 < ldlework> lo'i is easier
01:24 < ldlework> loi'i cpini ku se cmima lo su'omei
01:24 < ldlework> li'a u'u
01:24 < ldlework> .i ku'i je'u
01:25 < ldlework> loi'i cipni ku se gidva lo pamei
01:25 < ldlework> there we go
01:25 < gleki> again pls enter example into tatoeba
01:26 < gleki> i already mailed to Curtis about his new rotation brivla
01:26 < ldlework> "It takes having a leader to be a flock of birds."
01:26 < ldlework> zipcpi: pei
01:27 < zipcpi> ie
01:30 < ldlework> mi: ua lei'i cipni cu fenki .i za'a voikla lo so'imei
01:30 < ldlework> do: .i ianai ta xu me lei'i cipni .i ku'i loi'i cipni ku se gidva lo pamei zo'o cu'i
01:30 < ldlework> mi: u'i
01:37 < zipcpi> Hmm... what would be the rough English translation?
01:38 < zipcpi> These birds are crazy! They're flying everywhere!
01:38 < zipcpi> Having trouble understanding the third sentence
01:38 < zipcpi> I don't believe that is among these birds?
01:38 < ldlework> "huh, that flock of birds is crazy. flyin' all which way."
01:38 < gleki> why not {lo za'u vi cipni}?
01:38 < gleki> indeed
01:39 < zipcpi> vi is too tied to spatiality
01:39 < ldlework> "whaaaat, _that_'s a flock of birds? But flocks of birds need a leader."
01:39 < ldlework> "hah"
01:40 < ldlework> pei
01:40 < gleki> i'd rather invented a TAG here but {gu'au} is too long
01:40 < ldlework> gleki: the thing is, the gadri are specifically our noun-description determiner articles
01:40 < gleki> i also need a similar tag that means "lo TAG broda = it's a mass with lo broda as its main component"
01:41 < ldlework> gleki: loi broda
01:41 < ldlework> assuming you mean no mass in particular
01:41 < gleki> ldlework: loi doesnt work here since it doesnt have" main component" part
01:42 < ldlework> I mean, the mass is made of lo broda
01:42 < gleki> i mean the mass consists of lo broda as its main component + other no so important components that are {lo na'e broda}
01:42 < ldlework> if you mean /that/ mass, its lei
01:42 < ldlework> oh
01:43 < ldlework> that could be an inherent problem with codifying massness into the gadri
01:43 < ldlework> masses are individuals after all
01:43 < ldlework> maybe the slight semantic change could be given otherwise
01:43 < ldlework> it sort of suggests masses should simply be predicated
01:44 < zipcpi> But masses also affect how outer quantifiers work
01:44 < ldlework> right
01:44 < zipcpi> So I'm not sure it works *without* gadri
01:44 < ldlework> that'd be the main reason to do it
01:44 < ldlework> I mean
01:44 < ldlework> the pi quantifiers could be the singal
01:44 < ldlework> signal
01:44 < gleki> ldlework: isnt {fa loi broda = fa je gu'au  lo broda}? i think this issue was solved by latro'a long ago
01:44 < zipcpi> But pi is just no pi
01:45 < ldlework> first, what's the 'issue'
01:45 < zipcpi> Without individual mass distinction there'd be no way to distinguish between "half liter of these three liters" and "half (1.5 liters) of these three liters"
01:45 < ldlework> and two, what is the actionable conclusion resulting from a different way of expressing a gadri semantic
01:46 < ldlework> that the expansion should be used in place? not sure I get your aim.
01:46 < ldlework> zipcpi: I agree.
01:46 < ldlework> I lean towards treating them separate
01:46 < gleki> once they decided to just get rid of more entities like {loi}.and to change to normal predicate language. this is how {fi'o gunma} came into being.
01:47 < ldlework> yeah that sounds like a real drag
01:47 < zipcpi> Then what, do we add new tags for deixis, generalistic, and essentialistic cases?
01:47 < ldlework> fi'o gunma be lo djacu
01:47  * ldlework dies
01:48 < ldlework> zipcpi: its not even a tag, just {fi'o} as deus ex
01:48 < gleki> you are not free from expressing them using brivla anyway
01:48 < ldlework> loi djacu
01:48 < ldlework> I can scoop this ^
01:48 < ldlework> u'i
01:48 < zipcpi> Just look at this: {http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article} (admittedly incomplete) and tell me how you'd distinguish these cases in "standard" Lojban
01:49 < ldlework> zipcpi: its not even about "can you make an expansion of these semantics"
01:50 < ldlework> zipcpi: its about "here's using the articles in our language that are noun-phrase determiners, to do what various determiners are known to be able to do"
01:51 < ldlework> demonstrative, definite, indefinite, and such
01:51  * zipcpi nods
01:51 < ldlework> if you can formulate everything in terms of da with some cmavo and ui here and there, doesn't help you use the language
01:51  * zipcpi nods
01:51 < gleki> yes, those are two separate things.
01:52 < gleki> there is lojban as a speakable language and Lojban as a knowledge represenation tool
01:52 < ldlework> I think I made the point earlier that I think that all gadri are formulated in terms of da exactly the same way
01:52 < ldlework> because the semantic difference between each gadri has no consequence for the logical form
01:52 < ldlework> the gadri specify information that is involved in the desgination of descriptions in a context of discourse
01:53 < ldlework> this isn't the concern of the establishment of raw propositional relations
01:53 < gleki> jbo: loi'i
01:53 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
01:53 < mensi`i> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
01:53 < gleki> in short you just need lojban defs. no matter if they are descriptive or expanded words themselves
01:54 < ldlework> lo broda cu brode, lo'i broda cu brode, lei'i broda cu brode
01:54 < ldlework> they are all of the same logical form pe'i
01:54 < ldlework> but that da, that gets declared to exist, when you expand this to da form
01:55 < ldlework> what it designates as existing, differs under definite and indefinite interpretations of the same description
01:55 < zipcpi> gleki: Also, our gadri makes this conversation possible: http://pastebin.com/7CGfGsLt
01:56 < ldlework> and representing the things that da eventually designates, in the da expansion itself, I think is a conflation of ideas
01:56 < zipcpi> Replace {ti poi} with le'i
01:56 < ldlework> lol just edit it
01:56 < zipcpi> I can't; I wasn't registered
01:56 < ldlework> copy paste?
01:56 < ldlework> lol
01:57 < zipcpi> OK http://pastebin.com/Qg6uXEHJ
01:57 < ldlework> heh
01:58 < zipcpi> Oh crap I only edited one lo ka rebla lol
01:58 < ldlework> you know what
01:58 < ldlework> our gadri system also absolves the question about the difference between lo nu and le nu
01:59 < zipcpi> YES
01:59 < zipcpi> http://pastebin.com/EEYfqAme
01:59 < ldlework> "It just doesn't mean anything."
01:59 < zipcpi> No one knew what le is except MALGLIKSLU
01:59 < ldlework> or "Whatever makes more sense to you, kid, now scram."
01:59 < ldlework> because it doesn't really matter
01:59 < ldlework> the event, some event, whatevs
01:59 < zipcpi> Yeah
02:01 < ldlework> with the abstraction, its like, look, we need to start a noun-phrase SOMEHOW
02:01 < ldlework> lo is the general determiner
02:01 < ldlework> no bigs
02:02 < ldlework> okay I can't believe I said that
02:02 < ldlework> sleep time
02:02 < zipcpi> Night
02:42 < dutchie> coi rodo
02:44 < gleki> coi
03:24  * nuzba @uitki: Do you hear the people sing - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Do_you_hear_the_people_sing by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1eQUF9T]
03:28  * nuzba @shukil026: Lojban [http://bit.ly/1czbRiv]
03:30  * nuzba @uitki: bauspo fazykamni/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni/en by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1eQUVGa]
03:30  * nuzba @uitki: bauspo fazykamni - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1eQUX0G]
03:30  * nuzba @uitki: bauspo fazykamni/eng - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni/eng by Spheniscine - Redirected page to [[bauspo fazykamni/en]] [http://bit.ly/1czcaK9]
04:21 < gocti> .oi se'i mi'e je'a bauspo
04:21 < gocti> exp: fadzmru
04:21 < mensi`i> (CU [fadzmru VAU])
04:21 < mensi> (CU [fadzmru VAU])
04:21 < gocti> cipr: fadzmru
04:21 < cipr> (CU [fadzmru VAU])
04:22 < gocti> y
04:22 < gocti> exp: fazdmru
04:22 < mensi`i> (CU [fazdmru VAU])
04:22 < mensi> (CU [fazdmru VAU])
04:22 < gocti> cipr: fazdmru
04:22 < cipr> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "f" found.
04:24 < zipcpi> mi jai ranji le ka bauspo
04:24 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
04:24 < zipcpi> .y. sa'ai fai le ka bauspo
04:24 < gleki> en: ranji
04:24 < mensi`i> ranji = x1 (event/state) continues/persists over interval x2; x1 (property - ka) is continuous over x2. |>>> See also
04:24 < mensi`i> temci, kuspe, renvi, cedra, citsi, manfo, vitci, cukla, fliba, preja, tcena. |>>>
04:24 < mensi`i> officialdata
04:24 < gleki> i ie
04:25 < gleki> i ua la mensi cu zvati ma
04:27 < zipcpi> ca lo nu mi'a mulgau kei, mi ai mrilu le'i se stidi le mriste
04:29 < zipcpi> ba'asai nu snuda'a
04:30 < gleki> en:coi
04:30 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
04:30 < mensi`i> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
04:30 < gocti> y lo ciste ja'a jai nandu fai lo ka co'a co'u se cizra ki
04:30 < gocti> (to .ei pei mi catra la mensi'i toi)
04:31 < gocti> .i .oi la vrici cu spofu sai
04:32 < gocti> .i pu zi ku lo se .irci vreji ningau pruce cu fliba lo ka mulfau
04:32 < gleki> spofu ma
04:32 < gleki> mensi: ko cnino
04:33 < gocti> na djuno fi lo krinu
04:34 < gocti> .i la'oi all_logs zo'u .ei megbivbitsi li za'u 40 .i ju'a bivbitsi li 37
04:34 < zipcpi> ja'a cizra .iku'i pe'i le ka cizra cu ka tsali .i no da ba'uru'e pu pilno lei'i gadri
04:34 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
04:35 < zipcpi> bivbitsi = byte?
04:35 < gocti> go'i
04:35 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
04:36 < zipcpi> bitsi is one of gleki's new gismu right?
04:36 < gocti> na djuno lo du'u ma kau finti
04:36 < zipcpi> na se jbovlaste ca
04:36 < gleki> loglan:bitsi
04:36 < mensi`i> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
04:37 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
04:37 < gleki> loglan:bitxi
04:37 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
04:37 < mensi`i> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
04:37 < gleki> loglan:bit
04:37 < gocti> loglan: bithi
04:37 < mensi> bithi = B measures C in bit/binary digit (s) default 1.
04:37 < mensi> bit = a combining form of bitsa, between.
04:37 < mensi`i> bithi = B measures C in bit/binary digit (s) default 1.
04:37 < mensi`i> bit = a combining form of bitsa, between.
04:37 < gleki> mi na nelci zo x poi sance
04:37 < mensi`i> mi na nelci
04:37 < mensi> i mi i mi i mi mo i mi na nelci
04:37 < mensi> sei mi stace mi na mutce nelci
04:37 < mensi`i> mi na nelci
04:37 < mensi> sei mi stace mi na mutce nelci
04:37 < gocti> na nelci
04:37 < mensi`i> ba'e mi nelci i ie mi nelci
04:37 < mensi> mi mutce nelci i ie
04:38 < gleki> oi
04:53  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Gleki - /* Emotions */ [http://bit.ly/1KbS5r5]
05:02 < gleki> so should i use {de'i li cy xi pa}?
05:22 < zipcpi> gleki: I don't know. What separates vlale'u-numbers from namle'u-numbers?
05:22 < zipcpi> er nacle'u
05:46 < ctefa`o> Has there been any major changes to how the abstractors work lately?
05:46 < ctefa`o> I.e. not in the BPFK sections or cll
05:47 < zipcpi> What abstractors? NU?
05:47 < zipcpi> Not that I know of
05:48 < ctefa`o> Except that which someone told me about tu'a
05:48 < zipcpi> exp: mi djuno tu'a na ku
05:48 < ctefa`o> pe'izo'o Lojban should have a changelog
05:48 < zipcpi> ie
05:48 < zipcpi> oi
05:49 < ctefa`o> camxes: -exp mi djuno tu'a na ku
05:49 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "u" found.
05:49 < ctefa`o> ?
05:49 < ctefa`o> Err
05:49 < mensi> (mi [CU {djuno <tu'a (¹na ku¹) LUhU> VAU}])
05:49 < ctefa`o> Wait there are two bots?
05:50 < zipcpi> Yep, parses in tier-3, not tier-2
05:51 < zipcpi> And of course, tier-4 makes tu'a {tau} instead
05:52 < Ilmen> the exp parser has a changelog: https://github.com/Ilmen-vodhr/ilmentufa/blob/master/camxes-exp-changelog.txt
05:52 < ctefa`o> ki'ecai
05:52 < zipcpi> lol But probably not Lojban as a whole though. The whole reason for my referring to tiers is that :p
05:53 < ctefa`o> I see
06:25 < AliGeyikDotCom> coi
06:26 < zipcpi> coi
06:26 < gleki> coi
06:30 < Ilmen> coi
06:33 < Pendrokar> coi mi
06:33  * Pendrokar tavla la .pendrokar.
06:34 < Ilmen> coi la penmi cidro kalri
06:41 < gocti> .oi toi'e zo'o mi pu .aidji lo ka rinsa fi lo mintu
06:42 < gleki> zotoi'e va'o na sarcu
06:42 < gocti> .ei da cnima'o terjoma ciste
06:46 < gleki> zo zo'o na jetnu cnima'o i cnima'o stika
06:46 < gleki> jb:zo'o
06:46 < mensi> zo'o = zo'o [interjection modifier] — Kidding... (humorously), zo'o cu'i — that might be either serious or a joke, zo'o
06:46 < mensi> nai — seriously
06:46 < mensi> :zo'o pei — Are you kidding?
06:46 < mensi> :e'u zo'o renro la Kevin lo vi kevna — Let's throw Kevin into this hole (kidding ...).
06:46 < mensi> :mi kakne lo ka plipe fi lo ve'i cmana vau zo'o cu'i — I might be able to jump from the hill.
06:46 < mensi> :zo'o nai do fanza — Seriously, you are annoying.
06:46 < mensi> :Related words: xajmi, junri
07:06 < zipcpi> ... OK I think I did a really bad thing now
07:06 < gocti> mo
07:06 < zipcpi> I've probably just redefined bare "gadri-less" numbers
07:07 < gocti> to something other than {N da poi}?
07:07 < zipcpi> Maybe.
07:07 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
07:07 < gleki> ua la danr cu volta gi'e va'i volve
07:08 < zipcpi> And then I assigned {le'e} to its mass
07:08 < zipcpi> The nu bauspo is complete... sorta :p
07:09 < gocti> .autci
07:09 < zipcpi> Oh right I forgot selpa'i-s {ge}. I assigned that to {mo'oi}
07:09 < zipcpi> Already entered it into JVS
07:09 < zipcpi> That part would probably not be too controversial though as it doesn't redefine anything
07:10 < gleki> also there should be suffix equivalents to MAI, REhU, MOI
07:11 < zipcpi> Basically my intent is to make pa prenu be like... new Object(Prenu())
07:11 < zipcpi> re'u is in ROI
07:12 < gleki> yeah, ROI
07:21 < gleki> loglan:donsu
07:21 < mensi> donsu = K give/donate B to D
07:21 < gleki> loglan:gi
07:22 < mensi> gi = (,) right mark of displaced object(s) .
07:22 < gleki> wth
07:24 < zipcpi> mi ja'a se dimna lo nu daspo le jbobau i'au zo'oru'e
07:25 < zipcpi> I mean... all I did was misinterpret {lo'e} and {lo'i}
07:25 < zipcpi> and then this happened
07:36 < zipcpi> I'm sure people'd tell me just to define new cmavo. But how? There are like, 6-8 "redefined" ones I think, depending on what you count as a redefinition
07:36 < zipcpi> And they must follow a pattern of some sort
07:37 < zipcpi> And if they are experimental cmavo they'd be at least disyllabic
07:39 < gocti> GIhA and GUhA are free, under some definitions of free
07:39 < zipcpi> Hahaha
07:39 < zipcpi> Yeah selpa'is connectives
07:40 <@xalbo> Somehow, the {lo'i} one doesn't quite make sense for me. So plays aren't defined by whether or not I like them, but humans are defined to have two legs?
07:40 < zipcpi> The platonic model of a play is not defined by whether you like them
07:40 < zipcpi> The platonic model of a human is
07:40 < zipcpi> co'e
07:43 < gleki> xalbo: lo'i or lo'e?
07:43 <@xalbo> {lo'i}
07:44 <@xalbo> (zipcpi's definition of {lo'i}, that is)
07:44 < zipcpi> I dunno, I think the... I'm not too up on my philosophical terms... the one where you ask if someone stops being human when he doesn't have two legs... that can be formulated using {bi'ai} I think
07:45 <@xalbo> It seems like you may be turning {lo'i} into something very close to CLL-{le'e}.
07:45 < la_kristan> coi
07:46 < zipcpi> Isn't le'e all about "non-veridicality"?
07:46 < zipcpi> And I have no idea what "stereotypical" means
07:46 < gleki> i have no idea what veridicality means
07:46 < zipcpi> lol
07:47 < gleki> any bear is a glue tosome degree thus {lo} as veridical cant be ever used
07:47 <@xalbo> No, it's not about that. I think "stereotypical" in this context is like your "platonic model". When I picture "a human" in my head, that's {le'e remna}.
07:47 < zipcpi> Hmm... maybe
07:47 < gleki> then this sounds like {lo se'o broda}
07:47 < zipcpi> Doesn't follow the pattern though, and what is le'i
07:48 <@xalbo> {le'i} is {lu'i le}, the Cantor set composed of those indicated by {le}.
07:48 < zipcpi> Erm, se'o? I don't think so?
07:48 <@xalbo> (Well, in CLL it is.)
07:48 < la_kristan> stereotypical - what we think of x in general as being, regardless of what x is actually like.
07:48 < la_kristan> u
07:49 < zipcpi> "The person I dreamt/saw a vision of"?
07:49 < la_kristan> ugh
07:49 <@xalbo> Yeah, {se'o} isn't right there.
07:49 < la_kristan> stupid phone
07:49 < zipcpi> The problem is that sets are... pretty much never used in normal conversation T.T
07:49 < zipcpi> So we have a bunch of "useless" gadri lying around
07:49 < la_kristan> "i think", not "u"
07:50 <@xalbo> I didn't say they were. You asked what it meant.
07:50  * zipcpi nods... sorry
07:50 <@xalbo> la_kristan: That's a hell of an autocorrect!
07:50 <@xalbo> u therefore I am.
07:50 <@xalbo> (Sorry.)
07:51 < la_kristan> it's what happens when one's fat finger types u instead of i, and then enter instead of backspace.
07:51 <@xalbo> je'e
07:51 < gleki> xalbo said "in my head". what else if not {se'o} can it be
07:52 < zipcpi> Because se'o refers to dreams/visions
07:52 < ctefa`o> co'o
07:52 <@xalbo> {se'o} is something that comes from my head, not from anything external. {le'e} is the mental model that exists now in my head, having been built continuously by external stimuli.
07:53 < gleki> then what could "in my head" mean?
07:53 < gleki> you create this vision in your head.
07:53 <@xalbo> It's what follows "Oh my God, there's an axe".
07:53 < la_kristan> are you able to view this? I'm not sure if you have to log in; I don't think so...
07:53 < la_kristan> http://verduloj.com/forums/viewthread/131
07:54 < gleki> if you mean that se'o describes everything in your head made by your mind from scratch then it's just like {da'i}
07:54 < zipcpi> It just doesn't imply that to me gleki. If you used se'o that way I'd be extremely confused
07:54 <@xalbo> la_kristan: Yes, it's publicly accessible.
07:54 < gleki> la_kristan: i agree with this usage. can't see any mistakes
07:55 <@xalbo> gleki: To a certain extent, all your experience only exists in your mind. So that's pretty worthless. {se'o} is truths revealed without input from the external world.
07:55 < gleki> xalbo: da'i is the same
07:55 < gleki> or then what are the possible uses of {se'o}?
07:55 < la_kristan> I have to make any corrections within 2 hours of posting, so I wanted to make sure.
07:55 < zipcpi> No, da'i means "assume hypothetically for argument"
07:56 < zipcpi> le se'o prenu = "The person I dreamt of"
07:56 < gleki> la_kristan: i can only give stylistic  ecommendations
07:56 < gleki> like since you use {fi} then you could ve said {mi do tavla fo la .lojban.} similarly, instead of {zo'e}
07:57 < gleki> oh, found a mistake: 
07:57 < gleki> .i le mlatu citka lo grusi toldi
07:57 < gleki> please, add {cu} before {citka}
07:57 < la_kristan> oops!
07:57 <@xalbo> {se'o lo nu catra lo cifnu cu palci}: I know, I just know, that killing babies is wrong.
07:58 < gleki> {le mlatu citka} = the cat-eater
07:58 <@xalbo> {da'i lo nu catra lo cifnu cu palci}: Assume for the sake of argument that killing babies is wrong. Then we can start talking about the consequences of what that would mean.
07:58 < gleki> xalbo: je'e je'e i i'a
07:58 < gleki> then just another UI would do the trick. like pe'anai or what was proposed.
07:59 < gleki> anyway i still dont know what is veridicality
07:59 <@xalbo> {le'e} has nothing to do with veridicality.
07:59 < la_kristan> gleki : corrected, thank you.
07:59 < la_kristan> how did I not catch that?
07:59 < gleki> xalbo: maybe you can create your vision of xorlo by writing a similar wiki page?
08:00 < zipcpi> Wait I won't have to repurpose le'e; there is lu'o
08:00 <@xalbo> la_kristan: The other thing I would consider is {mi djica lonu lo smacu na nenri le mi zdani}, but that's somewhat stylistic nitpicking. Basically, is there a particular event of mice not being in your house that you want? I'm guessing not.
08:00 < zipcpi> Hmm...
08:01 <@xalbo> gleki: I'm describing CLL-{le'e}, right now. I'm not trying to redefine anything. It already does that.
08:01 < zipcpi> exp: lu'o mu prenu cu lacpu le skori
08:01 < mensi> ([lu'o {<mu BOI> prenu KU} LUhU] [cu {lacpu <le skori KU> VAU}])
08:01 <@xalbo> I have a meeting. co'o
08:01 < la_kristan> gtg
08:01 < zipcpi> exp: pivo lu'o mu prenu cu lacpu le skori
08:01 < mensi> ([{<pi vo> BOI} {lu'o <mu BOI> prenu KU} LUhU] [cu {lacpu <le skori KU> VAU}])
08:01 < zipcpi> Yeah lu'o works
08:01 < la_kristan> co'o
08:08 < zipcpi> xu pa remna bi'ai se tuple lo remei
08:17 < zipcpi> exp: lu'o prenu
08:17 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "p" found.
08:18 < zipcpi> Hm guess LAhE just aren't real gadri :p
08:22 < durka42> LAhE : Sumti -> Sumti
08:23 < zipcpi> Yeah
08:23 < zipcpi> I have done a really bad thing durka
08:23 < durka42> xu zbusufukai
08:23 < zipcpi> mi ja'a se dimna lo nu daspo le jbobau
08:24 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
08:24 < durka42> ua
08:24 < zipcpi> Yes, I probably just redefined the "null" gadri x.x
08:24 < durka42> lei'i !
08:25 < zipcpi> lol
08:25 < durka42> I'm just surprised krtis hadn't taken that one yet
08:25 < zipcpi> pimu lei'i djacu = "half of this water"
08:26 < gusvli> what's the purpose of that gadri as opposed to lei or lo?
08:26 < durka42> I wish I were enough of a linguist to know if all this makes any sense or not :p
08:26 < zipcpi> le'i is demostrative; at least, "my" le'i
08:26 < zipcpi> And Idleworks
08:27 < zipcpi> Seriously, all I did was misuse {lo'e} and {lo'i}
08:27 < zipcpi> And then all this came out
08:27 < durka42> .u'i
08:27 < durka42> friends don't let friends invent new gadri systems
08:27 < zipcpi> lol
08:29 < zipcpi> le'i is like {ti noi} or {ta noi}, but with no implication of spatial distance or presence
08:29 < zipcpi> It just means I am signaling to you what it is
08:29 < zipcpi> Also gadri are much more convenient than POI clauses when all you want is a selbri
08:30 < durka42> true
08:30 < durka42> hence why selpa'i proposed a gadri for {ma poi}
08:30 < zipcpi> I entered {mo'oi} into JVS
08:30 < durka42> en: mo'oi
08:31 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
08:31 < zipcpi> Hey, if I'm gonna daspo lei gadri I might as well throw that in
08:31 < durka42> wait, I have to look up what {lei} means to you, hold on
08:32 < durka42> ah that one is no change, good :)
08:32 < zipcpi> Yeah, le/lei is largely unchanged
08:32 < zipcpi> Only tightened it up so that it's clearer than "malglixlu for "the""
08:33 < durka42> so did you get emails when you added {mo'oi}?
08:33 < zipcpi> Yes
08:34 < zipcpi> Danr is the latest BSFK member :p
08:34 < durka42> ua
08:35 < durka42> la .danr. se cmene ma lo .irci nau
08:35 < durka42> huh ok so it's just me that didn't get the emails t'other day
08:36 < gusvli> u'isai mi ca notci lo xe fanva be ve zo dzipo
08:36 < gusvli> "Antarctic culture/nationality". Sure, valsi, sure.
08:36 < zipcpi> Also, with mo'oi in LE
08:36 < zipcpi> mo'oi mu prenu = Which of the five people
08:37 < zipcpi> mu mo'oi prenu = Which five people
08:37 < zipcpi> Try doing that with ma
08:37 < durka42> ie ku'i
08:37 < durka42> I would translate it
08:37 < durka42> mo'oi mu prenu = which five people
08:38 < durka42> mu mo'oi prenu = five of which people
08:38 < zipcpi> Ah...
08:38 < durka42> lo mu prenu cu bevri lo pipno              mo'oi mu prenu .i mi viska lo pano prenu
08:38 < zipcpi> ie
08:40 < durka42> you should comment on selpa'i's post
08:40 < durka42> for maximum hyperlinkosity
08:40 < zipcpi> OK
08:41 < durka42> interwebs! :p
08:41 < zipcpi> I don't know what selpa'i would think of my gadri lol
08:41 < durka42> heh
08:41 < zipcpi> Seriously it could go either way
08:41 < durka42> S ta'e nalnei lo cnino cmavo
08:42 < durka42> ku'i za'a ja'a nelci lo nu ningau lo laldo cmavo
08:42 < zipcpi> Yes, is that zbusufukai enough for him? :p
08:43 < durka42> .u'i
08:43 < durka42> btw the BSFK translation issue seems to have magically resolved
08:43 < zipcpi> Nah... it was *eventually* fixed
08:43 < durka42> did gleki switch translation plugins?
08:43 < zipcpi> Nope.
08:44 < zipcpi> It now has no translation widget
08:44 < zipcpi> He noted there are bugs
08:44 < durka42> I see
08:44 < durka42> so now it is two pages that happen to have the same name?
08:44 < zipcpi> Yes
08:56 < zipcpi> How to translate "apprentice"? :p
08:58 < durka42> tadni se jibri?
08:58 < durka42> vlaste: apprentice
08:58 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/apprentice
08:58 < zipcpi> Would that be tadnyseji under the dialect zo'o
08:59 < durka42> oi
08:59 < zipcpi> :p
09:03 < zipcpi> Should I replace most of the "lo"s with my own gadri? lol
09:04 < zipcpi> Eh, probably needs a few rounds in the grinder before I use it for anything permanent
09:04 < zipcpi> There might be holes somewhere
09:13 < gleki> vipsi?
09:13 < ldlework> coi
09:14 < Spheniscine_> coi
09:14 < dutchie> coi
09:14 < ldlework> ma nuzba
09:14 < Spheniscine_> mi'e la zipcpi
09:14 < Spheniscine_> I'm having some connection issues
09:14 < durka42> coi
09:14 < durka42> ldlework: la zipcpi cu finti lo cnino ke gadri ciste velcki
09:15 < Spheniscine_> Yes, I have continued the nu bauspo
09:15 < Spheniscine_> While you are away
09:15 < Spheniscine_> Even redefined the null gadri x.x
09:15 < durka42> you mean lo?
09:16 < Spheniscine_> No, I mean {pa broda}
09:16 < durka42> oh I missed that part
09:16 < ldlework> xu la Spheniscine_ du la zipcpi
09:16 < Spheniscine_> je'u
09:16 <@xalbo> la'a sai
09:16 < durka42> yeah you really don't want to touch quantification, lol
09:16 < Spheniscine_> I am having some connection issues
09:16 < durka42> world of pain
09:16 <@xalbo> "Spheniscine" and {zipcpi} mean the same thing.
09:17 < ldlework> ua
09:17 < Spheniscine_> Yeah but I have no idea what else would fit
09:17 < ldlework> casnu ma
09:17 < Spheniscine_> Using any disyllabic cmavo would be rather awkward for that case
09:17 < Spheniscine_> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
09:17 < Spheniscine_> Here
09:18 < Spheniscine_> The "PA/le'e" one especially
09:18 < ldlework> Oh I love mo'oi
09:18 < Spheniscine_> Well it's la selpa'i-s idea
09:18 < Spheniscine_> But I thought if we're gonna wreck the gadri we might as well throw that in :p
09:19 < ldlework> "le'i nixli cu melbi" "mo'oi nixli cu melbi" "xunre taxfu li'a"
09:20 < gleki> now change LE from prefixes to suffixes
09:20 < Spheniscine_> lol
09:21 < ldlework> huh?
09:21 < Spheniscine_> I believe it's a joke?
09:21 < durka42> Spheniscine_: so what replaces {pa prenu} for you? explicit {pa da poi prenu} is required and those are different again?
09:21 < Spheniscine_> He has complained about why MAI, ROI, and... something else? looked left when almost everything else looked right
09:22 < durka42> because that would be awful and terrible
09:22 < ldlework> Spheniscine_: dunno how I feel about PA / le'e
09:22 < Spheniscine_> Hm yeah it's just something that turned while I was gone
09:22 < ldlework> I feel like PA is just a standin for lo
09:22 < Spheniscine_> But how do you say "Five people entered the bar", and distinguish it from "The five people entered the bar"?
09:22 < ldlework> and that if you want explictly 5 definite men, you use le mu nanmu
09:23 < Spheniscine_> Cause in my mind, the two sentences are different
09:23 < ldlework> or lei mu nanmu to talk about them as a mass
09:23 < ldlework> Spheniscine_: its not, its just the first time they've been mentioned
09:23 < ldlework> Deixis just seems strange the time its introduced into context is all
09:24 < ldlework> "He's watching me." "who?" "the man over there."
09:24 < ldlework> just because the speaker used deixis without previous context doesn't change what kind of description it is
09:24 < ldlework> "He's" in this case.
09:24 < Spheniscine_> Well you kinda used it that way in your example, "mi viska pa broda"
09:24 < Spheniscine_> Although that might not break the "da poi" interpretation
09:25 < ldlework> Right but also "5 men entering a bar, is the start of a story" (platitude)
09:25 < Spheniscine_> It's just that maybe it's malglixlu of me, but I still reach for {lo} when I want to "introduce" something to the discourse
09:25 < ldlework> it just be "mi viska (lo) pa broda"
09:25 < ldlework> right, and its either a definite or indefinite introduction
09:25 < ldlework> not a null one
09:26 < ldlework> "5 men would be enough to build the house you want"
09:26 < Spheniscine_> Well the key is this:
09:26 < Spheniscine_> "Often used to refer to either something mentioned earlier, or to something present in the shared context of the speakers."
09:26 < Spheniscine_> So what if we don't want to do that
09:26 < Spheniscine_> But still refer to concrete reference
09:26 < ldlework> Its just le
09:27 < Spheniscine_> Should I just delete that then?
09:28 < ldlework> Spheniscine_: well do you agree with the logic?
09:28 < ldlework> "He is staring at me" "He" is a Deixis anaphora
09:28 < ldlework> Despite it being introduced for the first time
09:28 < Spheniscine_> le nanmu cu catlu mi
09:28 < Spheniscine_> Sort of like Gleki's le
09:28 < ldlework> I mean
09:28 < ldlework> I personally would use le'i here
09:28 < ldlework> but yeah
09:29 < Spheniscine_> So you think with le'i, my distinction isn't really needed?
09:29 < ldlework> if you use deixis constructs in a null context, you will likely get "Which one?" from your listener as their first response.
09:29 < Spheniscine_> Mm
09:29 < ldlework> but that's all
09:29 < ldlework> I don't think we need a novel description type just for that case
09:29 < Spheniscine_> OK then. null gadri is safe... for now...
09:30 < Spheniscine_> <.<
09:30 < Spheniscine_> >.>
09:30 < ldlework> lol
09:30 < ldlework> also bu'unai
09:30 < ldlework> or whatever it is
09:30 < ldlework> bi'unai
09:30 < ldlework> bi'u
09:30 < Spheniscine_> Right
09:30 < ldlework> if you need to be really clear
09:31 < Spheniscine_> le bi'u mu prenu cu nerkla le barja
09:31 < ldlework> yeah you definitely avoid "which one" with that
09:31 < Spheniscine_> Mhm
09:31 < ldlework> assuming "prenu" is enough of a description
09:32 < Spheniscine_> Oh yeah, xalbo thinks that "our" lo'i = CLL le'e
09:33 < ldlework> except le'e has referents
09:33 < Spheniscine_> Yeah I didn't know how to answer him lol
09:33 < ldlework> and the description used may not be true of the referents
09:33 < Spheniscine_> I'm not so certu with the philosophy stuff
09:33 < ldlework> but is used to identify them anyway
09:33 < Spheniscine_> Mm
09:34 < ldlework> when we say lo'i, we demonstrate our understanding of actual cats
09:34 < ldlework> so we may find disagreements
09:34  * Spheniscine_ nods
09:34 < ldlework> actual-catiness*
09:35 <@xalbo> So you're saying that your {lo'i} is objective, but CLL-{le'e} is subjective? I can understand that.
09:35 < gocti> zipcpi: durka42: ti'e la .danr. cu zukcfu je ja'e bo na .irci
09:35 < ldlework> Well lo'i is subjective
09:35 < ldlework> It expresses statements about your own internal modeling of catiness
09:35 <@xalbo> That's what CLL-{le'e} does.
09:35 < ldlework> no
09:36 < ldlework> le'e characterizes something that may or may not be a cat, as a cat, for purposes of designation
09:36 < zipcpi> Yeah that non-veridicality bugbear again
09:37 <@xalbo> {le'e} has fuck-all to do with veridicality, and doesn't reference any object in the real world. I don't know where you're getting that idea.
09:37 < ldlework> if you say so, xalbo
09:37 < gleki> some cat who you consider may not be a real cat. how do you know?
09:37 < ldlework> gleki: the opposite
09:37 < gleki> oops
09:37 < gleki> some cat who you consider real may not be a real cat. how do you know?
09:38 < gleki> how do you know that anything is {lo} and not {le}?
09:38 < gleki> who decides?
09:38 < zipcpi> Which is why veridicality is out
09:38 < ldlework> gleki: right marking veridicality is dumb
09:38 < ldlework> all language is potentially non-veridical
09:38 <@xalbo> gleki: How can you possibly say {tu mlatu} if you can't ever know whether it's *really* a cat?
09:39 <@xalbo> It's the same level of veridicality as the rest of the language. I don't know why that one part is such a problem.
09:39 < gleki> xalbo: yes, that's why it's not veridical and can never be
09:39 < ldlework> An easy way to explain away veridical is just to say, we can never be certain about veridicality, yeah
09:40 < ldlework> i'e
09:40 < zipcpi> Bye bye
09:40 < ldlework> though we can discuss veridicality a bit easier with lo'i
09:40 < zipcpi> co'o la'oi veridicality
09:40 < gleki> lo'i is about sets
09:40 < ldlework> sets are out too
09:40 <@xalbo> The point is that if you say {tu mlatu} and you know it not to be a cat, you're misleading/lying/whatever. Under CLL, {lo mlatu} is just the same as {da poi mlatu}, it's the same sort of veridicality.
09:40 < ldlework> its not about misleading
09:40 < ldlework> we use inaccurate descriptions to _help_ desingation
09:41 < ldlework> not to mislead our listeners
09:41 <@xalbo> I don't know why people get so uncertain around viridicality in gadri and not in the rest of the language. How can you ever say anything?
09:41 < ldlework> non-veridicality considered as a truth consideration is misunderstanding language all together
09:41 < gleki> 09:40 < ldlework> sets are out too <-- then why do u use it?
09:41 < ldlework> gleki: we redefined it
09:41 < gleki> ldlework: we = ?
09:41 < ldlework> zipcpi and I
09:41 < gleki> BPFK?
09:42 < gleki> i cant know which meaning is used.
09:42 < ldlework> of course not
09:42 < gleki> i also redefined {le} accordng to past usage.
09:42 < ldlework> this is all just a specific discourse
09:42 < ldlework> about a theoretical gadri system
09:42 < zipcpi> As far as I can tell, my le doesn't break your le
09:42 < ldlework> remember to breathe :)
09:43 < ldlework> Yeah I'm fairly sure, as a very generic "definite article" le still works the same
09:43 <@xalbo> The point isn't that veridicality is some super special aspect of one gadri, it's that another gadri is explicitly non-veridical, because it doesn't have to be.
09:44 < ldlework> The point is that explict veridicality or non-veridicality is not an important enough aspect of descriptions to demand an entire determining article.
09:45 < ldlework> Since language is whimsically veridical or not.
09:45 < gleki> 09:40 <@xalbo> The point is that if you say {tu mlatu} and you know it not to be a cat <-- then i wouldnt say that. the point is that I think that it's a cat. And I can never use CLL-lo because i can never be 100% sure that it's what others mean by "cat".
09:45 < ldlework> Defeated at every turn by context.
09:45 < zipcpi> And we have UI to explicitly mark when the speaker is using things veridically or non-veridically
09:45 < ldlework> all language is an attempt to use descriptions that help our listener understan
09:45 < zipcpi> The most basic being je'u and je'unai
09:46 < ldlework> If I use a description, like mlatu, on something that isn't a mlatu, because I think in this context it will help identification
09:46 < zipcpi> But we also have pe'a, xo'o, xa'i, da'i, and all the others
09:46 < ldlework> merely explicitly marking "I'm being metaphorical" isn't likely to increase the chances of identification
09:46 < ldlework> your listener already doesn't see a cat, as they know them, so they already know you're being non-veridical
09:47 < ldlework> because listeners are well equipped to use non-veridical descriptions from speakers to usefully perform designation
09:47 < ldlework> because otherwise we wouldn't be able to get by in any language
09:47 < gleki> you are basically dealing with Spinoza's three types of perception: "intersubject" one when a group of scientists vote for definitions, "subjective" when you decide something in your mind when calling something "cat", and {vedli} which probably cant be expressed in words.
09:47 <@xalbo> gleki: You can use {lo mlatu cu citka} in exactly the same cases you can say {tu mlatu .i tu citka}. It's not like you're super pinky swearing that it honestly truly is a cat. That's overstating it hugely.
09:47 < ldlework> xalbo: that's good to hear
09:47 < ldlework> Take any verb that doesn't aim that the crucial being of the thing
09:48 <@xalbo> It's that if you say {lo mlatu cu citka} and it's not really a cat, it's no better or worse than if you say {tu mlatu} and it's not really a cat. Same sort of confidence. Same level of veridicality.
09:48 < ldlework> But rather, a description that represents your own opinion
09:48 < gleki> xalbo: this {lo} in your examples is no different from CLL-le. Do you really mean CLL-lo here, i.e. {da poi mlatu}?
09:48 < ldlework> How does veridicality play into it? Do you really need to explain that that man isn't really a bastard?
09:48 <@xalbo> (It's also no better or worse than if it's not really eating, but chewing food up and spitting it out or something.)
09:48 < ldlework> pe'i most people using lo today, really mean le a lot of the time
09:48 <@xalbo> gleki: I'm explaining why veridicality is no big deal.
09:48 < zipcpi> Who cares about CLL lo
09:49 < durka42> not m
09:49 < durka42> not me
09:49 < ldlework> u'i
09:49 < gleki> ldlework: which le? yours? mine? CLL's?
09:49 < ldlework> gleki: your le and our le are essentially the same
09:49 < ldlework> as far as I can tel
09:49 < gleki> xalbo: if you stick to CLL the you have le=zo'e voi and lo = da poi. Do you use them that way?
09:49 < ldlework> technically, a "definite deixis determiner"
09:50 < gleki> ldlework: my {le} is ana/cata/exo-phorical. it's about parsing texts, not about veridicality.
09:50 < ldlework> I mean, pretty much everything definite is deixis so its a bit of a tautology
09:50 < gleki> i dont use such term "definite" since it sounds super malgli
09:50 < ldlework> gleki: okay our le is about how the listener should use the description to find the designation of the speaker's intent
09:50 < ldlework> gleki: its a core linguistic term to describe language in general
09:51 < ldlework> many languages have definite and indefinite determiners, some don't have definite determiners at all
09:51 < gleki> ldlework: my {le} can be used by parsers. how can your le be used, i have no clue. if it's about semantics then a brivla underlying it is needed. my {le} is purely syntactic.
09:51 < ldlework> luckily, our gadri system allows both kinds of speakers to exist
09:51 <@xalbo> gleki: I use xorlo and CLL-{le} (which seems to be pretty much identical to zipcpi {le}, as far as I can tell).
09:51 < ldlework> gleki: oh okay, yeah ours is semantic
09:52 < ldlework> it isn't a back-referencing anaphora
09:52 <@xalbo> I'm just trying to explain verdicality, because people bash on it, and I think it's only because they don't understand it.
09:52 < ldlework> though it is deixis
09:52 <@xalbo> (because the definitions in the ma'oste are misleading/mabla)
09:52 < gleki> xalbo: then you dont have any veridicality. You have le=>zo'e (constant) and lo=da (variable). This is how postxorlo Lojban works although it uses lo for constants and ugly su'o broda/da poi broda hacks for variables.
09:53 < ldlework> I argue all gadri are logically formed the same way.
09:53 < zipcpi> xalbo: Where did you think I got my weird ideas of what {lo'e} and {lo'i} was? lol
09:53 < zipcpi> I was like "Archetypical"? Oh that must be the general cat
09:53 < gleki> xalbo: and in fact this is why i think xorlo reform should have never happened since it changed nothing except swapping a particle in meaning. although now it's too late.
09:53 < zipcpi> And "set of things defined as"? Oh that must mean what I think of when I try to define cat
09:54 < ldlework> designation isn't a concern of logical structure, but only contextual interpretation
09:54 <@xalbo> gleki: Nearly everything I say is veridical. Nearly everything you say is veridical. Veridicality is the default for every language.
09:54 <@xalbo> It's *non*-veridicality that's an unusual feature of some things.
09:54 < ldlework> xalbo: sounds like something someone who thinks we should count how many people were in the crowd we saw, would say :)
09:54 < gleki> xalbo: then you dont have non-veridicality. since in constant/varible i.e zo'e/da distinction there just isnt any veridical/nonveridical split.
09:54 < zipcpi> Erm, so do you use {le broda} for {lo broda pe'a}?
09:55 < ldlework> gleki: that's because da is a concern of /logical structure/
09:55 < ldlework> and veridicality has to do with /desgination/
09:55 < gleki> ldlework: according to CLL lo => da poi
09:55 < ldlework> gleki: according to me LE => da poi
09:55 < gleki> ldlework: according to poxtxorlo lo= zo'e noi and {da} isnt there.
09:56 < gleki> *postxorlo
09:56 < ldlework> gleki: whatever logical expansion we want for our determiner phrases is fine by me
09:56 < ldlework> I'll leave that to the logicians
09:56 < gleki> da/zo'e distinction is crucial
09:56 < ldlework> but the problem is the conflation between the logical structure of a description
09:56 < ldlework> and its designation semantics
09:56 < ldlework> trying to encode desgination semantics into the logical expansion of desgination phrases is a misunderstanding
09:57 < ldlework> language is a pipeline
09:57 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Not exactly {pe'a}, maybe {ju'e cu'i} or something. The critical thing is that {le mlatu cu citka} is wrong if it's not eating, but not wrong if it's not a cat. The "cat" part is only required enough for you to get the right referent.
09:57 < gleki> those words mean nothing to me.im familair with brivla that create semantics, parsing of texts and variable and constants. everything else you say should belong to one of that. if your {le} is semantic please use Ralbrivla Deep Structure  rule i.e. expand {le}
09:57 < ldlework> xalbo: ie sai! ue
09:57 < gleki> ldlework: or to say in short just define your {le} in Lojban
09:57 < ldlework> gleki: the same way lo and lo'e and lo'i and le'i and so on are defined
09:58 < gleki> ldlework: will you define them in Lojban?
09:58 < ldlework> You can describe desgination semantics separately from the logical form of a statement
09:58 < ldlework> all designation phrases reduce to a logical form involving da
09:58 < ldlework> but da doesn't tell us how the listener should interpret the description
09:59 < zipcpi> How do you apply generality to da?
09:59 < gleki> okay ldlework doesnt want to talk to me in Lojban
09:59 < ldlework> da has no designation semantic
09:59 < ldlework> it is merely logical form
09:59 < zipcpi> Can we create a brivla that says {x1 is the generalized conception of x2 (ka)?)
09:59 < zipcpi> Or something?
09:59 < ldlework> sure I bet we already have the tools
09:59 <@xalbo> I sometimes wish that we had generality/typicality/etc PA.
10:00 < ldlework> lo'e
10:00 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'e mlatu .i ji'a lo'i mlatu cu jersi lo togygu'i
10:00 <@xalbo> FORALLTYPICAL da poi mlatu vau vo de zo'u de da tuple
10:01 < ldlework> xalbo: ah you want to iterate over real referents
10:01 < ldlework> and make claims
10:01 < zipcpi> So new variants for su'oi and ro'oi then?
10:01 < ldlework> su'o is all you need, or most
10:01 < ldlework> or ro if you want to probably be wrong
10:02 < ldlework> when there are actual referents you're dealing with an actual pool, so you can use actual subjective quantification
10:02 < gleki> 09:59 <@xalbo> I sometimes wish that we had generality/typicality/etc PA. <-- it's {no'o}
10:03 <@xalbo> I want to make a general statement by cheating, using the structures that actual iteration gives us.
10:03 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Extended_Lojban_Grammar_(a_draft)#Context
10:03 < zipcpi> Er, no. {no'o} is a "pro-number"
10:03 < ldlework> yeah subjective quantification
10:03 <@xalbo> gleki: No, it's not even remotely {no'o} (unless you've gone and tried to redefine that, too)
10:03 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=ELG._Context <-- this links is better
10:03 <@xalbo> {no'o} is {zu'i ze'ei pa}
10:03 < gleki> xalbo: yes.
10:04 < ldlework> that just means some,  all,  or none
10:04 < gleki> so you need one for "archetypical cat"?
10:04 < ldlework> at the same time
10:04 < gleki> xalbo: you need a PA for "archetypical number"?
10:05 < ldlework> assignable xo'i or whatever the unspecified number is
10:05 <@xalbo> I want a psuedo-quantifier.
10:05 < ldlework> lo'e
10:05 < ldlework> error sorry
10:05 < zipcpi> lo'e me da?
10:05 < ldlework> I see what you mean
10:06 < ldlework> I think the subjective numbers are enough for that
10:06 <@xalbo> ldlework: For all the reasons we made said that {lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da} doesn't work, I want {lo'e ze'ei pa mlatu cu se tuple vo da}, which *would* work.
10:06 < ldlework> yeah
10:06 < zipcpi> New PA5 then?
10:06 < ldlework> I think subjective numbers are fine
10:06 < ldlework> su'o or so'i reaches into the sense you want
10:07 < ldlework> as a listener I'll know what you mean by so'i prenu cu kusru
10:07 < zipcpi> so'ei
10:07 < ldlework> you can also just say "lo'e prenu cu kusru"
10:08 < ldlework> that's what generalizizing speech is for
10:08 < ldlework> which is what the whole right side of the spectrum is for
10:08 < zipcpi> I think {so'i mlatu cu se tuple vo da} might not work either
10:08 < ldlework> but its a scope issue, not a designation one
10:09 < gleki> xalbo: i see, yeah. that's why i suggested {lo mlatu pe na'o} which is {lo mlatu poi co'e na'o vau} which can be then made equal with {lo mlatu poi lo'ei ze'ei pa mei}
10:09 < ldlework> {so'i mlatu} no matter what predicate or sumti that comes after the predicate, is a kind of description
10:09 <@xalbo> zipcpi: {so'i mlatu cu se tuple vo da} is true in this world, but doesn't mean nearly the same thing. I'd say it's also true that {so'i mlatu cu se tuple ci da}, there are lots of cats out there with only three legs.
10:09 < gleki> {so'i} just doesnt work, no matter if you use {lo} or not
10:10 < zipcpi> Yeah I kinda see that point
10:10 < ldlework> you really just want lo'e
10:10 < gleki> it's the same reason why selpa'i wanted a new {poi} that would quantify not over number of cats but over their qualities.
10:10 < zipcpi> {voi} then :p
10:10 <@xalbo> ldlework: I want a scope-introducing {lo'e}.
10:11 < gleki> ye, he proposed {voi} at that time but then used {voi} for something else ({poi'i})
10:11 < ldlework> xalbo: lo'e gets that by way of generalizing about cats in general.
10:11 < ldlework> it doesn't iterate over any specific cats but a general quantifier that iterates over actual cats is nonsense
10:11 < ldlework> which cats?
10:11 < gleki> averaged cat
10:11 < ldlework> you want to make a statement about the diffusion of some property in the collective
10:12 < ldlework> what better way than a generalization about that collective
10:12 <@xalbo> Whence, a pseudoquantifier. "Take your average cat: "
10:12 < ldlework> by saying 8 out of 10 cats have 4 legs
10:12 < ldlework> but you don't care which 8
10:12 < ldlework> you are using lo'e!
10:12 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'e mlatu .i ku'i naku ro da le mlatu cu se nelci mi
10:13 < ldlework> but we'll never know which specific cats are indeed liked by me
10:13 <@xalbo> "Take your average cat x: for exactly four things y, y tuple x.
10:13 < ldlework> just like you would never know with some magic quantifier that iterates, but over no specific subset in particular
10:13 < ldlework> yes
10:13 < zipcpi> I dunno though. I can kind of *imagine* using voi for "descriptive titles", e.g. Graggauth, the Smasher of Kingdoms, but it's just not that common
10:13 < ldlework> lo'e
10:13 < ldlework> the cat blanket
10:13 < ldlework> the average cat
10:13 < zipcpi> Sort of a continuation of {la}, but in POI form
10:14 < ldlework> zipcpi: it would be nice to have a way to do name subtexts
10:14  * zipcpi nods
10:14 <@xalbo> Except we just established that {lo'e mlatu vo da se tuple} doesn't work, and you need super crazy circumlocutions to get the same effect. But {lo'e ze'ei pa mlatu vo da se tuple} works just fine.
10:14 < ldlework> When I assert about the average cat, the cat blanket, I am asseting about an unspecfied average of the actual possible referents of the description
10:14 < ldlework> it is precisely what you want
10:15 < zipcpi> ldlework: And I think {voi} works there. Of course, that means that we'd have to have a new one for selpa'is idea if that proves to be useful
10:15 < ldlework> what is the wider linguistic category you're trying to access? generalizations.
10:15 < ldlework> zipcpi: I can naturally see voi's use, so i'e
10:15 <@xalbo> How do you use {lo'e} to say some variant on {lo'e mlatu vo da cu se tuple} and actually mean that your average cat blanket has four legs?
10:16 < ldlework> the same way I when I say {lo'e mlatu cu se nelci mi} I actually mean that your average cat is liked by me
10:16 < ldlework> there is no difference
10:16 < zipcpi> No, I think what xalbo wants is something that is basically "1 generalized cat"
10:16 < zipcpi> In PA form
10:16 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Yes, exactly!
10:16 < ldlework> prane
10:17 < ldlework> predicate
10:17 < ldlework> mi viska pa prane mlatu
10:17 < ldlework> or vice versa
10:17 < ldlework> it isn't a description type
10:17 < ldlework> it isn't a different kind of desgination
10:17 < ldlework> that's what gadri are for
10:17 < zipcpi> I'm not sure prane means that
10:17 < ldlework> for denoting actual desgination types
10:17 < ldlework> use your favorite one then
10:17 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Hint: it's not what ldlework is using it as.
10:18 < ldlework> there's nothing you could change about this cat, to make it more cat-like
10:18 < ldlework> its a noun-description
10:18 < ldlework> not a desgination type
10:19 < ldlework> its semantic in the propositional content of the description
10:19 < ldlework> and all consequences of veridicality and such are in play
10:20 < ldlework> the difference in instruction to the listener between how they designate definite descriptions and indefinite description, leads the listener to drastically different referent types
10:20 <@xalbo> You seem to be completely missing the point, but I don't know how to say it in other words that will actually get through to you. Nor have you answered my question: how do you say of {lo'e mlatu} that it {se tuple vo da}, without accidentally asserting {vo da tuple lo'e mlatu}, that there are four things in the UoD that are legs of a typical cat (same structure as "There's one guy who likes cats")
10:20 < ldlework> this is why we create gadri, major articles for our noun phrases
10:20 < zipcpi> exp: zveridikaliti
10:20 < mensi> (CU [zveridikaliti VAU])
10:20 < ldlework> to denote different desgination types
10:20 < ldlework> not to encodify a predicate we'd like easy access to
10:21 < zipcpi> {x1} should not be discussed. Ever.
10:23 < gleki> i agree that such lo'e ze'ei pa would be fine although personally i prefer tags which expand similarly to predicates.
10:23 < ldlework> xalbo: we already solved this
10:23 < ldlework> lo'e mlatu se tuple lo vomei
10:23 < gocti> Is {ro lo'e} too hacky?
10:23 < ldlework> You are introducing a superflous description with vo da
10:23 <@xalbo> gocti: {ro lo'e} is exactly what I started with.
10:24 < ldlework> ro lo'e is non-sensical
10:24 < ldlework> there are no referents with lo'e
10:24 < ldlework> lo'e ro mlatu perhaps
10:24 < ldlework> but lo'e mlatu already gives your listener the sense they need to understand you
10:25 < ldlework> lo'e broda cu brode => "The speaker is generalizing brode, about ro le broda"
10:25 < ldlework> if you're trying to tell me that you think brode is inherent to ro le broda by definition
10:25 <@xalbo> What if I want to say {ro lo'e mlatu cu se rirni pa fetsi}? Having to bounce through {mei} or {ckaji lo ka} or other hacks is pretty lousy.
10:25 < ldlework> you can assert with lo'i
10:26 < ldlework> lo'e mlatu cu se rirni pa fetsi, is already a sufficient generalization
10:26 < ldlework> if you want a stronger one, use lo'i
10:26 < ldlework> because {ro mlatu cu se rirni pa fetsi} is ultimately false
10:27 < ldlework> it is a probably-not-true platitude
10:27 < ldlework> so you get to say that same platitude, safely, by just using lo'e
10:27 < ldlework> that's what lo'e is for
10:27 < ldlework> for saying things you'd otherwise just use ro for in a non-serious tone
10:27 < ldlework> its a non-pinky-swearing ro
10:27 < ldlework> that's why it has no real referents
10:27 < ldlework> or in your mind
10:27 < zipcpi> I think what xalbo wants in {lo'e ze'ei pa} is something that takes the "cat-blanket", and produces something that for all logical/scope purposes, number one, and exactly one, even though it's not any particular cat
10:27 <@xalbo> {lo'e mlatu cu se rirni pa fetsi} is exactly the same as {pa fetsi cu rirni lo'e mlatu}, there is just one female who is the mother of all cats (or at least, the mother to typical cats, or whatever)
10:28 < ldlework> it iterates over an unspecified subset of the real-world referents
10:28 < ldlework> right
10:28 < ldlework> you'd need a lo'e description for fetsi too
10:28 < ldlework> now fetsi doesn't have any referents either
10:29 < ldlework> It tells us what kind of thing, in general, is the mother of cats, in general
10:29 <@xalbo> zipcpi: I think you're understanding me exactly.
10:30 < ldlework> lo'e pa mlatu seems sufficient
10:30 <@xalbo> ldlework: I understand you. You either don't understand me, or you're being obtuse. I'm honestly having trouble knowing which.
10:30 < ldlework> I'm generalizing about Single Cats
10:30 <@xalbo> I know what you're doing. But it's not addressing what I'm asking for.
10:31 < ldlework> a cute japanese girl exclaims: lo'e pa mlatu cu no roi banzu iu!
10:31 < ldlework> "An Individual Cat is never sufficient."
10:32 < ldlework> If you're trying to ascribe actual bloody legs, to a lo'e description you will fail.
10:32 < ldlework> unless you simply mean to denote that the legs are cat legs, and not identify some referent to which they belong
10:32 < ldlework> because that's the actual result
10:33 < ldlework> sorry if I don't understand you
10:33 < ldlework> I far more enjoy when we understand each other than not
10:34 < zipcpi> Should I call it pa'o'e and pa'o'i?
10:34 <@xalbo> I'm trying to say "Cats have four legs", that is "the typical cat has four things such that they are its legs". Which requires a scope change for the {vo da} to go under. Which means I need a quantifier.
10:35 <@xalbo> I don't want to cheat with {mei} or {ckaji lo ka}. I could do that, but it's missing the point.
10:35 < ldlework> I think the problem is that
10:36 < ldlework> you're miscounting how many descriptions are introduced in: "there are four things such that they are the legs of lo'e mlatu"
10:36 < ldlework> and that's why mei isn't a hack, but the only way to correctly express this statement
10:36 < zipcpi> pa'o'e : PA5 : generalizing quantifier. Numbers one, and exactly one, for all logical/scope purposes, but refers to the general case rather than any particular referent.
10:36 < ldlework> when you say {lo'e broda cu brode lo vomei} there is only 1 referring description.
10:37 < zipcpi> xalbo: Feel free to change give me a better definition if you think of one
10:37 < ldlework> when you use da, you erroneously introduce a referring description that /makes no sense/ since you're predicating it with an indefinite reference
10:38 < zipcpi> pa'o'i : PA5 : essentialistic quantifier. Numbers one, and exactly one, for all logical/scope purposes, but refers to the essentialistic / description-model case, rather than any particular referent.
10:38 < ldlework> Those 4 legs are the legs of Cats. is what you get
10:38 < zipcpi> There I'm now Curtis :p
10:38 < ldlework> vs "4 is the number of Cat's Legs"
10:39 < ldlework> zipcpi: except that when I say "{lo'e mlatu cu se nelci mi}" I am already making a claim about the essentialistic case rather than any particular referent :/
10:40 < zipcpi> He wants to be able to treat it as "one generalized cat" for his logical/scope purposes
10:40 < zipcpi> I say we just let him
10:40 < zipcpi> It's not that {lo'e} is useless
10:41 < gleki> I think what xalbo wants in most languages isnt expressed using numbers.
10:41 < zipcpi> *It's not as if he's suggesting it to replace all our {lo'e}
10:42 <@xalbo> gleki: In most languages, {ro mlatu vo da cu se tuple} isn't expressed in that way at all either. FOPL is sort of a defining feature of Lojban.
10:42 < ldlework> The problem is that he's using the wrong logical form, for the semantic content he wants to express.
10:43 < gleki> xalbo: i just mean if its hard for people to understand that and since {[lo] PA broda} is expanded to relative clauses anyway then why not use a tag instead?
10:43 < gleki> lo re mlatu = lo mlatu poi remei
10:45 <@xalbo> I'm saying that {ro mlatu cu melbi}, {so'a mlatu cu melbi}, {lo'e mlatu cu melbi}, {ro mlatu vo da tuple}, {so'a mlatu vo da tuple} are all fine, (though the {ro} cases are false), but when we want to talk about {lo'e mlatu} and how many legs it has, we suddenly need to change our construction completely because we're not talking about real legs or something.
10:45 < ldlework> lo'e vo tuple creates no referents
10:46 < ldlework> but it idealizes Four Legs as a thing
10:46 < ldlework> like
10:46 < ldlework> lo'e vo tuple cu dukse
10:46 < ldlework> "Four Legs is too much."
10:46 < ldlework> The problem is that you merely want to mention the number of legs cats have
10:46 < ldlework> You do not want to create a referring description, that designates some legs
10:47 < ldlework> And ascribe them to Cats.
10:47 < ldlework> Because that's nonsense
10:47 < ldlework> And you don't want to ascribe Four Legs to Cats
10:47 < ldlework> You want to mention how many legs Cats have.
10:47 <@xalbo> Fuck it. ca'e {lo'e} has a referent, and it's referent is my mental image of the typical cat. Therefore, {ro lo'e mlatu} is just fine, it iterates over all the referents of {lo'e mlatu}, that is, all the things I think of as typical cats. Done.
10:47 < ldlework> There's only one description.
10:47 < ldlework> Cats.
10:48 < zipcpi> Then what would re lo'e mlatu mean?
10:48 < ldlework> zipcpi: he can't divorce the act of generalizing about cats, with iterating over actual cats.
10:48 < ldlework> by re lo'e he just means what we mean by lo'e
10:49 <@xalbo> zipcpi: That's an interesting question. {no} and {ro} are obvious. Let me first think about {pa lo'e mlatu}, before I generalize further.
10:49 < zipcpi> You know all the talk about Mr. Broda? Maybe that's what our {lo'e} really is :p
10:49 < ldlework> It is.
10:49 < zipcpi> Mr. Mlatu
10:49 < zipcpi> Only one Mr. Mlatu
10:49 < ldlework> all Mr Mlatus...
10:50 < ldlework> Because in your eye, Mr Mlatu is a standin, for real cats, that are subjectively caty enough
10:50 <@xalbo> To the extent that it makes a difference, "each" instead of "all".
10:50 < ldlework> But that's not what Mr Mlatu does.
10:51 < zipcpi> You're still thinking of {ro}. My point with defining {lo'e} this way is so that we *don't* have to use {ro} where it's probably wrong
10:51 < gleki> xalbo: you want {PA mlatu cu se tuple}, right? so you take {ro mlatu} and then calculate an average cat our of them thus getting your lo'e ze'ei pa?
10:51 < zipcpi> Or worse, {ro'oi}
10:52 < ldlework> my point is
10:52 < ldlework> if you understand what a generalization is
10:52 < ldlework> lo'e is already "ro lo'e"
10:53 < ldlework> .i lo'e broda cu brode => .i ka'u si se'o si ba'a si ju'a ro si so'i si su'o da poi broda cu brode
10:55 < ldlework> some ambiguous subset with unspecified subjective size of the super-set of all actual referents of the description "broda", in some subjective certainty, brode
10:55 < ldlework> depending on how generalizing I want to be
10:55 < ldlework> if anything, external quantifiers specify how generalizing you want to be
10:58 <@xalbo> The difficulty is just that grammatically, {lo'e} doesn't introduce a new scope, while your {PA si PA si PA da poi broda} does. That's why I wanted the PA in the first place. I know the semantics of what you want, so please stop telling that what I want is nonsense.
10:59 < ldlework> right, but you only ever need pa lo'e
11:00 < ldlework> be cause a pa lo'e generalizes about so'i le
11:00 < ldlework> so treat it as Mr Broda?
11:00 < gleki> how thus new PA interact with normal PA like {pa}?
11:00 < gleki> how this new PA interact with normal PA like {pa}?
11:00 < zipcpi> We might not need new PA at all
11:00 < zipcpi> Just use {pa lo'e}
11:01 < gleki> {pa LE} has a different scope
11:01 < gleki> it just doesnt have any scope
11:01 < gleki> since only variables have it
11:01 < gleki> and tags
11:01 < gleki> (+ po'o/ji'a maybe)
11:01 < zipcpi> za'a I don't understand scope at all
11:01 < gleki> and {pa LE} is a constant.
11:02 < ldlework> xalbo: I'm sorry if I'm frustrating you, I don't intend it
11:02 < zipcpi> Isn't pa le mu prenu -> pa da poi me le mu prenu?
11:02 < zipcpi> At the risk of using {da} yet again
11:02 < ldlework> zipcpi: that's the point, new scope
11:03 < ldlework> two da
11:03 <@xalbo> I am frustrated, but I don't blame you.
11:03 < ldlework> pa da poi me mu de poi prenu
11:03 < ldlework> one is the outer, one the inner
11:04 < ldlework> xalbo: I admit to focusing on ensuring the semantic is preserved at perhaps some cost to my capacity to reason about your scoping issue
11:04 < ldlework> I'll try better.
11:05 <@xalbo> It's sometimes possible to broaden a semantic so that it satisfies the original use-case and additional ones at the same time.
11:05 < ldlework> I'm just suspicious that what you're getting at is encapsulated already. That's not a reassertion.
11:09 < ldlework> xalbo: does it help, if lo'e introduces a {pa} scope?
11:09 < ldlework> IE, you can't quantify lo'e, it is always quantified as "pa lo'e"
11:09 < ldlework> as in The One Target of Generalizations About Cats
11:10 < gleki> can anyone finally define this lo'e in pure Lojban?
11:10 < ldlework> gleki: sure I kind of did
11:10 < gleki> ldlework: e'o do za'ure'u cusku
11:10 < ldlework> .i lo'e broda cu brode => .i ka'u si se'o si ba'a si ju'a ro si so'i si su'o da poi broda cu brode
11:11 < gleki> oisai
11:11 < gleki> i'enaisai
11:11  * ldlework shrugs.
11:11 < ldlework> The logical form is fine.
11:11 < ldlework> So you're just waving your hand about the semantic
11:11 < gleki> nasai srana lo xokaumei
11:11 <@xalbo> If it introduces a new {pa} scope, then it probably does do what I want. Both {pa remna no'u la .bab. cu nelci lo'e mlatu} and {lo'e mlatu vo da se tuple} seem valid, then. (One human, Bob,loves Cats. Cats have four legs.)
11:13 < ldlework> So all indefinite descriptions in lojban introduce pa scope.
11:13 < ldlework> je'e
11:13 < gleki> here is another vision of lo'e. {lo'e broda} = {lo na'o broda}. so'i is plain wrong imo
11:13 < zipcpi> One that is typically a cat?
11:14 < ldlework> yeah that doesn't seem the same
11:14 < ldlework> gleki: it isn't about su'o or so'i directly
11:14 < gleki> oh there was one more with {fadni}
11:14 < ldlework> the actual subjective quantifier is irrelevant to the foundation of the categorical existence of generalizations
11:15 < ldlework> how general you're being is secondary to being general in the first place
11:15 < gleki> ldlework: because "archetypical" is not about so'i but about median or average value
11:15 < zipcpi> I just don't think sumtcita work that way
11:15 < ldlework> gleki: sure, so by default generalizations apply to maybe 50% of the real population
11:15 < gleki> how should they?
11:15 < ldlework> But chosing 50% is unimportant
11:15 < zipcpi> They are "adverbs", they modify the selbri
11:15 < ldlework> zipcpi: I think they mean something like
11:16 < ldlework> lo mu'i mlatu => lo mlatu poi mukti, or some crazy shit
11:16 < zipcpi> lo na'o broda = zo'e noi na'o broda = "Something that is typically a broda"
11:16 < ldlework> kind of like lo mi mlatu => lo mlatu pe mi
11:16 < zipcpi> So no, sumtcita just doesn't do what we want
11:16 <@xalbo> {lo na'o broda} is something such that it {na'o broda}. All cats {na'o mlatu}, even the ones that have only two legs.
11:17 < ldlework> u'i
11:17 < ldlework> ie
11:17 < ldlework> in fact, all cats, likely roroi mlatu
11:17 < ldlework> and so, this is not what is meant by lo'e
11:17 <@xalbo> Werecats!
11:17 < ldlework> heh
11:17 <@xalbo> (There cats. There castle.)
11:18 < ldlework> woah
11:18 < ldlework> is that the etomology of 'werewolf'?
11:18 < ldlework> "/were/ wolves"
11:18 < ldlework> or something
11:18 < zipcpi> No.
11:18 < ldlework> heh ok
11:18 < zipcpi> It's from an old word for "man"
11:18 < zipcpi> man-wolf
11:19 < ldlework> xalbo: are we scope safe, by making indefinite gadri introduce pa scope?
11:19 < ldlework> any counter examples, or other concerns?
11:20 < zipcpi> Do all gadri introduce xo'e scope?
11:20 < zipcpi> You know I kinda like how xo'e sounds like .xorxes. :p
11:20 < ldlework> zipcpi: well assuming all definite descriptions are quantified by default
11:20 < ldlework> with either, ro, or su'o
11:21 < ldlework> and all gadri no matter which one you pick, has a logical form of da poi, then I'd say yes?
11:21 < ldlework> also, I do like xo'e over pa
11:21 < ldlework> for describing the kind of scope that indefinite descriptions create
11:23 <@xalbo> Um, one of the big features of xorlo was that it removed all implicit quantifiers. And I'm pretty sure {lo mlatu} doesn't introduce a new scope, unless you're changing that, too.
11:23 <@xalbo> (and if you are, you're probably breaking other things in the process)
11:24 < ldlework> xalbo: well I'm just basing that off the practical observation of conversation maximility
11:24 < ldlework> but I guess that isn't really represented in the grammar or logical form
11:24 < ldlework> only the interpretation of unquantified descriptions
11:25 < ldlework> xalbo: why does lo'e logically nessecitate a default scope, but /definite/ descriptions do not?
11:27 < ldlework> seems strange
11:28 <@xalbo> I'm not sure that {lo'e} logically necessitates one by default, I merely said I really wished i could get one. And I can get one with definite descriptions, because no one ever said there was anything wrong with {ro le}.
11:30 < ldlework> xalbo: but you agree that semantically, sensibly, performing the same iteration of ro le's easily understandable referents, and iterating over something which by definition doesn't refer to any thing at all, seems strange
11:30 < ldlework> xalbo: is xo'e lo'e okay?
11:31 <@xalbo> {ro le}'s referents are easily understandable, but I'm not convinced that the only mental model under which {lo'e} can operate is one in which we can't make sense of {PA lo'e} for the right PA.
11:32 < ldlework> If the PA is xo'e then the sense I make of it, is a non-semantic grammatical mechanism for understanding referents other than the lo'e one.
11:32 < ldlework> But nothing to do with anything related to that which the lo'e description designates.
11:33 <@xalbo> It almost sounds like you want {tu'o}.
11:33 < ldlework> interesting
11:33 < ldlework> xalbo: could you find yourself throwing a tu'o infront of a generalization, to help with the scoping of other descriptions?
11:35 <@xalbo> I'd have to think about it. {tu'o} as outer quantifier has emotional baggage for me; it was once used or proposed a lot for some of the mass-ier/bergu-ier uses of xor{lo}.
11:35 <@xalbo> (Which is a stupid reason to reject it, but I have to rethink what it does mean.)
11:38 < ldlework> I think that if you can reason about two different Catiness-es, then quantified indefinite descriptions make sense.
11:38 < justeno> what is the difference between cusku and tavla in meaning? Is it just the x1/x2/x3 change?
11:38 < ldlework> To me, if there are to Catness-es, and they have all the same properties and meaning for any da that may mlatu, then there is only really One Catness
11:39 < ldlework> But we still need to work under the influence of linguistic scope, so tu'o becomes the PA that reflects the nature of an indefinite description
11:39 < ldlework> vs all the other numbers which refelct the nature of definite descriptions
11:39 < ldlework> I think its a great insight by you
11:41 < ctefa`o> justeno: cusku lets you say what is expressed explicitly
11:42 <@xalbo> I think that's the big one, yeah. {tavla} has a topic, it's a longer, likely more interactive session. {cusku} has explicit text, it's one particular instance of communication.
11:42 < justeno> ctefa`o: yes, but "mi cusku" and "mi tavla"
11:42 < justeno> what's the difference?
11:43 <@xalbo> It's rare for one to be true and the other not.
11:44 < ctefa`o> "I talk to you" vs. "I say X to you"
11:44 < ctefa`o> Basically
11:45 < justeno> no 'do' is implied. Simply "I talk" and "I say". I guess there really isn't much difference, just like in English. The further usage is, but those phrases by themselves, not much
11:46 < justeno> I'm starting http://www.memrise.com/course/17295/gismu-frequency-order/1/ and both those words came up, so I was curious
11:46 < justeno> thanks for the help
11:48 < gleki> justeno: see the full definition: in {tavla} you talk ABOUT something, discuss something. where as in"to say" you say some text.
11:58 < gleki> jb:skicu
11:58 < mensi> skicu = skicu — x1(entity)  tells about, describes  x2(entity)  to  x3(entity)  with description  x4(proposition)
11:58 < mensi> :lo skicu — describer. lo se skicu — described, told about. lo ve skicu — description.
11:58 < mensi> :le gidva pu skicu fi mi'a fe lo nu mi'a cliva ca lo lerci vau lo nu lo aftobuso pu'o tsuku — The guide explained to us
11:58 < mensi> that we would leave later in that the bus hadn't yet arrived.
11:58 < mensi> :mi pu skicu lo cinri lisri lo mi panzi — I told an interesting story to my child.
11:58 < mensi> :Comment: skicu is to tell, cusku is to say, tavla is to talk, cusku lo notci is to notify.
11:58 < mensi> :Related words: lisri, tavla
11:58 < gleki> 11:58 < mensi> :Comment: skicu is to tell, cusku is to say, tavla is to talk, cusku lo notci is to notify.
12:15 < ldlework> gleki, jungau to notify
12:25 < ldlework> Are all existing gadri, definite? va'i existential?
12:25 < ldlework> Even "lo broda" asserts that there is something that broda's.
12:25 < ldlework> typically.
12:26 < zipcpi> Well, if lo'e broda cu brode, there probably is a pa da poi broda je brode
12:26 < ldlework> But is it distinguished from le only in the deixis semantic
12:26 < ldlework> zipcpi: but there doesn't have to be
12:26 <@xalbo> Do you mean "importing" (having existential import, requiring that referents exist)?
12:26 < zipcpi> Oh right the whole
12:26 < zipcpi> If all doctors in the world died
12:27 < zipcpi> And you fell sick
12:27 < ldlework> xalbo: right, precisely.
12:27 < zipcpi> You can still say {mi nitcu lo'e mikce}
12:27 < ldlework> zipcpi: you could never tell me to go to the, or a doctor.
12:27 < ldlework> But we can still generalize about doctors
12:27  * zipcpi nods
12:27 < zipcpi> Mr. Broda is immortal then :p
12:28 < ldlework> Of course it is
12:28 < ldlework> And certainly lo'i broda is too
12:28 <@xalbo> I think xorlo removed that from {lo}. Search the archives for {pavyseljirna}, but be sure to besto up first.
12:28 < ldlework> Okay so lo really is the definite/indefinite article :P
12:29 < ldlework> that might help with not having to reinterpret usage differently
12:29 < zipcpi> I am slightly worried about {loi}
12:29 < ldlework> since lo persists in being the definite/indefinite article
12:29 < zipcpi> It's probably the most used one that we are changing the definition significantly of
12:29 < zipcpi> But probably also the most misused one
12:29 < ldlework> oh I'm not too worried about the actual changing of gadri
12:29 < ldlework> talking about them, with the allocations we've made, is non-veridical
12:30 < ldlework> :)
12:30 < zipcpi> lol
12:30 < ldlework> its important that the conceptulization of each is cromulent
12:31 < zipcpi> I am probably still going to use them. At the very least I will continue my horrible misuse of {lo'e} and {lo'i}
12:31 < ldlework> me too
12:31 < zipcpi> And not even pretend to misunderstand {le'i}
12:31 < ldlework> but in the same way I use je for all conjunctives
12:32 < zipcpi> lol As far as I'm concerned je is official. I'm a believer in level-3
12:32 < ldlework> :D
12:32 < ldlework> we have people in the BPFSFSPFK so we don't need to play dirty anymore
12:32 < ldlework> we only have to convince our peers
12:32 < zipcpi> Huh?
12:32 < zipcpi> You mean the actual BPFK?
12:33 < zipcpi> Who have we convinced?
12:33 < ldlework> yeah, however its spelled these days
12:33 < zipcpi> Erm, maybe you got it confused with my joke group, the BSFK :p
12:33 < ldlework> zipcpi: each other, durka said he tentatively likes the model, xalbo only seems to have scoping concerns, he *seems* okay with the semantic framework
12:33 < ldlework> zipcpi: ah yeah
12:33 < zipcpi> BSFK = bauspo fazykamni
12:33 < ldlework> je'e
12:33 < zipcpi> "Language Destroying Annoying Group"
12:33 < ldlework> heh
12:34 < zipcpi> Here: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni/en
12:34 < ldlework> I'm hoping our paper will cover most everything related to this conversation, so that perhaps even people like selpa'i come aboard
12:34 < ldlework> especially since they don't need to change their usage at all
12:34 <@xalbo> The semantic framework is good. The idea of redefining all the gadri in non-backwards compatible ways seems like a huge non-starter to me. Way too "burn everything to the ground and start over". But I didn't feel like yelling about that.
12:35 < ldlework> xalbo: Yeah, no doubt.
12:35 < ldlework> Though xorlo gave us something much less well-defined and we started over there.
12:35 <@xalbo> I'm also still concerned that it's changing things even more than they need. Like ignoring {le'e} and reinventing it from scratch under a different name.
12:35 < ldlework> I really don't think le'e is the same as lo'i
12:36 < zipcpi> Yeah le'e has too much of that non-veridical baggage
12:36 < ldlework> also, it just makes conceptual sense for the indefinite gadri to follow some sort of series, and the definite gadri to follow a different series
12:36 < ldlework> the allocations we've made are partially informed by that desire
12:36 < ldlework> so that there is simply a symmetry in allocation
12:36 <@xalbo> {le'e} isn't non-veridical. It doesn't have anything to do with veridicality, any more than {lo'e} does.
12:36 < ldlework> nothing more
12:37 < ldlework> so it doesn't matter what cmavo is, as long as we agree on the semantic
12:37 < zipcpi> And here's the score really
12:37 < ldlework> lo'e is simply more intuitional as being indefinite than le'e would
12:37 < ldlework> we WOULD ideally use lo for lo'e
12:38 < ldlework> and make it perfectly symmetrical in allocation
12:38 < zipcpi> lo / le / lei; largely unchanged. All we did was tightened up le / lei so it's no longer just "malglijbo for "the""
12:38 <@xalbo> If you think that the semantics of your {lo'i} are different from the semantics of CLL-{le'e}, then either you or I misunderstand at least one of those two.
12:38 < ldlework> but obviously, doing that, even for demonstration purposes would be simply confusing
12:38 < ldlework> xalbo: li'a
12:39 <@xalbo> (Also, I'm pretty sure you're using "definite" to mean something different from what "definite" means wrt to articles in every other language.)
12:39 < zipcpi> There's never going to be a one-to-one correspondence
12:39 < ldlework> xalbo: I've been doing nothing but reading literature on the subject for a week now, and lots in the past
12:39 < zipcpi> Natlangs are full of idiomatic usages and cases that use their articles in ways that don't make logical sense
12:40 < ldlework> Yes, even "the" in english is not simple the english "the"
12:40 < ldlework> simply*
12:40 < ldlework> as we call it, to call out supposed abuse of le
12:41 < ldlework> xalbo: by definite we mean, "identifiable"
12:41 < zipcpi> lo'e... probably slightly misunderstood? I don't see how the BPFK examples conflict with my usage of it though
12:41 <@xalbo> I need to go now. Talk to you tomorrow.
12:41 < ldlework> Definite referring expressions refer to an identifiable individual or class (The Dalai Lama; The Coldstream Guards; the student with the highest marks), whilst indefinite referring expressions allow latitude in identifying the referent (a corrupt Member of Parliament; a cat with black ears - where a is to be interpreted as 'any' or 'some actual but unspecified').
12:42 < ldlework> This is the same division we define.
12:42 < zipcpi> The problem is that I would normally agree with "just invent new cmavo", but there is no room
12:42 < ldlework> anything left of lo, is a definite referring expression
12:42 < ldlework> anything right of lo, is an indefinite referring expression
12:42 < zipcpi> There are 4 we are redefining, and 2 we're making up
12:42 < zipcpi> And it has to fit with the current system somehow
12:43 < ldlework> mo'oi even feels strange as a gadri
12:43 < ldlework> but its utility is so awesome, that's okay
12:43 < ldlework> and m makes me think of ma and mo
12:43 < zipcpi> Actually that's why I made it so weird, so it sticks out
12:43 < zipcpi> Also it's a bit like ma noi
12:43 < ldlework> But lets say we define all these gadri as strange cmavo
12:43 < ldlework> then we adopt them all
12:44 < ldlework> now the language is disgusting aesthetically
12:44 < ldlework> \o/
12:44 < zipcpi> Then the BSFK's work is done :p
12:44 < ldlework> u'i
12:44 < ldlework> lV('V) just speaks "gadriiiiiii"
12:44 < zipcpi> You've seen my page yet?
12:44 < ldlework> which
12:44 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni/en
12:45 < ldlework> za'a mi na cmima
12:45 < zipcpi> Well go add yourself. You've already done a lot of work for us :p
12:45 < ldlework> I'll take that as a compliment
12:45 < ldlework> also is there no word for compliment/compliments?
12:46 < zipcpi> e'e zbusufukai bauspo
12:46 < ldlework> and I don't mean mapti
12:46 < zipcpi> lol I just added zandapma but I don't think it has the right sense
12:47 < zipcpi> Oh yes you'd probably want to look up {zbusufukai} as well :p
12:47 < ldlework> zipcpi: we should call the conversation about definite/indefinite The Donkey-Tail problem.
12:47 < zipcpi> lol
12:48 < ldlework> brb
12:53 < ldlework> we need a name
12:53 < ldlework> for the proposal
12:53 < zipcpi> tolxorlo zo'o
12:54 < ldlework> gadysmu
12:54 < ldlework> pei
12:54 < ldlework> though tolxorlo is nice
12:54 < zipcpi> lol
12:54 < ldlework> since it kind of does undo le's deprecation
12:55 < ldlework> xorlorai
12:55 < zipcpi> relxorlo
12:55 < ldlework> ii
12:56 < zipcpi> lol
12:56 < ldlework> gadganzu
12:56 < ldlework> the gadganzu proposal
12:56 < ldlework> pe'i
12:56 < zipcpi> ganzu ki'a
12:57 < ldlework> en: ganzu
12:57 < mensi> ganzu = x1 organizes x2 [relative chaos] into x3 [ordered/organized result] by system/principle(s) x4. |>>> x3 is also a
12:57 < mensi> system; x4 could be merely a function which inherently serves to dictate the organizational structure of x3.  See also
12:57 < mensi> ciste, morna, stura, bilni, cabra. |>>> officialdata
12:57 < zipcpi> lol
12:57 < ldlework> zo'o nai
12:57  * zipcpi nods
12:57 < zipcpi> Yeah I guess that works
12:58 < zipcpi> There is one thing I'm wondering though
12:58 < zipcpi> Say there's an instruction manual
12:59 < zipcpi> And it should say, "First, five people grabs onto a rope"
12:59 < zipcpi> *five people grab onto a rope
12:59 < ldlework> zipcpi: wip: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadganzu_proposal
12:59 < zipcpi> Now we want the five people to be in a mass, to mean that they all grab a rope, not that they grab a rope individually
13:00 < zipcpi> But should we use lei or loi?
13:00 < ldlework> "Five people pulling a rope is an unfair game of tug of war."
13:00 < ldlework> "Five people pulling the rope seem tired."
13:00 < ldlework> has nothing to do with the logical form
13:00 < ldlework> pick the gadri based on what you mean
13:01 < ldlework> so in the case of instruction manual
13:01 < ldlework> loi
13:01 < zipcpi> lo'e nu mu prenu cu lacpu lo skori cu na vudypai co'e co'e
13:01 < ldlework> "The first step involves some 5 people pulling the rope."
13:02 < ldlework> eh
13:02 < ldlework> I don't think you need to definite referentiality for abstractions
13:02 < zipcpi> Actually it makes some sense sometimes
13:02 < ldlework> lo nu loi mu prenu cu lacpu le skori cu na vudypai co'e co'e
13:03 < zipcpi> Is it an event that actually happened or actually could happen, or are you generalizing about the events
13:03 < ldlework> That has nothing to do with referring to the event
13:03 < ldlework> That has to do with the mood, or speech-act denoted in the internal bridi
13:03 < ldlework> lo nu da'i
13:03 < ldlework> etc
13:03 < zipcpi> Generally, (five people pulling a rope) is an unfair game of tug of war
13:04 < ldlework> there are words that change the mood of the internal bridi to reflect that semantic
13:04 < zipcpi> Events of (five people pulling a rope), in general
13:04 < ldlework> you don't need to change the referentiality of grasping at the event
13:04 < ldlework> here's the thing
13:04 < ldlework> the form of {lo NU BRODA} is a logical one
13:05 < ldlework> it denotes a purely logical formation of a propositional content
13:05 < zipcpi> What happens when we ram "nu salci" into "nunsla" then?
13:05 < zipcpi> Does it make sense to talk about lo'e nunsla?
13:05 < ldlework> that's the only sense, I think
13:05 < ldlework> lo NU, is probably always lo'e NU
13:06 < ldlework> You then /predicate/ the abstract event proposition, in a larger bridi
13:06 < ldlework> to assert something about it
13:06 < ldlework> whether it happened, never happened, will happen, and so on
13:06 < zipcpi> No; mi djica lo nu probably is mi djica lo'e nu, but lo nu broda cu se fanmo probably is le nu broda
13:06 < flkjpdsafnal> GO GO POWER RANGERS!!!11
13:06 < ldlework> No
13:06 < zipcpi> Because it refers to an actual event
13:07 < ldlework> mi djica lo nu = mi panca lo nu ba se fasnu lo nunbroda
13:08 < ldlework> you have to understand, what is the referent of "lo nu"
13:08 < ldlework> the referent, is not something that can ever be instantiated, by itself
13:08 < zipcpi> I stopped eating the mango. Now most people would use {co'u} here but lets pretend sumtcita doesn't exist so that we can get on with the example
13:08 < zipcpi> Instead we have to wrap the event "me eating the mango" into an abstraction, then put into {se fanmo}
13:08 < ldlework> zipcpi: the problem might be that you're missing some philosophy here
13:09 < Ilmen> zipcpi: I'd say {tolcfa fa lo nu mi citka lo mango}
13:09 < Ilmen> coi
13:09 < ldlework> coi
13:09 < ldlework> a bridi, regardless of its content, is a pure logical form. It is the strucutre of propositional content, regardless of what that propositional content is.
13:09 < ldlework> consider
13:09 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Yes, that's "correct", but we're arguing over whether lo = lo'e or le, under "our" gadri system :p
13:10 < zipcpi> But nu specifically refers to an event
13:10 < zipcpi> Which has concrete reality
13:10 < ldlework> nu refers to a proposition
13:10 < zipcpi> No that's du'u
13:10 < ldlework> and tells the listener to interpret it as an event in time
13:10 < Ilmen> du'u refers to a proposition
13:10 < ldlework> no
13:10 < ldlework> no
13:10 < Ilmen> en: nundumu
13:10 < mensi> nundumu = x1 is an event/state described by bridi x2 |>>> Predicate version of nu, which is is kind of relation between
13:10 < mensi> a bridi and an event/state. However with a regular predicate version it is possible to access the x2 just like any
13:10 < mensi> regular sumti place. See also nu, du'u. |>>> Ilmen
13:10 < ldlework> all abstraction cmavo denote propositional content, a bridi
13:11 < ldlework> the kind of abstraction cmavo provides a *semantic signal* on how to interpret the propositional content
13:11 < ldlework> there is no such thing as "an event"
13:11 < zipcpi> Yes, it accepts a bridi. But it makes sense to talk about pa nunsla, re nunsla
13:11 < ldlework> or "the event"
13:11 < Ilmen> I've created {nundumu} so that {X nu broda} == {X nundumu lo du'u broda}
13:11 < ldlework> yes, it does, semantically
13:11 < ldlework> IE, related by some external predicate
13:12 < zipcpi> It also makes sense to talk about {remu nu lei mu prenu cu lacpu pa skori}
13:12 < zipcpi> It doesn't matter how long the nu abstraction is
13:12 < ldlework> nu and du'u, *both* refer to raw abstract logical forms, called propositions
13:12 < akmnlrse> coi doi nu lo bensle cu frati
13:12 < zipcpi> nu is an event
13:12 < zipcpi> How does that not have a countable reality?
13:12 < ldlework> they KIND of NU determines the semantic speech act associated with the reference to the propositional content
13:13 < ldlework> IE
13:13 < ldlework> du'u says "assert this proposition"
13:13 < ldlework> nu says "consider this proposition as temporal event"
13:13 < ldlework> ka says "consider this proposition as a property of some external referent"
13:13 < zipcpi> But it makes sense to talk about several events of something happening
13:13 < Ilmen> I'm not sure whether there's really a distinction between events and "objects"
13:13 < zipcpi> It also makes sense to talk about a particular event
13:13 < ldlework> zipcpi: yes, by way of _predicated_
13:13 < ldlework> predication
13:14 < ldlework> "the event of broda, happened"
13:14 < Ilmen> for example, between {lo rirxe} and {lo nu lo djacu cu flecu}
13:14 < ldlework> "the event of broda, will happened"
13:14 < zipcpi> And it also makes sense to generalize about those particular events, in general
13:14 < ldlework> The event of broda that happened yesterday, was funny"
13:14 < Ilmen> {mi} vs {lo nu da mibypre}
13:14 < ldlework> I don't seem to making any headway here
13:15 < zipcpi> Events are concrete realizations of propositions
13:15 < ldlework> but only by way of being predicated
13:15 < zipcpi> Unlike du'u, which just refers to an abstract proposition that has a truth value
13:15 < ldlework> externally
13:15 < ldlework> no
13:15 < ldlework> a du'u does NOT have a truth value
13:15 < ldlework> it only partakes as a noun in a larger assertion
13:16 < ldlework> in which context it has a truth value
13:16 < zipcpi> But being concrete realization, means that it makes sense to speak of one event, two events
13:16 < ldlework> jitfa fa lo du'u ko'a broda
13:16 < ldlework> jetnu fa lo du'u ko'a broda
13:16 < ldlework> the du'u has no truth value
13:16 < ldlework> just like event's have no inherent temporality
13:16 < ldlework> they are only _predicated_ to have happened.
13:16 < zipcpi> What does {nundumu} mean to you then?
13:17 < ldlework> le nu ko'a broda doesn't have any referent until you use this description in some other predication
13:17 < zipcpi> Also {nunsla}
13:17 < zipcpi> Certainly it makes sense to talk about one celebration, two celebrations
13:17 < ldlework> lo nu salci
13:17 < ldlework> yes!
13:17 < ldlework> the celebration, yesterday
13:17 < zipcpi> And to generalize about celebrations in general
13:17 < ldlework> the celebration that happens tomorrow
13:17 < zipcpi> So tell me again why doesn't le / lo'e work with nu?
13:17 < ldlework> the celebration has no inherent temporality
13:17 < ldlework> lo'e works just fine with nu
13:18 < ldlework> because the only meaningful interpretation of lo nu is lo'e nu
13:18 < zipcpi> But what if I want to talk about the celebration that happened yesterday
13:18 < ldlework> then you say
13:18 < zipcpi> I am referring to a particular celebration
13:18 < zipcpi> Not celebrations in general
13:18 < ldlework> The Event poi happened yesterday
13:18 < ldlework> like
13:18 < zipcpi> No, you're going back to poi
13:18 < ldlework> exactly correct
13:18 < zipcpi> How did you like the celebration
13:18 < ldlework> because you're not stating
13:18 < ldlework> The Event happened yesterday
13:18 < ldlework> You're using a relativizing language
13:19 < ldlework> The Event _that_ happened yesterday"
13:19 < ldlework> is a single description
13:19 < zipcpi> Forget that
13:19 < zipcpi> How would you translate
13:19 < zipcpi> "How did you like the celebration?"
13:19 < Ilmen> {lo nu salci ca lo prulamde} is also possible
13:19 < Ilmen> *prulamdei
13:19 < zipcpi> Sorry Ilmen, you're not getting the context of what we're discussing
13:20 < ldlework> xu do nelci lo nu salci poi prulamdei
13:20 < zipcpi> Here let me dig it up
13:20 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
13:20 < Ilmen> zipcpi: Probably, but I thought it could contribute to your debate.
13:21 < ldlework> Okay
13:21 < ldlework> I'm changing my mind
13:21 < zipcpi> Well the thing is you are suggesting we use {lo}. Which is all well and good. But we have basically defined new gadri so that {lo} is just a superset of {le} and {lo'e}
13:21 < ldlework> when you refer to le nu, you are referring to lo'e nu poi
13:21 < ldlework> the unspoken poi context, is the deixis
13:22 < ldlework> sorry, do jinga
13:22 < ldlework> tugni?
13:22 < zipcpi> Or redefined current gadri and/or cleaned up their descriptions
13:22 < zipcpi> Yeah
13:23 < zipcpi> Ilmen: So all we were arguing about is whether it makes sense to talk about {le nu} under the system
13:23 < zipcpi> But yeah
13:24 < ldlework> "the unspoken poi is the deictic context" *
13:24  * zipcpi nods
13:24 < ldlework> I think is how you use that strange word correctly
13:24 < ldlework> le is the "deixis"
13:25 < Ilmen> I'm not sure there's a relevant distinction between an "object" (such as a chair) and an event (such as an event of many atoms being arranged chairwise)
13:25 < zipcpi> Yes... we're done arguing over that now. He now agrees :p
13:25 < ldlework> Ilmen: I agree now
13:25 < Ilmen> so to me, it "le" can apply to objects, I don't really see why it couldn't to events
13:25  * zipcpi nods
13:25 < Ilmen> *if "le"
13:25 < ldlework> indeed
13:25 < ldlework> I was trying to formulate events in time as just being a more specific indefinite reference
13:26 < ldlework> zipcpi: did you read the start of the paper?
13:27 < zipcpi> Sorry, I seem to have lost your link?
13:27 < ldlework> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadganzu_proposal
13:27 < ldlework> Its just an introduction and review so far
13:27 < ldlework> I haven't said anything about our ideas
13:27 < ldlework> I want to write a real paper, that carries the reader to the conclusion and doesn't really assume much at all
13:28 < zipcpi> Mm
13:28 < Ilmen> I wonder to what extend a vague bridi such as "su'o prenu cu sipna" (without spatiotemporal location) can be true or false. It could have been true in the past or elswhere, and be false here and now. Unless it's implicitly "ca su'o de bu'u su'o di"
13:28 < Ilmen> in which case it has no chance to be false
13:28 < ldlework> So I think we should use your page for scratching out the ideas and mine for presenting them
13:29 < ldlework> that's what I mean that propositions mean nothing, they are pure logical form
13:29 < ldlework> only when asserted, with some mood, in some context, do they bear a truth value
13:29 < ldlework> I guess in the same vein
13:30 < ldlework> lo'e events are just compositions of descriptions being predicated
13:30 < ldlework> exactly how facts are
13:30 < Ilmen> Also it could be implicitly "ca zo'e bu'u zo'e"
13:30 < ldlework> until expressed in a context, at which point they inherently become temporal
13:30 < ldlework> lo'e nu morsi cu se badri
13:31 < ldlework> le nu morsi cu se badri
13:31  * zipcpi nods
13:31 < ldlework> no one will ask "who died" to the first
13:32 < Ilmen> Yet morsi1 is "zo'e"
13:32 < Ilmen> there's also «lo si'o morsi», which has something like ce'u in its x1, so that's it's totally abstract
13:33 < zipcpi> Ilmen: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
13:33 < ldlework> you can still introduce a morsi1 there
13:34 < ldlework> the idea she will be gone isn't sad but the prospect of it actually happen does
13:35 < ldlework> in any case the actual distinguishing semantics between the various NU doesn't matter much
13:36 < zipcpi> And if lo si'o = lo'e nu.... well we'd still need lo'e for lo'e mlatu
13:36 < zipcpi> So I'm not so sure what si'o is for then lol
13:37 < zipcpi> Let's completely redefine it zo'o
13:37 < zipcpi> Besides I'm probably just making a grave misunderstanding
13:38 < zipcpi> There are probably senses lo si'o covers that lo'e nu doesn't
13:39 < durka42> it's different
13:39 < ldlework> so'i is just less semeantic than even du'u
13:39 < ldlework> It doesn't become true or false, ever
13:39 < ldlework> It doesn't get a point in time
13:39 < zipcpi> Hm yeah
13:39 < ldlework> It doesn't get ascribed to some extneral referent
13:40 < ldlework> etc etc
13:40 < durka42> the idea of beauty isn't really tied to any typical events of beauty
13:40  * zipcpi nods
13:40 < ldlework> it just wraps up a proposiition
13:40 < ldlework> durka42: ie
13:40 < zipcpi> I was just being silly, also it's late at night
13:40 < ldlework> so now what's the difference between si'u and su'u
13:40 < ldlework> :D
13:40 < Ilmen> Maybe {lo si'o} == {me'ei}
13:40 < ldlework> si'o*
13:40 < zipcpi> su'u? su'u is supposed to be the "general" NU
13:41 < Ilmen> at least in my current usage I treat them the same
13:41 < zipcpi> But pretty much no one uses it
13:41 < ldlework> right su'u is the raw abstractor
13:41 < ldlework> with 0 semantic
13:41 < ldlework> si'o is supposed to be the semantic as interpreted by se si'o
13:41 < Ilmen> actually su'u's semantic is to be defined with su'u2
13:41 < ldlework> right
13:41 < ldlework> but its between du'u and su'u
13:41 < ldlework> in terms of semantic content
13:42 < ldlework> Its se si'o's interpretation of the su'u content of the si'o
13:42 < durka42> su'u is just generic
13:42 < durka42> like lo
13:42 < ldlework> right
13:42 < durka42> you don't know which one it really is
13:43 < ldlework> right, introduces no semantic, so context bears the weight of its usage
13:43 < ldlework> for purposes of interpretation
13:43  * zipcpi nods
13:43 < ldlework> su'u is strange
13:43 < ldlework> err
13:43 < ldlework> si'o
13:43 < ldlework> I feel like it needs an x3
13:44 < durka42> what would you put in x3
13:44 < ldlework> su'u: x1 is the meaning or conceptualization of x2 with regards to the proposition x3
13:44 < ldlework> x2 is the owner of x2
13:44 < ldlework> x1
13:44 < ldlework> worded badly
13:45 < ldlework> sorry
13:45 < ldlework> SI'O
13:45 < Ilmen> exp: je'a
13:45 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [eE] or [oO] but "a" found.
13:45 < ldlework> ffs
13:45 < Ilmen> alta: je'a
13:45 < mensi> ([FA {je'a <FIhA KU> LUhU}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
13:45 < Ilmen> o_o
13:45 < durka42> oi
13:45 < ldlework> lo si'o do morsi be mi bei lo su'u le turni tavla djica do
13:45 < akmnlrse> ie .ei da tadji lo ka spuda tu'a zo je'ai
13:46 < ldlework> si'o seems ill defined
13:46 < durka42> er
13:46 < durka42> I don't get it
13:46 < durka42> you need a kei in there but anyway
13:46 < ldlework> someone's conceptualization of something, invovles two parts
13:46 < durka42> why is there a proposition in x3
13:46 < durka42> the proposition is enclosed by si'o
13:46 < ldlework> what they are conceptualizing
13:46 < ldlework> and their conceptualization of it
13:46 < ldlework> en: sidbo
13:46 < mensi> sidbo = x1 (idea abstract) is an idea/concept/thought about x2 (object/abstract) by thinker x3. |>>> Also (adjective:)
13:46 < mensi> x1 is ideal/ideational.  See also ciksi, jijnu, mucti, jinvi, nabmi, pensi, xanri, cmavo list si'o. |>>>
13:46 < mensi> officialdata
13:47 < ldlework> I doesn't seem to deserve a place as a NU
13:47 < durka42> lo si'o do morsi kei be mi bei lo su'u turni tavla djica do
13:47 < ldlework> you can't predicate a si'o as defined, usefully
13:47 < ldlework> durka42: ki'e sai
13:48 < durka42> = my idea of you being dead … with regards to [something about government, likely typo] wanting to talk to you
13:48 < durka42> help me get to what you mean
13:48 < ldlework> "Your death, is my conceptualization, of the king wanting to talk to you."
13:48 < zipcpi> I have to go... sorry
13:48 < zipcpi> Night
13:48 < ldlework> There has to be something the si'o is a conceptualization _of_
13:49 < ldlework> Unless it is merely denoting _ownership_ of novel ideas?!
13:49 < durka42> I don't understand the english lol
13:49 < durka42> meaning you think I will die if the king talks to me?
13:49 < ldlework> durka42: take a smuni interpration
13:50 < ldlework> or sidbo
13:50 < ldlework> mi tugni le si'o mi'o citka zukte kei be do
13:50 < ldlework> ^ "mere" ownership of novel ideas
13:50 < ldlework> is the best usecase I can think of si'o
13:50 < ldlework> but what a triviality to elevate to status of NU
13:51 < durka42> I mean remember there _is_ an x1
13:51 < durka42> usually we take it away with a gadri
13:51 < ldlework> oops
13:51 < ldlework> right
13:51 < durka42> but there are three "things" to play with
13:51 < durka42> x1, x2, and the embedded bridi
13:51 < durka42> I'm not 100% sure how they map to sidbo's 3 places
13:51 < ldlework> I didn't consider the embedded bridi
13:51 < ldlework> so maybe
13:52 < ldlework> lo su'u prami kei be mi cu drata tu'a do
13:52 < ldlework> Which might not be bad... I guess
13:52 < ldlework> Its kind of like
13:52 < ldlework> getting at the lo'i of the matter
13:53 < ldlework> (my internal modeling of what it means/takes to be a thing)
13:53 < durka42> doi cifnu
13:53 < ldlework> lo'i su'u might be tautological!
13:53 < durka42> ma si'o prami
13:53 < ldlework> my idea of love
13:54 < durka42> mi co'a xamsku .u'u
13:54 < ldlework> "my understanding of love differs from yours"
13:54 < ldlework> Actually, I think lo'i just talks about what it means to be my understanding of the si'o bridi
13:54 < ldlework> suuuuuuper meta
13:55 < ldlework> lo'i su'u prami cu drata tu'a do : "It takes being a different conceptualization of than the one you have, to be my conceptualization of love."
13:55 < ldlework> f
13:55 < ldlework> lo'i su'u prami cu drata tu'a do : "It takes being a different conceptualization of love than the one you have, to be my conceptualization of love."
13:55 < durka42> pe'i mi noi na xabju la .kaliforniias. na kakne lo ka jimpe
13:56 < ldlework> heh
13:56 < durka42> ku'i ja'a jitro la .kaliforniias. do'e la jansu
13:56 < xadbrve> MA SIhO PRAMI
13:56 < xadbrve> :I KO MI NA XRANI
13:56 < xadbrve> :I KO MI NA XRANI
13:57 < xadbrve> BA SU ROI
13:57 < ldlework> ii
13:58 < ldlework> what was that about
13:58 < ldlework> oh
13:58 < ldlework> u'i
14:00 < ldlework> lei'i cladu cu fazgau mi
14:03 < ldlework> It is going to be so hard to fix my pronounciation of e and ei and all embedded forms
14:03 < durka42> mo va'o lo nu da cladu gi'e darno do
14:03 < durka42> xu na cladu
14:03 < ldlework> nibli
14:04 < durka42> oh lei'i is on the other end
14:04 < durka42> I forgot the e/o parallel was destroyed
14:04 < ldlework> its not destroyed
14:04 < ldlework> lei'i is an extenstion of lei
14:04 < ldlework> the demonstrative lei
14:04 < ldlework> "That mass of broda over there"
14:05 < ldlework> durka42: https://gist.github.com/dustinlacewell/b78b3914ff094aa2fc41
14:05 < ldlework> the only annoyance is lo's special place in usage as the null determiner
14:05 < ldlework> so we can't use it in place of lo'e
14:05 < durka42> right
14:05 < ldlework> which would result in a melbi symmetry
14:06 < ldlework> though I'm not sure what the default determiner would be then
14:06 < ldlework> you'd probably want something monosyllabic
14:06 < ldlework> and starts with l
14:06 < ldlework> heh
14:06 < ldlework> sorry li :(
14:07 < ldlework> well I guess there would be some lVV
14:08 < durka42> well you could switch lo and lo'e
14:08 < durka42> if you were making a new language :p
14:08 < ldlework> right
14:11 < justeno> ldlework: do jimpe lo ma se slaka (what languages do you know)
14:12 < ldlework> justeno: you can't do that
14:12 < durka42> do jimpe ma poi se slaka
14:12 < ldlework> you asked, "Do you understand your syllabic-language?"
14:12 < justeno> haha
14:12 < justeno> i just found bangu
14:13 < durka42> bangu is better than selslaka though, yeah :)
14:13 < justeno> i think that would be more appropriate
14:13 < ldlework> justeno: "lo ko'a broda ku" => lo broda ku pe ko'a
14:13 < ldlework> you can also ask
14:13 < ldlework> do jimpe mo'oi bangu
14:13 < ldlework> (which is amazing)
14:13 < durka42> yeah using the new experimental word we've been talking about today
14:14 < durka42> s/no you can't do that/you almost got it, here is a small correction/
14:14 < durka42> :)
14:14 < ldlework> "Which languages do you understand?"
14:14 < ldlework> yeah just a small niggle.
14:14 < justeno> what are "mo'oi" and "ko'a"?
14:14 < ldlework> justeno has been learning very fast
14:14 < ldlework> justeno: mo'oi is like lo, but it asks "Which one?"
14:14 < ldlework> "ko'a" is just a simple generic pro-sumti, like mi and do
14:14 < justeno> though, it is experimental?
14:15 < justeno> (mo'oi)
14:15 < ldlework> justeno: yeah
14:15 < Ilmen> Every CV'VV cmavo is experimental
14:15 < ldlework> justeno: there's a ton of actually useful stuff in the experimental space though
14:16 < ldlework> mo'oi and le'i are two I'm pretty excited about
14:16 < ldlework> li'a
14:16 < Ilmen> mi pu no roi kanpe lo nu ca da su'o de xusra lo du'u de .entuzi tu'a zo le'i
14:17 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:17 < durka42> you wish le'i was in the experimental space :p
14:17 < durka42> ie sai doi ilmen .u'i
14:17 < ldlework> well not _cmavo_ space lol
14:17 < ldlework> Ilmen: u'i
14:44 < ldlework> what's the bot that will tell other people stuff?
14:45 < durka42> mensi but she seems to be on the fritz a bit
14:45 < durka42> probably works
14:45 < durka42> there is also a wild phenny running around
14:45 < durka42> to replace the missing sidju
14:45 < durka42> la vrici cu cizra ca lo ca jeftu
14:45 < ldlework> mensi tell zipcpi definite] Frank The Cat, those cats, the/a cat] lo [Mr Cat, Plato's Cat Statue] indefinite
14:46 < ldlework> oi
14:46 < Ilmen> mensi: doi menli da bu'a
14:46 < mensi> Ilmen: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.menli.gy. di'a cusku da
14:46 < Ilmen> mensi: tell menli de na bu'a
14:46 < mensi> Ilmen: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.menli.gy. di'a cusku da
14:47 < ldlework> mensi: doi zipcpi definite] Frank The Cat, those cats, the/a cat] lo [Mr Cat, Plato's Cat Statue] indefinite
14:47 < mensi> ldlework: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.zipcpi.gy. di'a cusku da
14:47 < ldlework> ki'e menli
14:48 < Ilmen> ŭe la selpa'i da cusku do'e lo mriste
14:50 < ldlework> srana ma
14:50 < Ilmen> mi xusyju'o lo du'u la selpa'i cu ze'a na kibro pilno kei noi simsa lo ka na jetnu mulno
14:50 < Ilmen> *noi simlu
14:51 < ctefa`o> How come "uau" does not work?
14:51 < Ilmen> exp: zo uau
14:51 < mensi> ([zo uau] VAU)
14:52 < Ilmen> does not work in what aspect?
14:52 < ctefa`o> Huh ok
14:52 < ctefa`o> camxes didn't like it
14:52 < durka42> camxes can't deal with unknown cmavo the way it can deal with unknown brivla
14:52 < Ilmen> It is undefined and has no grammar
14:52 < durka42> because it doesn't know what grammar to assign to an unknown cmavo
14:52 < Ilmen> unknown brivla are brivla, and thus have the brivla grammar
14:53 < ctefa`o> Ah ok
14:53 < ctefa`o> But uau is an ok cmavo morphologically right?
14:53 < Ilmen> It is.
14:53 < ctefa`o> nice
14:53 < ctefa`o> Never seen any of that form before
14:53 < Ilmen> exp: zo txrnre
14:53 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "t" found.
14:53 < Ilmen> exp: zo uau
14:53 < mensi> ([zo uau] VAU)
14:54 < ctefa`o> exp: zo iau
14:54 < mensi> ([zo iau] VAU)
14:54 < durka42> unlike the really old parser which will do nearly anything…
14:54 < durka42> yacc: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
14:54 < mensi> (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa /FA'O/)
14:54 < Ilmen> "txrnre" is morphologically invalid, but "uau" is
14:54 < ctefa`o> Lol durka
14:54 < durka42> {uai} has been used occasionally
14:54 < durka42> en:uai
14:54 < mensi> uai = [UI1] attitudinal: friendly/friendishly/amicably/companionship/compatriotship/comradeship - antagonistically/
14:54 < mensi> enemyishly
14:55 < ctefa`o> Ah I recognise that one
14:55 < ctefa`o> but ok, questions answered, ki'e
14:55 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: BTW there is a Lojban vocal chat planned on Saturday
14:55 < Ilmen> (announced on the mriste)
14:56 < ctefa`o> Oh nice where/when?
14:56 < ldlework> Ilmen: you should introduce the idea of incorporating la jbogu'e
14:56 < Ilmen> Zbaga server, Saturday 12:30 UTC
14:56 < ctefa`o> (Really need to practice my hearing comprehension)
14:56 < durka42> oh I might be able to make that one
14:56 < durka42> we'll see
14:56 < nubi> Are there vocal chats often?
14:56 < durka42> have a thing in the afternoon
14:56 < durka42> nubi: most every saturday
14:56 < Ilmen> ldlework: introduce to whom, and incorporating to what?
14:57 < Ilmen> ua nai ru'e
14:57 < ctefa`o> I should be able to attend
14:57 < nubi> That's good to hear
14:57  * durka42 wonders if daylight saving time is over yet
14:57 < ldlework> Ilmen: to those interested in this nunsnu
14:57 < ctefa`o> Not yet afaik
14:57 < ldlework> Ilmen: talk and play, have something to talk about, etc
14:57 < dutchie> not until october...
14:57 < ctefa`o> Or all my time is wong
14:57 < ctefa`o> Wrong
14:57 < ldlework> Ilmen: stretch those canlu valsi
14:57 < dutchie> .uinai no saturdays free all this month
14:57 < ldlework> Ilmen: pei
14:58 < Ilmen> dutchie: Basically if you want to have vocal chats, just ask on IRC if anyone is interested
14:59 < dutchie> .ua this week has been weird though
14:59 < ldlework> co'o jbopre
14:59 < Ilmen> co'o ly
14:59 < dutchie> maybe next week
14:59 < Ilmen> di'ai
14:59 < dutchie> i've been meaning to get singularityviewer up and try visiting la jbogu'e too
15:00 < Ilmen> There are some recordings of Lojban chats here: http://mw.lojban.org/mw/index.php?title=Recordings_of_live_Lojban_discussions
15:00 < durka42> so 8:30 am here
15:00 < Ilmen> But that's probably not a good material for beginners, are there are no transcriptions
15:00 < ctefa`o> Btw is there jbo material for listening to, besides some stuff on la iutub?
15:00 < ctefa`o> Eh
15:00 < durka42> songs and corpus readings on youtube
15:00 < Ilmen> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRL4pzLEMyrUXwcnri_tPZjo1CxgjLger
15:00 < ctefa`o> nvm ilmen did it
15:01 < durka42> oh yeah and that :)
15:01 < durka42> how could I forget la bripre jikca
15:01 < Ilmen> Bripre Jicka have the texts on the video (except the two first episodes)
15:01 < Ilmen> There are also the Corpus Reading series
15:01 < ctefa`o> Oh right bripre jikca
15:03 < durka42> co'ok
15:03 < Ilmen> co'o
15:04 < ctefa`o> co'ok lol, "ok bye"?;)
15:10 < ctefa`o> If I say rirxerma'a what is the first picture that comes to mind?
15:14 < ldlework> the text of the word?
15:15 < ctefa`o> Well. "River-Mountain"
15:15 < ldlework> no I mean,  nm
15:16 < ctefa`o> Is it confusing or is the meaning not that unclear?
15:17 < nubi> I'm missing what it's supposed to be -- a valley?
15:18 < ctefa`o> A mountain with river(s)
15:19 < ctefa`o> (Working with my last name again which is Name of a River + Mountain)
15:23 < ctefa`o> Oh well got to sleep
15:23 < ctefa`o> co'o
16:08 < dutchie> .u'i "The good thing about sumti tcita is that you can use them when you've forgotten the default places of your selbri. Which you will."
16:12 < ldlework> dutchie: in fact, I wish I had time to study the sumti tcita so that I could develop a repoire of them that I use /despite/ my selbri having a similar place
16:12 < ldlework> repitoire*
16:17 < snime> coi
16:18 < snime> Any good lojban news?
16:18 < snime> Did selpahi manage to entice people with the tutor program he was putting together?
16:24 < ldlework> coi
16:41 < la_kristan> what does this mean?
16:41 < la_kristan> mi klaku fi lo nu lo toldi cu mrobi'o uinai
16:41 < la_kristan> mrobi'o
16:41 < la_kristan> it's not in my dictionary.
16:44 < la_kristan> anybody home?
16:44 < la_kristan> ;
16:45  * la_kristan klaku :'-(
16:45 < ldlework> en: mrobi'o
16:45 < mensi> [< morsi binxo ≈ Dead become] 3 da se tolcri: morsi, mrofoi, spita
16:47 < la_kristan> ki'e
16:48 < la_kristan> so princinobeka is crying because the moths died.
16:48 < la_kristan> much sympathy I get from her!
16:50 < John_Doe> Helo
16:51 < John_Doe> Is Lojban worth the effort?
16:58 < la_kristan> I don't know, I've only been learning it for less than a week.
16:58 < ldlework> John_Doe: Some people learn lojban, but not all people learn lojban.
16:58 < ldlework> Therefore, it must be worth the effort to some people.
16:59 < John_Doe> What keeps you at it?
16:59 < ldlework> John_Doe: Its the easiest language ever.
16:59 < John_Doe> You reckon?
16:59 < John_Doe> Easy in what sense? To acquire?
16:59 < ldlework> Ask justeno I taught him the core in like 30 minutes.
16:59 < ldlework> Like two days ago or something.
16:59 < ldlework> doi justeno xu jundi
17:00 < John_Doe> That does make it attractive
17:00 < John_Doe> the concept of a logical language in general is attractive
17:00 < John_Doe> I'm trying to work out if I can commit myself to something like that
17:00 < la_kristan> what keeps me at it? mostly OCPD in my case, I think.
17:00 < John_Doe> lol
17:01 < ldlework> John_Doe: I can teach you enough of the language to talk back to me, in about 45 minutes I think.
17:01 < ldlework> if we focus
17:01 < John_Doe> over irc?
17:01 < ldlework> sure
17:01 < John_Doe> I'm interested
17:01 < ldlework> I should like
17:01 < ldlework> script this
17:01 < ldlework> :P
17:02 < John_Doe> Does lojban meet its goal of being unambiguous?
17:02 < ldlework> John_Doe: if you understand that it means, grammatically unambiguous and not semantically unambiguous.
17:02 < ldlework> then yes
17:02 < John_Doe> Well, I doubt semantcally unambiguous is even possible
17:02 < ldlework> indeed
17:02 < la_kristan> lol
17:02 < ldlework> John_Doe: are you a programmer?
17:03 < ldlework> You get a 15 minute discount if you're a programmer.
17:03 < John_Doe> No, I learnt a bit in the past but I'm not someone who does it as a job or hobby
17:03 < ldlework> Okay no problem
17:03 < ldlework> Do you know any other languages?
17:03 < John_Doe> I speak German okay-ish
17:04 < John_Doe> well, I read it a lot better than I speak it
17:04 < ldlework> John_Doe: okay, try to follow a long with me, I'm going to move fast
17:04 < John_Doe> okay
17:04 < ldlework> Lojban is most easily understood if you contemplate the job of language and the goal of communication
17:05 < John_Doe> mmhmm
17:05 < John_Doe> explain
17:05 < ldlework> To be extremely blunt, it is to somehow refer to things or nouns, and assert relations between them by way of verbs or predicates.
17:05 < justeno> ldlework: i am now (I think you were asking if I was around)
17:05 < ldlework> justeno: that is what I asked :)
17:05 < John_Doe> that's a reasonable definition I suppose
17:06 < ldlework> justeno: I'm about to run through the same lesson with John_Doe that I had with you the other day
17:06 < justeno> awesome
17:06 < ldlework> John_Doe: Lojban, is a great language, because it deals with the job of a language directly, which also makes it good for communication.
17:07 < ldlework> If we take a language's job, to be about nouns and verbs, then nouns and verbs is a good place to start.
17:07 < John_Doe> okay
17:07 < ldlework> Every sentence in lojban, at least to start, all take the same form:
17:08 < ldlework> x1 verb x2 x3 x4 x5
17:08 < ldlework> Verbs in lojban have a strange definition called a "place structure" which specifies the semantics of each of the x places.
17:08 < ldlework> Illustration is best.
17:09 < ldlework> vecnu: x1 sells goods x2 to buyer x3 for price x4
17:09 < John_Doe> kind of similar to how some verbs in german require an indirect object or a reflexive pronoun?
17:09 < John_Doe> but more elaborate
17:09 < ldlework> Sure
17:09 < ldlework> More regular
17:09 < John_Doe> okay
17:09 < ldlework> not 'some verbs' have this structured definition
17:09 < ldlework> all verbs.
17:09 < John_Doe> well
17:10 < John_Doe> makes sense
17:10 < ldlework> OK
17:10 < ldlework> When we stick vecnu into the sentence pattern...
17:10 < ldlework> x1 vecnu x2 x3 x4 x5
17:10 < ldlework> something magic happens
17:10 < justeno> magical*
17:10 < ldlework> [seller] vecnu [goods] [buyer] [price]
17:10 < ldlework> the structure of the sentence takes on semantic meaning
17:11 < John_Doe> seems like it gets rid of a bunch of the "little" words english, german etc use to indictae that stuff
17:11 < ldlework> we now have little semantic slots we can drop in nouns and say that something sells some other thing, to yet some other thing
17:11 < John_Doe> that's actually really handy
17:11 < ldlework> lets learn some basic noun words
17:11 < John_Doe> k
17:11 < ldlework> these are essentially little pronouns
17:11 < ldlework> mi - the speaker
17:11 < ldlework> do - the listener
17:11 < ldlework> ti - this thing right here
17:12 < ldlework> John_Doe: how long did it take?
17:12 < ldlework> because you already know how to say something in Lojban
17:12 < ldlework> go ahead, try it.
17:12 < John_Doe> mi vecnu ti do
17:12 < ldlework> :)
17:12 < ldlework> John_Doe: now
17:12 < ldlework> I can give you a list of verbs
17:13 < snime> valsi jundi
17:13 < valsi> jundi = x1 is attentive towards/attends/tends/pays attention to object/affair x2.
17:13 < ldlework> and you can peruse the list, knowing that you have mi, ti, and do in your pocket
17:13 < John_Doe> okay
17:13 < ldlework> and say a whole mess of things
17:13 < ldlework> thousands of statements involving you and I, and this thing
17:13 < ldlework> because all of those sentences will be formed exactly the same way
17:14 < John_Doe> for each verb do you have to learn what arguments it takes?
17:14 < John_Doe> or look them up
17:14 < ldlework> yes, but for each lexical word you internalize, you get up to 5 semantics
17:14 < ldlework> vs learning 5 lexical words, to get 5 semantics
17:14 < ldlework> each lojban word is a bit harder than any single word
17:14 < John_Doe> but more useful?
17:15 < ldlework> but the semantic places are related, so there is an associative advantage in internalizing the meaning
17:15 < ldlework> so each lojban word, is certainly easier to learn then 5 seperate lexical words
17:15 < ldlework> so overall its cheaper, in my opinon
17:15 < la_kristan> I'll be here, in and out; I'm kinda multitasking.
17:15 < rampre> also, in my experience, the first two or three places of a verb are more important than the last 3 or 2.
17:15 < rampre> and by "more important" i mean used more often.
17:15 < ldlework> yeah or central to the concept
17:16 < John_Doe> that's logical
17:16 < ldlework> okay
17:16 < ldlework> so we're at: Several thousand statements
17:16 < ldlework> lets try to increase how many things we can say
17:16 < ldlework> to millions
17:16 < ldlework> we'll do that by learning how to craft novel nouns
17:16 < John_Doe> okay
17:17 < ldlework> in lojban, to create a novel noun, you actually steal a single semantic from a verb
17:17 < ldlework> we do this by wrapping the verb in "lo" and "ku", to steal the x1 semantic and 'objectify' it
17:17 < ldlework> for example
17:17 < ldlework> if viska's place structure is, x1 visually percieves (sees) x2
17:18 < ldlework> then "lo viska ku" is a what?
17:18 < John_Doe> the person who sees
17:18 < John_Doe> I think
17:18 < ldlework> yes, or more platonically "a seer"
17:18 < ldlework> so what is a "lo vecnu ku" ?
17:19 < John_Doe> the buyer
17:19 < ldlework> the seller
17:19 < John_Doe> wait was vecnu bu
17:19 < John_Doe> ah sell
17:19 < ldlework> vecnu: x1 sells goods x2 to buyer x3 for price x4
17:19 < ldlework> so now you know how to take any verb word, and create a noun from it
17:19 < John_Doe> are there other construction for x2 etc?
17:20 < ldlework> here is a list of the ~1300 core verb words: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/gismu
17:20 < ldlework> We'll get there.
17:20 < snime> lol, he runs while you teach him to walk.
17:20 < ldlework> using what you know, you now have access to about 1300 nouns!
17:20 < la_kristan> yay!
17:20 < ldlework> mixed among an average of 3 semantic places, we're talking a lot of phrases
17:20 < ldlework> John_Doe: okay here's a challenge
17:21 < ldlework> using that list, and using lo ku, pick 3 verbs.
17:21 < ldlework> use one verb as the main verb of the sentence
17:21 < ldlework> create nouns from the x1 place of the other two
17:21 < ldlework> and say your first lojban sentence
17:21 < justeno> A/w 9
17:22 < John_Doe> so all the arguments should be using lo ku?
17:22 < ldlework> right, they have to be, other wise they are verbs, not nouns
17:22 < ldlework> and verbs can't fill the semantic places
17:22 < ldlework> the semantic places of the "main verb" of the sentence
17:23 < John_Doe> what about
17:23 < John_Doe> lo bradi ku bradi lo bradi ku
17:23 < ldlework> It works
17:23  * la_kristan applauds
17:23 < ldlework> okay
17:23 < John_Doe> not extremely meaningful
17:24 < John_Doe> but I figure it parses
17:24 < ldlework> force yourself to pick 3 different ones
17:24 < ldlework> and say something sensible
17:24 < John_Doe> okay, need to scroll through this
17:24 < ldlework> sure
17:24 < la_kristan> sensible? aww, shucks.
17:24 < justeno> the enemy of the enemy is the enemy's enemy?
17:24 < John_Doe> oh, I see
17:25 < John_Doe> I didn't understand the instruction properly at first
17:25 < ldlework> justeno: well it doesn't quite say that, but its close
17:25 < snime> That could be sensible. That seems to parse the same as "The enemey of my enemy is still my enemy"
17:25 < ldlework> John_Doe: My mistake then.
17:25 < ldlework> It says, "some enemy is-an-enemy of some enemy"
17:25 < ldlework> nothing more, nothing less
17:26 < ldlework> it doesn't even tell us if they are the same referent
17:26 < John_Doe> lo gerku ku gleki lo gletu ku
17:26 < John_Doe> is that sensible?
17:26 < la_kristan> vlaste: gletu
17:26 < vlaste> gletu = x1 copulates/fucks/mates/has coitus/sexual intercourse with x2.
17:26 < ldlework> The dog is happy about the fucker
17:26 < ldlework> :)
17:26 < la_kristan> yay.
17:26 < ldlework> wait wait
17:27 < John_Doe> oh, I was going for the dog is happy about fucking
17:27 < ldlework> "The dog is happy about the fucker." - John_Doe's first lojban words
17:27 < snime> lo
17:27 < John_Doe> lol
17:27 < ldlework> John_Doe: right, events are more complicated
17:27 < ldlework> John_Doe: consider this
17:27 < John_Doe> oh, but the x1 argument of gletu would be someone doing something
17:27 < ldlework> [fucker] gletu [fucked]
17:27 < ldlework> exactly
17:28 < ldlework> But great
17:28 < ldlework> you know how to say an uncountable number of things at this point
17:28 < la_kristan> lo mlatu ku gerku
17:28 < la_kristan> a cat is a dog
17:29 < ldlework> John_Doe: would you like to be able to objectify the other places?
17:29 < John_Doe> I suppose so
17:29 < ldlework> Okay so, there is indeed, no other construction like lo - ku that instead provides the other place
17:29 < ldlework> indeed, lo - ku is our only mechanism for performing this verb=>noun transform
17:30 < ldlework> The implication of this then, is that we will need a verb with precisely the x1 we desire
17:30 < ldlework> Which seems strange
17:30 < saigais> co’o
17:30 < ldlework> However, we have a family of articles called SE that allow us to transform the place structure of a verb
17:30 < ldlework> co'o sy.
17:30 < ldlework> Illustration is again easiest
17:31 < ldlework> vecnu: x1:seller sells x2:goods to x3:buyer for x4:price
17:31 < saigais> I need your help guys
17:31 < ldlework> se vecnu: x1:goods is sold by x2:seller to x3:buyer for x4:price
17:31 < saigais> Ithink I’m turning to the esperanto side
17:31 < ldlework> saigais: just a momento
17:31 < ldlework> te vecnu: x1:buyer buys x2:goods from x3:seller for x4:price
17:31 < la_kristan> saigais : ĉu?
17:32 < saigais> jes
17:32 < John_Doe> okay, so similar to active vs passive but more general
17:32 < ldlework> ve vecnu: x1:price is the price for x2:goods bought by x3:buyer sold by x4:seller
17:32 < la_kristan> saigais : mi parolas esperanton.
17:32 < ldlework> John_Doe: each modifer swaps x1 and some other place
17:32 < ldlework> exactly the operation we need
17:32 < rampre> John_Doe: not really active/passive, since x1 and x2 don't aren't always the actor/the acted-upon.
17:33 < ldlework> se x1 and x2, te x1 and x3, ve x1 and x4, xe x1 and x5
17:33 < John_Doe> okay, so the x1 goes to the place of the x that's replacing it?
17:33 < la_kristan> cuz swapping x2 with x3 wouldn't be profitable
17:33 < ldlework> John_Doe: yes
17:33 < ldlework> John_Doe: tell me that "I see the buyer".
17:34 < John_Doe> okay, that's gonna take a sec
17:34 < ldlework> no problem
17:34 < John_Doe> mi viska lo te vecnu ku
17:34 < John_Doe> is that right?
17:34 < ldlework> exactly right!
17:34 < ldlework> wow
17:35 < ldlework> you can say many many many things
17:35 < ldlework> John_Doe: think of a small subject verb object sentence in english
17:35 < ldlework> something from a story or something
17:35 < ldlework> then say it in lojban!
17:35 < saigais> “I like poop"
17:35 < saigais> Mi nelci
17:35 < saigais> ___
17:35 < la_kristan> saigais : ne.
17:35 < saigais> kakne?
17:35 < justeno> la_kristan: mi ankaux
17:36 < John_Doe> hmm
17:36 < ldlework> John_Doe: you just need to find the verbs containing the semantics you wanted to talk about as nouns
17:36 < saigais> Should I learn esperanto before digging into lojban?
17:36 < John_Doe> saigais, I don't think it's necessary
17:36 < ldlework> saigais: justeno came in here the other day asking exactly this
17:36 < justeno> saigais: up to you. i'm learning both at once
17:36 < John_Doe> esperanto is easy though
17:37 < la_kristan> no, you should learn toki pona.
17:37 < John_Doe> trying to think up something to say lol
17:37 < ldlework> John_Doe: just pick a story from an adventure
17:37 < ldlework> who's gonna do something
17:37 < ldlework> what are they gonna do
17:37 < rampre> "the knight fought the dragon"
17:37 < ldlework> and to what?
17:37 < ldlework> exactly
17:37 < ldlework> the wizard held the staff
17:37 < ldlework> so on
17:37 < John_Doe> where can I get more nouns?
17:38 < ldlework> you can just type into the search box above
17:38 < ldlework> but the gismu list is vast
17:38 < saigais> is {kakne} right for poop? or did I forge
17:38 < John_Doe> other than making them
17:38 < ldlework> just use Ctrl-F
17:38 < rampre> John_Doe: there aren't more nouns. there are just verbs.
17:38 < John_Doe> okay
17:38 < ldlework> John_Doe: rampre is exactly correct
17:38 < saigais> I was way wrong nope
17:38 < ldlework> en: kalci
17:38 < mensi> kalci = x1 is a/the feces/excrement/dung/shit of x2 (animal/person); (adjective:) x1 is fecal (matter). |>>> Also crap.
17:38 < mensi> See also ganxo, pinca, vikmi, mabla, festi. |>>> officialdata
17:39 < saigais> .i mi nelci lo kalci
17:39 < saigais> is that right?
17:39 < ldlework> yep
17:39 < saigais> “I like poop”
17:39 < saigais> lol, nice
17:39 < la_kristan> very useful x.X
17:39 < John_Doe> lo sonci ku nelci lo kalci ku
17:39 < John_Doe> is that correct?
17:39 < ldlework> cheater :P
17:39 < John_Doe> lol
17:40 < ldlework> John_Doe: but I think you  get the idea!
17:40 < saigais> do you need lo.ku there?
17:40 < ldlework> John_Doe: try another one, but now use nouns from places other than x1
17:40 < John_Doe> mi sorcu lo kalci ku
17:40 < la_kristan> lo smacu ku nelci lo mlatu ku
17:40 < ldlework> I hurt in the poop.
17:40 < saigais> me too, buddy
17:40 < ldlework> This seems to be a theme tonight.
17:40 < saigais> me too
17:40 < John_Doe> okay
17:41 < la_kristan> not my doing...
17:42 < rampre> saigais: the {lo} is needed. the {ku}s can sometimes be dropped (but this lesson hasn't explained that yet)
17:43 < ldlework> For now, a noun is lo VERB ku
17:43 < deltab> en: sorcu
17:43 < mensi> sorcu = x1 is a store/deposit/supply/reserve of materials/energy x2 in containment x3. |>>> x3 need not be a container,
17:43 < mensi> but could merely be a site/location restriction; e.g. a heap.  The sumti indicates how the supply is identified and
17:43 < mensi> distinguished from other occurrences of the stored x2 that are not part of the store.  (cf. panka; vreji for information
17:43 < John_Doe> lo se tcidu ku nandu mi
17:43 < mensi> storage; sabji for a store or reserve that is not necessarily tied to a site, banxa, panka) |>>>
17:43 < mensi> officialdata
17:43 < ldlework> deltab: ue cai
17:43 < ldlework> you literally are -everywhere- on freenode
17:43 < ldlework> my god
17:43 < la_kristan> however I've long thought that we could greatly reduce cumbersome lexicons just by eliminating (no pun intended) excess synonyms for poop, vomit, and flatulence.
17:44 < saigais> ppsshshhhhhshhh
17:44 < ldlework> la_kristan: and confusing ambiguously fecal situations
17:44 < saigais> Wait, there’s a word for flatulance?
17:44 < rampre> John_Doe: to me that sounds like "the text is difficult"
17:44 < ldlework> saigais: its a constructed language, but its still a human language :)
17:44 < John_Doe> the text (thing that is read) is difficult for me
17:44 < ldlework> yes, that's what it says
17:45 < ldlework> well done
17:45 < rampre> John_Doe: note that this does not imply a particular text (like this irc channel) or a particular reader, or a particular person for who it is hard for.
17:45 < rampre> but we can fill in those blanks.
17:45 < ldlework> ah well
17:45 < deltab> saigais: even if there weren't, one could be made
17:45 < ldlework> there has been a lot of discussion on referentiality lately
17:45 < saigais> Whoops.
17:46 < John_Doe> wait, so am I allowed to use "mi" as the x2 for nandu?
17:46 < saigais> What’s the best way for me to learn lojban? I have a copy of the refgram, but it’s dense and tricky.
17:46 < ldlework> you can use mi anywhere you can fill a semantic place
17:46 < saigais> What do you guys think?
17:46 < ldlework> saigais: participate in free lessons like this one
17:46 < la_kristan> vlaste: vaxykafke
17:47 < vlaste> vaxykafke (components) = vasxu kafke ≈ breathe cough
17:47 < deltab> en: ti nandu mi
17:47 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
17:47 < ldlework> deltab: don't believe you can translate whole statements
17:47 < saigais> ldlework: I missed the start :(
17:47 < ldlework> saigais: it seems you're familiar with the start already however
17:47 < ldlework> saigais: to summarize
17:47 < deltab> oh, I thought I'd seen someone do that
17:47 < ldlework> the main sentence form is: x1 verb x2 x3 x4 x5
17:47 < saigais> I’ve got a little of background, but it still seems dense and tricky
17:48 < ldlework> saigais: well, let me type out some information
17:48 < saigais> and I never learned all the conjunctions
17:48 < saigais> ldlework: feel free to pm if you want
17:48 < ldlework> saigais: err, I'm trying to lecture John_Doe a new speaker
17:48 < ldlework> I could review what you've missed if you'd like?
17:49 < saigais> It’s fine!
17:49 < ldlework> We're starting from scratch
17:49 < snime> The recap might not be the most interesting, but it generally doens't hurt human memory to experience things a few times...
17:49 < ldlework> So we're not very far
17:49 < saigais> Go right ahead, I’ll jump in when I can
17:50 < ldlework> So far we've covered, the basic sentence structure, verb definitions, pro-nouns, noun descriptions with lo - ku, and verb modifications with SE
17:50 < ldlework> right John_Doe ?
17:50 < John_Doe> yep
17:50 < saigais> SE?
17:50 < ldlework> saigais: the SE family of articles lets you modify a verb, to create a new verb, but with a modified place structure
17:50 < ldlework> the modification is switching the x1 with some other place
17:51 < ldlework> for example
17:51 < saigais> ldlework: fa fe fi fo fu?
17:51 < ldlework> no
17:51 < saigais> hmm
17:51 < ldlework> se x1 and x2, te x1 and x3, ve x1 and x4, xe x1 and x5
17:51 < John_Doe> lo se palne ku palci
17:51 < ldlework> are the articles
17:51 < John_Doe> is it meaningful to just put "mi" as the x2 of palci?
17:51 < ldlework> The contents of this platter are evil!
17:51 < ldlework> haha
17:51 < John_Doe> yay
17:52 < John_Doe> lo se palne ku palci mi
17:52 < John_Doe> the contents of the platter are evil by my standard?
17:52 < ldlework> John_Doe: ignore the "by standard" places
17:52 < ldlework> they don't exist
17:52 < John_Doe> okay
17:52 < saigais> ldlework: currently looking up SE in refgram
17:52 < ldlework> saigais: I've just explained them
17:52 < saigais> this book may be dense, but the index is nice
17:52 < John_Doe> what do you mean they don't exist?
17:52 < John_Doe> were they removed from the language?
17:52 < saigais> no
17:53 < saigais> With nothing to fill the place, they are inferred
17:53 < saigais> by the listener
17:53 < saigais> right?
17:53 < rampre> John_Doe: (if i may put words in ldlework's mouth), i imagine he means they are not generally used or useful.
17:53 < ldlework> No, but, they are ill defined, not used much and its a pretty widespread conclusion that they contribute little value for complicating the word in which they appear.
17:53 < John_Doe> lol
17:53 < John_Doe> so they are sort of dying out?
17:53 < ldlework> saigais: yes, if you leave out a noun, it has to be assumed by the listener.
17:54 < ldlework> the listener may conclude, that information is simply not important
17:54 < saigais> SE selma’o are pg 192 in the refgram
17:54 < ldlework> or fill it in, with a likely candidate from the conversation's context
17:54 < saigais> found it!
17:54 < snime> So, the implication of "the contents of this tray are evil" is completely not the same as "this tastes bad" if I am not mistaken
17:54 < ldlework> Its... metaphoral indeed.
17:54 < ldlework> If that's what was meant.
17:54 < snime> valsi taste
17:55 < valsi> 11 results: vrusi, vu'izga, vusyga'e, vusyga'e, smaka, tasta, nelci, crovu'i, krumami, tcetce…
17:55 < saigais> Hm...
17:55 < ldlework> a general 'pleasing' verb is pluka
17:55 < ldlework> en: pluka
17:55 < mensi> pluka = x1 (event/state) seems pleasant to/pleases x2 under conditions x3. |>>> See also rigni, cmavo list pu'a, melbi,
17:55 < mensi> nelci, prami. |>>> officialdata
17:55 < saigais> Wish there were more lojban diagrams / drawings
17:55 < ldlework> lo se palne ku na pluka mi
17:55 < snime> saigais: Contirubte, load up Krita and your wacom tablet and draw them some!
17:55 < rampre> snime is right. palci is only about literally evil/morally bad/etc things. not abstract badness
17:55 < saigais> I suck at drawing!
17:55 < ldlework> "This is not a pleasing platter!"
17:56 < ldlework> :)
17:56 < rampre> i'm not sure the contents of most platters could be considered evil. Could snacks on a tray be evil?
17:56 < saigais> HAUNTED SNACKS!
17:56 < ldlework> rampre: if you nearly choked on an olvie?
17:56 < ldlework> you might yell that out.
17:56 < John_Doe> Could something sentient be the contents of a platter?
17:56 < snime> Baby heads on a plate :(
17:57 < saigais> D:
17:57 < la_kristan> what was the marker for 'have to', btw? i forgot.
17:57 < ldlework> lojban is not a language where you are only allowed to utter statements proved true by logicians
17:57 < ldlework> ei
17:57 < rampre> snime: i don't think the baby heads are evil themselves. the event is, but not the heads.
17:57 < rampre> ldlework: that makes sense.
17:57 < John_Doe> can baby heads be palci?
17:57 < John_Doe> or is only the person who removed the heads palci?
17:57 < la_kristan> some people...
17:58 < John_Doe> or maybe also the act of removing the heads?
17:58 < ldlework> if communication is your goal, you are best served by uttering statements that cause your listener to know what you mean.
17:58 < ldlework> metaphorical or not
17:58 < snime> rampre: point taken, I will have to wait for events to say that this incident of baby heads on a plate is evil. :(
17:58 < ldlework> veridical or not
17:58 < rampre> ldlework: i vote for the next part of the lesson to be event abstractors, if that is within grasp.
17:58 < saigais> ldlework: did you mention the attitudinals?
17:58 < saigais> oh
17:59 < John_Doe> I think I undertand the point of se, te etc
17:59 < ldlework> So unless you are proving some theorem, it is entirely fine to say that you own 1 shoe, even though you own 2.
17:59 < John_Doe> so I'm ready for the next thing
17:59 < ldlework> Okay
17:59 < ldlework> The next thing is a family of words called FA
17:59 < ldlework> this family allows you to easily leave things out of a sentence, or otherwise rearrage the order in which you fufill the place structure of the verb
18:00 < la_kristan> you are palci, for talking about baby heads on a plate!
18:00 < ldlework> firstly
18:00 < John_Doe> okay, sounds useful
18:00 < ldlework> you should know, that by default, the x1 must come before the verb in the sentence
18:00 < John_Doe> yep
18:00 < saigais> oh!
18:00 < saigais> fa fe fi fo fu!
18:00 < ldlework> if you leave it out, the first noun is not x1, but x2
18:00 < ldlework> so what is the meaning of
18:00 < ldlework> vecni ti
18:01 < ldlework> sorry
18:01 < ldlework> vecnu ti
18:01 < saigais> sells that?
18:01 < John_Doe> sell that thing
18:01 < ldlework> not quite
18:01 < saigais> or that sells?
18:01 < John_Doe> well, my translation sounds imperative
18:01 < rampre> someone sells this to someone for some cost
18:01 < ldlework> John_Doe: right
18:01 < ldlework> "that is sold"
18:01 < rampre> ldlework: "this is sold"?
18:01 < snime> "for sale" >_>
18:01 < ldlework> or this, sure
18:01 < ldlework> not for sale, but sold
18:01 < rampre> is ta both "this" and "that"?
18:02 < ldlework> ti is this, ta is that
18:02 < rampre> er, is {ti} "this" and "that"
18:02 < ldlework> tu is that yonder
18:02 < rampre> ok, that is what i thought, thanks.
18:02 < snime> We haven't hit tenses though ...
18:02 < saigais> phew
18:02 < snime> Tense could be contextual...
18:02 < ldlework> Sure, but even in the future tense
18:02 < ldlework> "ti ba se vecnu" this will be sold
18:02 < la_kristan> the dictionary app doesn't recognise the word malglico.
18:02 < ldlework> not this is on sale, or will be on sale
18:02 < rampre> snime: tenses are very contextual. "vecnu ti" means "this is sold" just as much as it means "this will be sold eventually"
18:03 < saigais> la_kristan: it’s slang
18:03 < ldlework> right it always means "sold"
18:03 < ldlework> wherever the event in time takes place
18:03 < rampre> la_kristan: malglico is from mabla glico
18:03 < saigais> la_kristan: means “bad english-like grammar” if I remember correctly
18:03 < ldlework> just because something is to be sold in the future, doesn't mean its on sale now
18:03  * snime ponders the implication of this
18:03 < saigais> oh!
18:03 < saigais> rampre: sorry
18:03 < ldlework> for sale would be something like "ti ka'e se vecnu"
18:03 < ldlework> "this can be sold"
18:03 < rampre> saigais: nothing to apologize for
18:04 < la_kristan> yeah, I was wondering about what the mal was derived from.
18:04 < rampre> la_kristan: i use vlasisku, and it automatically picks out rafsi: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/malglico
18:04 < ldlework> I love teaching lojban.
18:05 < ldlework> John_Doe: how about we tackle translating this sentence
18:05 < saigais> And we love you
18:05 < John_Doe> wait, what were we translating?
18:05 < ldlework> I love teaching lojban.
18:05 < John_Doe> vecnu ti?
18:05 < saigais> ohh, verb phrases!
18:05 < ldlework> vecnu ti means "this is sold"
18:05 < ldlework> John_Doe: are we clear on that example?
18:05 < John_Doe> wait, it's not necessarily in any tense right?
18:06 < ldlework> John_Doe: no, but if you put it in the future, it doesn't change the predicate or meaning of the verb "se vecnu"
18:06 < ldlework> ba vecnu ti : in the future, this is sold
18:06 < John_Doe> okay
18:06 < John_Doe> I get it then
18:07 < ldlework> alright so let's translate, "I love teaching lojban."
18:07 < John_Doe> wait, how do I translate teaching?
18:07 < ldlework> well
18:07 < rampre> ldlework: {mi nelci lo nu ctuca be lojbo}  ?
18:07 < ldlework> you type "teach" into the search box and hope a good word comes up
18:07 < snime> valsi bought
18:08 < valsi> no results. http://vlasisku.lojban.org/bought
18:08 < rampre> valsi buy
18:08 < valsi> 2 results: terve'u, vecnu
18:08 < ldlework> rampre: we'll get there
18:08 < rampre> ldlework: sorry.
18:08 < ldlework> let's help John_Doe join us there
18:08 < John_Doe> do I use "teaching lojban" to fill the x2?
18:09 < la_kristan> .ei mi citka
18:09 < ldlework> John_Doe: that is indeed the thing I love
18:09 < saigais> rampre: How does {be} work?
18:09 < ldlework> saigais: I'll come back to be
18:09 < ldlework> rampre: remind me to cover your guess after
18:09 < rampre> saigais: i don't feel comfortable explaining it.
18:09 < rampre> ldlework: k
18:09 < saigais> .uinai
18:09 < John_Doe> okay, I think I have a guess
18:09 < ldlework> John_Doe: let's hear it
18:09 < John_Doe> what's the se, te word for x3 again, though?
18:10 < ldlework> te
18:10 < John_Doe> oh, right
18:10 < ldlework> For lojbanic series, I recommend making a song for each
18:10 < ldlework> a little melody
18:10 < ldlework> pu ca ba
18:10 < ldlework> ti ta tu
18:10 < ldlework> se te ve xe
18:10 < saigais> pa re mi vo cu xa...
18:10 < ldlework> something trivial
18:10 < saigais> wait no
18:10 < ldlework> just to help you until actual usage internalizes it for you
18:11 < la_kristan> fi, fie, fo, fum, or whatever...
18:11 < ldlework> fa fe fi fo fu
18:11 < ldlework> I smell the blood of an englishman
18:11 < John_Doe> okay, so I'm still not clear how to use ckule and lojban as the x2
18:11 < ldlework> John_Doe: of course not!
18:11 < ldlework> but here's why
18:11 < saigais> pa re ci vo mu xa ze bi so
18:11 < ldlework> Because you are trying to wrap up, not just a single place of some verb, into a noun
18:12 < ldlework> You are trying to wrap an entirely different sentence!
18:12 < la_kristan> but I have to eat dinner...
18:12 < la_kristan> co'o
18:12 < ldlework> Consider, "I love teaching lojban."
18:12 < rampre> co'o la_kristan
18:12 < ldlework> I love: what?
18:12 < saigais> co’o ly.
18:12 < ldlework> "teaching lojban"
18:12 < John_Doe> how do I drop the x2?
18:12 < ldlework> In lojban, how would you express this subsentence?
18:12 < John_Doe> because lojban would be the x3 in that sentence right?
18:13 < saigais> nu?
18:13 < ldlework> just specify x3 directly, with FA, specifically fi
18:13 < John_Doe> wait, what are fa fi?
18:13 < rampre> oh, i forgot to do that in my guess. i got the place structure of ctuca wrong.
18:13 < ldlework> John_Doe: they let you address which noun place the next description fills, directly
18:13 < ldlework> so
18:14 < ldlework> the series goes: fa:x1 fe:x2 fi:x3 fo:x4 fu:x5
18:14 < ldlework> So if you want to just provide one specific noun place
18:14 < ldlework> and it doesn't happen to be x1 and x2 which you can just place next to the main verb
18:14 < ldlework> then you can just specify directly which place you'd like to fill
18:14 < ldlework> so if lojban fills the x3 place of ctuca
18:14 < ldlework> just do it
18:15 < ldlework> so how do you say "teaching Lojban"
18:15 < John_Doe> ckule fi lojban
18:15 < ldlework> So, FA eats a noun
18:15 < ldlework> In your example, its eating a verb
18:15 < ldlework> how do you transform a verb into a noun in lojban?
18:15 < John_Doe> lo ku
18:15 < John_Doe> brb
18:15 < ldlework> yep
18:16 < rampre> ldlework: eats?
18:16 < ldlework> hmm?
18:16 < ldlework> oh
18:16 < rampre> oh, takes an input
18:16 < ldlework> yeah
18:17 < rampre> i thought you meant as in takes and destroys.
18:17 < ldlework> om'nom
18:17 < ldlework> I'm terrible at the morphology lol
18:17 < John_Doe> okay
18:17 < John_Doe> so ckule fi lojban is right?
18:17 < ldlework> It is right in the sense that
18:17 < ldlework> well
18:18 < ldlework> consider this
18:18 < ldlework> [school] ckule [campus] [course] ...
18:18 < ldlework> bleh
18:18 < ldlework> its correct
18:19 < ldlework> its just not the verb that is conventionally used is all
18:19 < John_Doe> oh, what is?
18:19 < ldlework> its totally right and I shouldn't have said anything :)
18:19 < ldlework> en: ctuca
18:19 < mensi> ctuca = x1 teaches audience x2 ideas/methods/lore x3 (du'u) about subject(s) x4 by method x5 (event). |>>> Also instruct,
18:19 < mensi> instructor, educate, educator, teacher, professor, pedagogue; (adjective:) x1/x5 is pedagogical.  See also ckule, cilre,
18:19 < mensi> tadni. |>>> officialdata
18:19 < ldlework> the same semantic can indeed appear in multiple verbs
18:19 < ldlework> that's a strange form of lojbanic polysemy that I hadn't considered before
18:20 < ldlework> instead of a word having multiple definitions
18:20 < ldlework> anyway
18:20 < ldlework> the reason it can't work for our example
18:20 < ldlework> well we'll see why
18:20 < ldlework> lets first get your answer into a noun somehow
18:21 < ldlework> so the question is how do we put a whole separate sentence into a noun phrase
18:21 < John_Doe> is it just lo ku?
18:21 < ldlework> well your intution is good so I must be doing okay
18:21 < ldlework> the way to create nouns from verbs in lojban is indeed lo ku
18:21 < ldlework> but we don't have a verb
18:21 < ldlework> we have a whole sentence
18:21 < John_Doe> true
18:21 < ldlework> so what we need is some article that can convert whole sentences into verbs!
18:22 < ldlework> at the most basic, we have su'u kei
18:22 < ldlework> put su'u kei around a sentence and it becomes a verb, no questions asked
18:22 < John_Doe> wait, becomes a verb?
18:23 < ldlework> indeed, what could the definition of it be?!
18:23 < ldlework> this is abstract
18:23 < ldlework> but consider
18:23 < ldlework> mi viska
18:23 < John_Doe> I see
18:23 < ldlework> mi viska = sentence, "I see"
18:24 < John_Doe> so how would you translate su'u mi viska kei accurately?
18:24 < ldlework> su'u mi viska kei = verb, x1 is something about me seeing
18:24 < ldlework> well accurately is a tall order
18:24 < John_Doe> true
18:24 < ldlework> because su'u doesn't tell us how to interpret the new verb very well
18:24 < ldlework> notice that the definition doesn't really tell us what the x1 _is_
18:24 < John_Doe> no, that
18:24 < John_Doe> that's what confuses me
18:24 < ldlework> it just tells us, that whatever it is, its "about" me seeing
18:25 < ldlework> consider, however
18:25 < ldlework> this does allow us to take the next step
18:25 < ldlework> which is to convert this verb into a noun, and capture whatever that thing is, that is about me seeing
18:26 < John_Doe> okay
18:26 < ldlework> [thing-related-to me seeing] su'u mi viska kei
18:26 < ldlework> Anything we put into the x1 of this sentence, will be "about" me seeing
18:26 < ldlework> about in which way, is completely unknown
18:27 < ldlework> What's important is that we made a verb of the sentence
18:27 < ldlework> which allows us to capture that x1
18:27 < John_Doe> using lo ku?
18:27 < ldlework> yep
18:27 < John_Doe> wait so, lo su'u mi viska kei ku?
18:27 < ldlework> yes
18:27 < John_Doe> that's wordy
18:27 < nubi> The terminators can be dropped if they're not needed
18:27 < ldlework> lo su'u mi viska kei ku = "Something to do with me seeing"
18:27 < nubi> {kei ku} isn't neccessary if it's implied
18:27 < John_Doe> lo su'u mi viska?
18:28 < ldlework> break it down
18:28 < ldlework> first take off the lo - ku
18:28 < ldlework> you have su'u mi viska kei, a verb
18:28 < ldlework> take off the su'u, you have mi viska, a sentence
18:28 < John_Doe> yeah
18:28 < John_Doe> it makes sense
18:28 < ldlework> su'u is just a raw operator that does this transformation for us
18:28 < ldlework> we can, now, technically translate the sentence
18:29 < ldlework> I love teaching lojban
18:29 < ldlework> do it
18:29 < John_Doe> okay
18:29 < John_Doe> will take a sec
18:29 < ldlework> no worries
18:30 < John_Doe> with ctuca the subject is x4 right? what's the fa fi for x4?
18:30 < ldlework> fa fe fi fo fu
18:30 < ldlework> fafay feefo foo
18:30 < ldlework> is how I do it
18:30 < John_Doe> ctuca fo lojban is what we want to transform then?
18:30 < ldlework> yep
18:30 < John_Doe> su'u ctuca fo lojban kei
18:30 < ldlework> yep
18:30 < John_Doe> lo su'u ctuca fo lojban kei ku
18:30 < ldlework> yep
18:31 < ldlework> I love that
18:31 < John_Doe> mi prami lo su'u ctuca fo lojban kei ku
18:31 < ldlework> hooray!
18:31 < ldlework> now
18:31 < ldlework> I know everyone watching this is dying for me to explain the other, more useful operators that work like su'u
18:31 < nubi> Yup x3
18:32 < ldlework> but first we have a pop quiz
18:32 < ldlework> John_Doe: I want you to mark this sentence, as best as you can, where you see sentences {}, verbs <>, and nouns []
18:32 < John_Doe> okay
18:32 < ldlework> being mindful of the highly nested structure
18:33 < John_Doe> what am I marking?
18:34 < ldlework> John_Doe: consider
18:34 < ldlework> mi viska lo vecnu ku
18:34 < ldlework> {[mi] <viska> [lo <vecnu> ku]}
18:34 < John_Doe> got it
18:35 < nubi> Idlework: May I interject a question?
18:35 < ldlework> sure
18:36 < nubi> Are there uses for what you've just explained with su'u kei without making it a 'noun'?
18:36 < ldlework> sure, if you want to put the burden on your listener to figure out the "real" semantic
18:36 < nubi> Lel
18:36 < nubi> Well, I mean
18:36 < ldlework> Its not a joke
18:36 < nubi> Even with something like sedu'u kei
18:37 < ldlework> ohh
18:37 < ldlework> I misread your question
18:37 < ldlework> using just the verb form
18:37 < nubi> Yes
18:37 < ldlework> I have seen it, but I admit not trying very hard to interpret the real deeper meaning
18:37 < ldlework> consider
18:37 < ldlework> do nu morsi
18:38 < ldlework> the place structure of nu tells us that the verb is of the form x1 is the event of the bridi
18:38 < ldlework> so quite literally, you are the event of death
18:38 < ldlework> instead of "you are dead"
18:38 < ldlework> which is much more ominious
18:38 < ldlework> but strictly metaphorical
18:39 < nubi> Okay
18:39 < ldlework> there are ordinary verbs that have events in their x1, that we can use as the x1 of raw nu sentences
18:39 < nubi> I think I understand now
18:39 < ldlework> consider, lo nunsla cu nu gleki
18:39 < ldlework> nunsla1 -is- an event
18:39 < ldlework> so when we use it as a noun1 for <nu gleki> it makes perfect sense
18:40 < ldlework> "the event of celebration, is an event of happiness"
18:40 < ldlework> John_Doe: got your marked up guess?
18:40 < John_Doe> wait, what was I marking up?
18:40 < ldlework> hah
18:40 < John_Doe> I thought the last thing you have me was what you already amrked
18:40 < John_Doe> *gave
18:40 < ldlework> mi prami lo su'u ctuca fo lojban kei ku
18:40 < John_Doe> oh, that same sentence
18:41 < ldlework> yes, as an example for how to mark that one
18:41 < ldlework> oops
18:41 < ldlework> this isn't grammatical
18:41 < ldlework> fo eats a noun
18:41 < ldlework> you have it eating a verb
18:41 < ldlework> easy fix
18:41 < ldlework> you must be thinking, ANOTHER KU?!
18:42 < John_Doe> {[mi] <prami> [lo <su'u <ctuca> fo [lojban]> kei ku]}
18:42 < ldlework> Okay just a couple of comments
18:42 < John_Doe> oh
18:42 < ldlework> edit it so that the parens go on the outside of the term completey
18:43 < John_Doe> as in [fo lojban]?
18:43 < ldlework> right
18:43 < ldlework> also
18:43 < ldlework> kei> vs > kei
18:43 < John_Doe> {[mi] <prami> [lo <su'u <ctuca> [fo lojban] kei> ku]}
18:44 < ldlework> okay so you didn't mark "lojban"
18:44 < ldlework> why is that?
18:44 < John_Doe> I thought fo went with lojban
18:44 < ldlework> It does
18:44 < ldlework> they make up a noun
18:44 < ldlework> but "lojban" isn't a noun on its own
18:44 < John_Doe> it isn't?
18:45 < ldlework> is "ctuca" a noun on its own?
18:45 < ldlework> are you thinking that fo plays a similar role as lo?
18:45 < John_Doe> it's a verb isn't it? but does it need to be marked with its arguments?
18:45 < ldlework> fo eats a noun
18:45 < ldlework> and creates a noun
18:45 < ldlework> fo NOUN => NOUN
18:46 < John_Doe> so [fo lojban] is correct?
18:46 < ldlework> no because you have "fo VERB"
18:46 < deltab> are cmene nouns? verbs?
18:46 < John_Doe> wait, lojban is a verb?
18:46 < ldlework> deltab: for the purposes of where we are, definitely.
18:46 < ldlework> John_Doe: for now, names act exactly like verbs
18:46 < ldlework> which mean
18:46 < ldlework> x1 is the thing named NAME
18:47 < John_Doe> do I need lo lojban ku?
18:47 < ldlework> yes
18:47 < John_Doe> jesus
18:47 < ldlework> :)
18:47 < John_Doe> that's a lot of nesting
18:47 < ldlework> hah I called it minutes ago
18:47 < snime> mi trinke lo .uiski
18:47 < John_Doe> so I need fo lo lojban ku?
18:47 < ldlework> John_Doe: correct
18:47 < John_Doe> [fo lo lojban ku]?
18:47 < John_Doe> marked as one noun?
18:47 < ldlework> well its nested
18:47 < John_Doe> or do I need to mark the lo ku?
18:47 < ldlework> there's even a verb inside there, lojban
18:47 < nubi> Why isn't it {la lojban}? I thought cmene were introduced with {la}
18:47 < John_Doe> [fo [lo lojban ku]?
18:47 < ldlework> nubi: I'm going to clean up
18:48 < snime> zu mi na jundi
18:48 < ldlework> after we accomplish the small task in front of us
18:48 < ldlework> John_Doe: closer
18:48 < ldlework> you've still ignored the verb
18:48 < John_Doe> oh god
18:48 < ldlework> lo always eats a verb
18:48 < John_Doe> [fo [lo <lojban> ku]}
18:48 < John_Doe> *]]
18:48 < ldlework> yep
18:48 < ldlework> what's the fully parsed sentence?
18:49 < John_Doe> okay, lemme scroll up
18:49 < ldlework> sure
18:50 < John_Doe> {[mi] <prami> [lo <su'u <ctuca> [fo [lo <lojban> ku] kei> ku]}
18:50 < ldlework> brilliant
18:50 < John_Doe> yay
18:50 < ldlework> seriously feel accomplished
18:50 < John_Doe> it makes sense, it's just complicated
18:50 < ldlework> We're going to make it more simple
18:50 < John_Doe> how much more do you have to teach? I need to hang the washing out
18:50 < ldlework> John_Doe: I can wrap up
18:51 < John_Doe> okay, or I could do the washing and then we could finish
18:51 < ldlework> To everyone, the reason I do this, is because lojban is one of the only languages where you can quantitatively test other people's understanding of the grammar
18:51 < John_Doe> depends how much more material
18:51 < ldlework> I have to part soon as well
18:51 < John_Doe> okay
18:51 < ldlework> Any part of the sentence that John_Doe couldn't successfully mark, is an explicit gap in his model about how the grammar works
18:52 < John_Doe> that's actually really handy
18:52 < John_Doe> to be able to test it that way
18:52 < ldlework> That John_Doe is able to perfectly mark the sentence means that the mechanics are set. Now we can have fun and leisure in exploring the semantics
18:52 < ldlework> Like the difference between an event and a proposition and a property
18:53 < rampre> ldlework: is not a time to talk about my attempt at "i love teaching lojban" ?
18:53 < rampre> er, is *now* a time
18:53 < ldlework> If he is confused about those, I know he at least can parse what we're talking about
18:53 < ldlework> ah sure
18:53 < ldlework> first though
18:53 < ldlework> let me fix the errors I let slip by
18:53 < ldlework> John_Doe: lojban is not a verb
18:53 < ldlework> but it creates a grammar term, very similar to a verb called a name
18:54 < ldlework> but in lojban
18:54 < ldlework> to transform a name into a noun
18:54 < ldlework> you need to use la instead of lo
18:54 < ldlework> la lojban ku
18:54 < ldlework> la rampre ku
18:54 < rampre> my original was {mi nelci lo nu ctuca be lojbo}. I fixed it to {mi nelci lo nu ctuca be fi la lojban}
18:54 < John_Doe> oh, okay
18:54 < ldlework> John_Doe: come back to me and I'll explain how to get rid of some of those terminators :)
18:54 < John_Doe> is la only for proper nouns?
18:55 < John_Doe> or does the name category include more?
18:55 < ldlework> do you mean, does it include non-veridical descriptions?
18:55 < John_Doe> I'm not sure lol
18:55 < ldlework> If its a title or proper noun, just use la
18:55 < ldlework> its safe
18:55 < snime> la is proper nouns. lo snime is the snow, while la snime is the person called "snime"
18:56 < ldlework> +1
18:56 < John_Doe> okay
18:56 < ldlework> If the thing inside the lo/la - ku is not a verb that describes the thing, and is instead an 'assigned title', then its a name
18:56 < John_Doe> okay
18:57 < ldlework> rampre: okay so
18:57 < ldlework> the main thing to say about your example is that, you do not need be, to modify your ctuca selbri, because you are inside of a bridi
18:57 < ldlework> IE
18:57 < ldlework> lo nu ctuca fi la lojban is good enough
18:57 < ldlework> rampre: which is revealed by marking the sentence
18:57 < rampre> ah, because nu introduced a bridi.
18:57 < ldlework> yes you understand
18:57 < ldlework> I wont bother :)
18:58 < rampre> i'm going to mark it anyways. i haven't done that exercise before.
18:58 < nubi> Idlework: How often are you on this IRC?
18:59 < John_Doe> Have you taught me all you intend to for now?
18:59 < ldlework> nubi: dukse mutce
18:59 < ldlework> John_Doe: uh, well I think we should cover the conversational tools
18:59 < ldlework> so you can interact with others here
18:59 < John_Doe> okay
18:59 < ldlework> questions are magnificient in lojban
19:00 < ldlework> yes and no questions are asked by sticking the word 'xu' somewhere
19:00 < John_Doe> anywhere?
19:00 < rampre> {[mi] <nelci> [lo {nu <ctuca> fi [la lojban]}]}
19:00 < ldlework> usually at the start or end
19:00 < ldlework> rampre: I mark [fi and <lojban but I can see how you might disagree
19:00 < nubi> Non-Lojban question here... when you send me something and it makes a popping noise and darkens the box, I'm assuming that's a PM. How is that done?
19:00 < ldlework> nubi: /query who what
19:00 < rampre> ldlework: i was unsure
19:01 < ldlework> rampre: the way I model fi is that it consumes a sumti and produces a new, absolutely addressed one.
19:01 < ldlework> John_Doe: yes
19:01 < rampre> the idea of absolutely addressed sumti isn't something i've thought of before.
19:02 < ldlework> the way to answer yes is go'i, and no is na go'i
19:02 < rampre> ldlework: does the place where you stick 'xu' carry some meaning?
19:02 < ldlework> rampre: yes it does
19:02 < ldlework> logically, no but semantically yes
19:02 < ldlework> for example
19:02 < rampre> i've always been unclear about that. i just make it the first word
19:02 < nubi> Same
19:02 < ldlework> .i xu do citka lo plise : "Are you eating an apple?"
19:02 < John_Doe> what's .i?
19:02 < ldlework> .i do citka lo xu plise : "Are you eating an APPLE!?"
19:03 < ldlework> John_Doe: it is the lo of sentences
19:03 < rampre> John_Doe: in english we put periods at the end of a sentence. in lojban we put .i at the beginning.
19:03 < ldlework> John_Doe: I've been lying a bit
19:03 < ldlework> Well
19:03 < ldlework> I wont reveal that lie just yet
19:03 < ldlework> But sentences have openers and closers
19:03 < ldlework> .i and vau
19:04 < ldlework> if there is only one top-level sentence in your text, you might omit both since it doesn't separate the sentence from anything
19:04 < ldlework> but if you had two sentences...
19:04 < ldlework> mi citka .i mi gleki
19:04 < rampre> ldlework: is vau ever required?
19:04 < nubi> Yes, I was wondering that as well
19:04 < ldlework> uh if there is, its one of those rare things that only people with a better memory can remember
19:05 < ldlework> what vau is nice for
19:05 < ldlework> is attaching things to the whole sentence as an after thought
19:05 < ldlework> .i do citka lo plise vau xu
19:05 < deltab> wiktionary gives "mi punji lo sicni gi'e lebna lo karni vau le minji"
19:06 < ldlework> I see
19:06 < ldlework> would anyone like to try to mark this example?
19:06 < ldlework> :)
19:06 < John_Doe> I can try
19:06 < ldlework> John_Doe: it requires a special understanding of gi'e
19:06 < John_Doe> what's that?
19:06 < nubi> *Looks up gi'e*
19:06 < ldlework> well, this is advanced stuff
19:07 < John_Doe> okay, probably not worth me getting into right now
19:07 < ldlework> there's other more useful stuff
19:07 < ldlework> so
19:07 < ldlework> John_Doe: xu do merko
19:08 < John_Doe> how would I answer?
19:08 < ldlework> go'i for yes, na go'i for no
19:08 < rampre> i would answer go'i
19:08 < John_Doe> na go'i
19:08 < ldlework> ua
19:08 < ldlework> I gotta run
19:08 < nubi> Can we have a basic run-down of what go'i is doing?
19:08 < nubi> Oh, okay
19:08 < nubi> co'o
19:08 < John_Doe> Same
19:08 < ldlework> it restates the same sentence
19:09 < ldlework> but
19:09 < ldlework> with pronouns flipped
19:09 < rampre> ldlework: !
19:09 < ldlework> mi's to do's, and vice versa
19:09 < ldlework> what
19:09 < rampre> ua ui
19:09 < John_Doe> ah okay
19:09 < John_Doe> thanks for the lesson, I'm sure I'll see you on here again
19:09 < ldlework> "do you eat?" "(yes) I eat"
19:09 < nubi> Same
19:09 < rampre> i tried quite hard to get something that would flip pronouns
19:09 < ldlework> also
19:09 < ldlework> you can refer to the nouns of the last sentence
19:10 < ldlework> xu do citka lo plise
19:10 < rampre> so "mi prami do" : i love you, and then the response "go'i" could be translated as "i love you too" ?
19:10 < ldlework> mi nelci lo se go'i .i ku'i na citka
19:10 < ldlework> "I like apples. But not eating (an apple)."
19:10 < ldlework> rampre: for that you use mi'u
19:10 < nubi> I feel like I've seen that example elsewhere...
19:11 < John_Doe> see you guys later
19:11 < ldlework> which restates it out of the context of a question
19:11 < rampre> John_Doe: co'o
19:11 < ldlework> ditto essentially
19:11 < ldlework> co'o John_Doe
19:11 < rampre> vlasisku defines mi'u as "discursive: ditto"
19:11 < ldlework> right
19:11 < ldlework> "me too"
19:12 < rampre> oh, i see. go'i is only for questions?
19:12 < ldlework> .i ei mi citka lo vacycti
19:12 < ldlework> co'o
19:12 < rampre> co'o
19:12 < nubi> co'o
19:19 < deltab> reminds me of http://33.media.tumblr.com/461026a61a1fa175f34d21648b41e47c/tumblr_m1uxp6DInm1qg1mbqo11_r11_250.gif
19:19 < ldlework> haha
19:26 < justeno> mi xagil
19:32 < deltab> you are hungry an oboe, or a donkey?
19:33 < justeno> wat
19:33 < deltab>  Did you mean… xagji, xagri, or xasli?
19:34 < justeno> xagji*
19:34 < deltab> ko citka
19:36 < justeno> mi iancu lo xagji, but meh
19:36 < deltab> ko na citka lo xagri .i ko na citka lo xasli
19:45 < justeno> lo xasli ku (may be) kukte
19:46 < justeno> mi na djuno
19:47 < deltab> I heard it tastes like ass
19:47 < justeno> sounds about right
19:48 < niftg> .ua bu'u lo jungo pagbu lo xasli cu kukte lo se kulnu pu'e lo nu xamgu ke jukpa bregau
19:55 < niftg> krasi:xasli
19:55 < mensi> xasli = .i zo'oi liu banzuxe'o .i zo'oi as bangenugu .i zo'oi gadxa banxe'inu .i zo'oi asn bansupu'a .i zo'oi asiol
19:55 < mensi> banru'usu .i zo'oi ximur bangaru'a
19:56 < niftg> la'a mixre zo'oi 驢 jo'u zo'oi ass
19:57 < zipcpi> Hmm... I'm going to add what I think {voi} should be used for on my page. It's not a gadri, but if we're going to slay the veridicality beast once and for all, we might as well talk about what place {voi} has in our world
19:57 < mensi> zipcpi: cu'u la'o gy.ldlework.gy.: definite] Frank The Cat, those cats, the/a cat] lo [Mr Cat, Plato's Cat Statue]
19:57 < mensi> indefinite | 2015-06-04T21:47:13.789Z
19:58 < niftg> ju'ocu'i lerci gasnu notci nu selfu
19:59 < zipcpi> As I said I think it could be used for "titles" without being too much of a stretch, or breaking past usage (what past usage?)
20:00 < zipcpi> In a way it is "non-veridical", but in the same way {la} is
20:01 < ldlework> right
20:04 < ldlework> zipcpi: I thought about lo'e and lo'i and I like the idea that Mr Cat is the living description of Cats and Plato's Cat Statue is the platonic null-context model of Cats.
20:04 < zipcpi> Oh
20:04 < zipcpi> *Ah
20:06 < zipcpi> Because without using {voi} for titles the best other way I know of is {la .uubis. no'u la'au daspo lo su'o terdi li'u}, and... that'd suck
20:06 < ldlework> yeah voi is nice in that it reflects a way in which names are given in the real world and not just an ideal lojbanistan
20:08 < ldlework> .i ii za'a la bab voi noltronau be la rodgu'e
20:11 < justeno> lo smuci ku na xanri
20:11 < justeno> (There is no spoon)
20:11 < ldlework> well
20:11 < ldlework> you're saying
20:11 < justeno> the spoon doesn't exist
20:11 < ldlework> "the spoon is imaginary"
20:12 < justeno> ah
20:12 < justeno> lo smuci ku na zasti
20:12 < ldlework> well I don't think you were wrong
20:12 < ldlework> I think it was a good translation
20:12 < justeno> what would be more appropriate?
20:13 < ldlework> they're kind of symmetrical
20:13 < ldlework> if it doesn't exist, "it" must be imaginary
20:13 < justeno> must it?
20:13 < ldlework> oh
20:13 < ldlework> you said 'na' xanri
20:13 < ldlework> "the spoon is not imaginary"
20:13 < ldlework> "the spoon exists"
20:14 < justeno> heh
20:14 < justeno> lo smuci ku na zasti
20:14 < zipcpi> I would use {le} here but then that'd bring up the veridicality confusion once again :p
20:14 < justeno> is probably what i want then
20:14 < ldlework> that's the most direct
20:14 < justeno> zipcpi: i'm ready. why le?
20:14 < zipcpi> Besides I should probably stop peddling my crazy ideas to nintadni
20:14 < ldlework> zipcpi: heh it feels dangerous but exciting
20:15 < ldlework> justeno: there are two ways to interpret "lo mlatu ku"
20:15 < zipcpi> Well, in our (me and Idlework)'s proposed article definitions, {le} is deixis; it means that the descriptor is used to point the listener to an object that exists in the world somewhere
20:16 < ldlework> ie
20:16 < zipcpi> So {le smuci} is acceptable for "the spoon", as it's pointing to a particular referent
20:16 < justeno> ah, but that's not official?
20:17 < justeno> only a proposal at this point?
20:17 < ldlework> well our le is pretty close to the current le
20:17 < ldlework> if not exactly the same
20:17 < justeno> if exactly the same, why the proposal?
20:17 < ldlework> justeno: because it touches all the gadri articles
20:17 < ldlework> for example
20:17 < ldlework> today, in most usage, there's is just lo and le
20:18 < ldlework> most people just use lo, because lo means the same thing as le, but also second semantic
20:18 < ldlework> that means... well...
20:18 < ldlework> its vague
20:18 < ldlework> that's the problem
20:18 < zipcpi> Take for example... "I like cats"
20:18 < zipcpi> I'm saying I like a particular cat
20:19 < ldlework> you are?
20:19 < zipcpi> I'm generalizing about cats, and saying I like them as a concept
20:19 < zipcpi> Oh... *not saying I like a particular cat
20:19 < zipcpi> Typo
20:19 < ldlework> :)
20:20 < zipcpi> So then... what would you use? Sure, {mi nelci lo mlatu} is acceptable; it is always acceptable
20:20 < zipcpi> But then an important shade of meaning is lost
20:20 < ldlework> illustration is easiest
20:20 < justeno> that's what "le" is for currently, isn't it?
20:20 < ldlework> mi nelci le mlatu : I like the/a/that cat
20:21 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'e mlatu : I like Cats
20:21 < ldlework> mi nelci lo mlatu : I loke (the/a/that cat | Cats)
20:21 < ldlework> like*
20:23 < ldlework> if you use lo, you shift the burden onto the listener to figure out what you mean
20:23 < ldlework> but this is usually fine most of the time
20:23 < ldlework> since the semantic difference between the le and lo'e interpreations are so vast, it only takes a bit of context to figure out what the speaker likely means
20:24 < justeno> ah
20:25 < zipcpi> Here: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
20:25 < ldlework> zipcpi: you should add the chart
20:25 < zipcpi> The things we haven't touched: la / lai / lo
20:25 < zipcpi> Right...
20:25 < zipcpi> Can you send me an updated one?
20:26 < ldlework> https://gist.github.com/dustinlacewell/b78b3914ff094aa2fc41
20:26 < ldlework> actually
20:26 < zipcpi> The things that we don't believe would conflict with standard usage at all, but merely cleaned up to mean a specific thing instead of some hazy "malglixlu for the": le / lei / voi
20:26 < ldlework> I'm going to add the other thing to it too
20:26 < ldlework> the examples
20:27 < zipcpi> {mo'oi} is a completely new word, so won't conflict with anything
20:27 < zipcpi> {lo'e}... well I don't even know how {lo'e} was used before, but I don't think the way I'm using it is too much of a stretch
20:28 < zipcpi> It's the {lo'i}, {le'i}, and {loi} redefinitions that are the most controversial
20:31 < ldlework> zipcpi: https://gist.github.com/dustinlacewell/b78b3914ff094aa2fc41
20:32 < ldlework> crap
20:32 < ldlework> lai
20:33 < zipcpi> Oh right... yeah I don't exactly know how la/lai works, but it's already part of the language, and I don't think it's any use trying to repurpose {lai}
20:33 < justeno> ldlework: i may have asked? Anyhow, any baby's first words type of reading in lojban?
20:33 < justeno> i'd like to start reading books and so forth
20:33 < zipcpi> There is the translation of "Where the Wild Things Are"
20:34 < zipcpi> http://selpahi.de/cilce_prenu.html
20:34 < ldlework> here we go, https://gist.github.com/dustinlacewell/b78b3914ff094aa2fc41
20:38 < zipcpi> OK added the chart
20:41 < John_Doe> sup guys
20:42 < zipcpi> Hi
20:44 < justeno> John_Doe: coi
20:44 < niftg> coi jydy
20:46 < zipcpi> ldlework: Well, actually "Mr Cat" would only have meaning to those who know of our "Mr Broda" discussions :p
20:47 < zipcpi> For justeno: Mr Broda is a quasi-divine entity that represents all {broda}, and represents all generalizations of {broda}. There is only ever one Mr Broda for each predicate.
20:48 < zipcpi> And he is immortal and eternal
20:49 < zipcpi> Thus, when you say {mi nelci lo'e mlatu} "I like cats"; it never makes sense to ask {do nelci xo lo'e mlatu} "How many "generalized cats" do you like?"
20:50 < zipcpi> Because there is only one Mr Mlatu
20:52 < ldlework> zipcpi: yeah Mr. Broda is classically Plato's Cat Statue
20:52 < zipcpi> Well, we're kinda differentiating the two :p
20:54 < zipcpi> And Mr Mlatu is immortal, because even if all the cats in the world died, you can still generalize about them
21:05 < justeno> if {na} negates, why {nai} for attitudinals?
21:05 < ldlework> justeno: because they operate on different things
21:05 < ldlework> they do different things
21:05 < ldlework> na is a bridi operator
21:05 < ldlework> it changes the meaning of the whole sentence
21:06 < justeno> and {nai} just modifies the attitudinal
21:06 < ldlework> nai attaches to articles to the left of it, and negates just those
21:06 < justeno> oj
21:06 < justeno> ok*
21:06 < justeno> ooh
21:08 < justeno> nai cmalu fi na
21:08 < justeno> kind of
21:10 < deltab> .ienai
21:13 < zipcpi> And you want {zo} for talking about words
21:13 < justeno> cmalu as in less powerful of a modifier
21:14 < justeno> how would one say: nai is a less powerful na?
21:14 < deltab> they apply to different things
21:15 < deltab> I don't think it makes sense to compare them like that
21:15 < zipcpi> na negates the bridi
21:16 < zipcpi> nai is used for a lot of things but only negates the last word
21:16 < deltab> is nowhere a less powerful zero?
21:16 < zipcpi> Also attitudinals are weird, in that depending on how they're defined nai might not necessarily mean the exact opposite
21:17 < zipcpi> See {ba'a} for example
21:19 < deltab> ba'a is looking forward, ba'anai is looking back
21:19 < deltab> (in time)
21:20  * zipcpi nods
21:21 < zipcpi> Yeah, but it definitely doesn't not mean "I do not expect", which someone who knows what mere {ba'a} means but not what {ba'anai} means might think
21:21 < zipcpi> For that you want {ba'a naku}
21:22 < zipcpi> I expect that FALSE: blablabla
21:25 < deltab> well, you do need to know what both ends of the scale are
21:26 < deltab> you can't expect to extrapolate from a single point
21:33  * zipcpi nods
21:40  * nuzba @uitki: nuzyfle - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzyfle by Guskant - zoi zoi {{clear}} zoi se lidne la tu'iter [http://bit.ly/1BNpstb]
21:50 < ldlework> deltab: how long have you been studying lojban?
22:16  * nuzba @uitki: lojban music - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/lojban_music by Guskant - /* Full songs */ lo re selsa'a be la'o zoi Corbin Newman zoi [http://bit.ly/1eSyn7H]
--- Day changed Fri Jun 05 2015
00:26  * nuzba @MarkGyver: @selckiku coi .i mi na djuno lo banzu lo jbobau        And I don't check my Twitter often enough. [http://bit.ly/1Io30hW]
02:17 < akmnlrse> mensi: doi zipcpi Under BCM: "Bob, Destroyer of Worlds" -> {la .bob. noi daspo lo munje}; "Bob, destroyer of worlds" -> {la .bob. ku noi daspo lo munje}
02:17 < mensi> akmnlrse: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.zipcpi.gy. di'a cusku da
02:18 < gleki> mi na nelci
02:18 < mensi> sei mi stace mi na mutce nelci
02:18 < akmnlrse> gleki: (to ke'u ru'e toi) pe'i pei lo uenzi bi'ai se ciska
02:19 < akmnlrse> .i sa'u mi .aidji lo ka jbovlastegau
02:19 < gleki> na bi'ai
02:19 < akmnlrse> je'e .i'e
02:19 < gleki> lo uenzi cu se cusku gi'a se ciska se cusku gi'a te gerna gi'a vlalerpoi
02:19 < gleki> i lo se uenzi cu bangu
02:20 < akmnlrse> ja'o zo uenzi jai danfu lo ma'a ro nabmi
02:20 < gleki> uanai
02:21 < akmnlrse> sa'u ba'u zei cusku
02:21 < gleki> ba'u sa'u zei cusku
02:55 < ctefa`o> coi
03:03 < gleki> coi
03:23 < gleki> Loglan tables adapted for Lojban. Feel free to improve them http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban_grammar_examples
03:26 < ctefa`o> .a'u
03:34 < ctefa`o> Hmm how does one add a word proposal to jbovlaste?
03:35 < ctefa`o> There is a word I have been thinking about adding for years but never gotten around to
03:37 < ctefa`o> Hmm nvm seems like one just has to register
03:52 < ctefa`o> coi la zipcpi
03:58 < zipcpi> coi
04:03 < gleki> ctefa`o: register on jbovlaste.lojban.org and start adding words
04:03 < zipcpi> What words does he want to add?
04:04 < ctefa`o> I tried but it seems I already have an account from long ago. Any way to reser the password? Can't seem to find one
04:04 < ctefa`o> zipcpi: one word, na'oi
04:05 < zipcpi> What would it mean?
04:05 < ctefa`o> "Normal scalar intensifier", goes between sai and ru'e
04:05 < gleki> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/changepass.html
04:05 < zipcpi> Ah
04:05 < ctefa`o> Makes most sense for use with pei
04:05 < zipcpi> Right
04:05 < ctefa`o> ki'e gleki
04:05 < zipcpi> Doesn't ja'ai work though?
04:06 < ctefa`o> lol gleki
04:06 < gleki> looks like
04:06 < zipcpi> Besides I'm not sure it's good to have so many ways to say yes/no
04:06 < ctefa`o> "Bad User! Can't change pass if not logged in"
04:06 < zipcpi> go'i / nago'i
04:06 < zipcpi> je'u / je'unai
04:06 < zipcpi> ja'ai / nai
04:06 < zipcpi> je'a / na'e
04:06 < zipcpi> o.o
04:07 < zipcpi> And some more appropriate in certain grammatical contexts then others
04:08 < zipcpi> I'm quite tempted to say that ja'ai / nai is always right
04:08 < ctefa`o> Well na'oi is a CAI
04:08 < zipcpi> Ah
04:08 < ctefa`o> just like sai and ru'e
04:09 < ctefa`o> I find it very inconsistent that it doesn't exist
04:09 < zipcpi> Right
04:09 < zipcpi> Yeah go ahead then
04:09 < zipcpi> jbocei knows I've added some words that others thought weren't needed :p
04:09 < ctefa`o> I will as soon as I figure out how to reset the password;o
04:10 < ctefa`o> Probably have to sent the admins a message
04:10 < ctefa`o> Hmm ok old username was ctefao
04:10 < ctefa`o> Why don't ctefa'o work
04:12 < ctefa`o> meh ctefa`o doesn't work either
04:12 < ctefa`o> Have to recover ctefao then
04:13 < gleki> hm, probably you need to ask mukti or to open an issue github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues
04:13 < gleki> i just created this https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/175
04:13 < zipcpi> Hmm... question
04:14 < ctefa`o> Or I just go with ctefaho
04:14 < zipcpi> How much would it daspo lo jbobau if brodymei was a regularized lujvo ending meaning "number of broda"?
04:14 < gleki> it doesnt damage anything
04:14 < zipcpi> ti prenymei li re - These people number 2
04:14 < gleki> so no luck for you here ,BSFK
04:14 < zipcpi> Acting just like the unit selbri
04:14 < zipcpi> u'i
04:15 < gleki> vlaste: mei
04:15 < vlaste> mei = convert number to cardinality selbri; x1 is the mass formed from set x2 whose n member(s) are x3.
04:15 < gleki> hm
04:15 < gleki> en: mei
04:15 < gleki> en:/full mei
04:15 < ctefa`o> ctefaho worked yay
04:16 < ctefa`o> Funny how jbovlaste of all things can't support "'" in username
04:17 < zipcpi> Well there are several brivla that end with mei but I don't think any has issues?
04:17 < zipcpi> Or conflicts with this "system"?
04:17 < zipcpi> sormei doesn't break apart
04:17 < zipcpi> But maybe it shouldn't be a lujvo anyway, but a cmavo
04:18 < gleki> some cmavo have rafsi so it's okay
04:18 < zipcpi> Yeah but it's hard for new cmavo to get rafsi :p
04:19 < zipcpi> Maybe something in ME? o.o
04:20 < zipcpi> Nah ME doesn't work
04:21 < gleki> en:coi
04:21 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
04:21 < gleki> en:/full mei
04:21 < zipcpi> What I need is something that takes one selbrisle and turns it into a selbri meaning (x1 is a mass of broda that number x2)
04:21 < mensi> 69 da se tolcri: mei, banklemei, bimei, blosormei, cibnacmei, cimei, cmimei, datnyveimei, du'emei, jufmei, landegmei,
04:21 < mensi> mei'e, mei'o, meiris, meizma, mumei, nacmei, nacmeimei, pamei, panomei, panonomei, paremei, pavmei, pavmeidza,
04:21 < mensi> pinynacmei, pormei, rajnacmei, ramymei, raumei, relnacmei, remei, renomei, selsagmei, slakypaucibmei, slakypaupavmei,
04:21 < mensi> slakypaurelmei, so'imei, sormei, sotmei, su'oremei, suzmeidza, tarso'imei, tersu'imei, vlamei, xirdegmei, banpumu'e,
04:21 < mensi> bansumuxe, bantu'eke, mai'e'e, bankle, banmu'e'i, banpumuxu, baurnubu'u, baurnupu'u, bralai, cmima, memkai, po'o, pormoi,
04:21 < mensi> rolsixu, sepli, sostartai, spartrifoli, tafrcemize, tarboi, tarci'e, tartai, vlagri,
04:21 < mensi> vlali'i
04:21 < zipcpi> nacmei? Awr crap
04:21 < gleki> en:meizma
04:22 < mensi> meizma [< mei zmadu ≈ Cardinal selbri more] = x1 is more numerous than x2; x1 has a greater cardinality than
04:22 < mensi> x2
04:22 < gleki> no clue why we need sormei and sotmei
04:22 < zipcpi> lo ni sormei is useful
04:22 < gleki> en:sormei
04:22 < mensi> sormei [< so'i mei ≈ Many cardinal selbri] = x1 are numerous/many
04:23 < gleki> so'imei is enough. no need to remember extra words
04:23 < gleki> anyway -mei seems to be a used alternative to -gunma
04:24 < zipcpi> Right
04:24 < zipcpi> Curses. Foiled again
04:24 < zipcpi> Someday... someday <.<
04:24 < zipcpi> >.>
04:24 < gleki> so you accidentally discovered Standard Lojban
04:24 < zipcpi> What do you mean?
04:25 < gleki> this -mei works as you proposed
04:25 < gleki> already
04:25 < gleki> for many years
04:25 < gleki> anyway we need a page where rules for lujvo expansions would be listed
04:25 < zipcpi> No it doesn't... what I want is something like {x1 has cardinality x2}
04:26 < gleki> en:vlamei
04:26 < mensi> vlamei [< valsi mei ≈ Word cardinal selbri] = x1 is text consisting of words x2 meaning x3 in language x4.
04:26 < zipcpi> Yeah see? x2 doesn't work the way I want
04:26 < gleki> rafsi:klani
04:26 < mensi> zo'oi lai .e zo'oi klan rafsi zo klani
04:26 < gleki> en:/full lai
04:27 < mensi> 108 da se tolcri: lai, bevma'elai, blaia, blaiasapida, botlai, bralai, bramuclai, carcylai, cenlai, ci'erkeilai,
04:27 < mensi> cmamuclai, crelai, jetlai, kabrylai, la'erlai, lai'e, lairka'e, mafnenlai, momlai, muclai, mulselylai, paxlai, plaina,
04:27 < mensi> rozrkarolaina, xanlai, banbu'egu, banfususu, bankuvufu, banlu'icu, banluju'i, banlumuxu, banpu'atu, banpuluke, banpusudu,
04:27 < mensi> banrugusu, banru'ocu, banru'ogu, bansuzu'a, banvesuvu, botrportcelanu, ciksi, ckafre'ole, notsku, oi, oire'e, oiro'u,
04:27 < mensi> patsku, patyta'a, pe'ai, platesa, portcelanu, posxu'a, stakrportcelanu, bancuruku, banlu'a'i, banpumuve, banvukupu,
04:27 < mensi> boltsemaku, cabna, fancysuksa, glaladyckafi, go'i, go'ira'o, gubysku, gunma, jadycau, jetrinsku, jibypante, jifxu'a,
04:27 < mensi> jifyjunxu'a, ju'e, jugysmuci, kafrspreso, ki'arzau, krali, la'ai, la'au, ladyckafi, lesrxapsurdie, mai'i, ...
04:27 < gleki> en: botlai
04:27 < mensi> botlai [< botpi klani ≈ Bottle level] = k1 is k2 (quantifier, default: one) bottlefuls in quantity. |>>> Cf. botpi,
04:27 < mensi> klani. |>>> totus
04:27 < gleki> en:carcylai
04:27 < mensi> carcylai [< carce klani ≈ Cart level] = k1 is k2 (quantifier, default: one) cartloads/wagonloads in quantity.
04:27 < ctefa`o> Ok going to add na'oi later
04:27 < gleki> en:la'erlai
04:27 < mensi> la'erlai [< lakne klani ≈ Likely level] = x1 has probability/likelihood x2 of occurring under conditions x3.
04:27 < gleki> en:momlai
04:28 < mensi> momlai [< moi klani ≈ Ordinal selbri level] = x1 is the x2nd member of set x3 ordered by rule x4 .
04:28 < zipcpi> Hmm... not sure that'll do it either
04:28 < ctefa`o> No time now
04:28 < zipcpi> It *almost* works the way I want it
04:28 < zipcpi> But has some niggling irregularities
04:28 < ctefa`o> pe'u na take na'oi while I go away zo'oru'e co'o
04:29 < zipcpi> Because I want, say, prenylai to mean, {x1 is a mass of people that number x2}. But that conflicts with {botlai}, which refer to bottlefuls, not actual bottles
04:29 < gleki> because that's what this whole lujvo system is about
04:29 < gleki> anyway you have {ni}
04:29 < zipcpi> I don't think lo ni prenu works
04:30 < zipcpi> lo ni sutra isn't the number of sutra
04:30 < zipcpi> It is how much "sutra"-ness something has... its speed
04:30 < gleki> that's the problem of {ni} usage yes
04:30 < zipcpi> ... crap
04:31 < zipcpi> So which usage is wrong
04:31 < zipcpi> We probably need a new cmavo
04:31 < gleki> or more the problem of old Lojban where people tried  to find needed things in the dictionary
04:31 < gleki> because for me {lo ni prenu} => {lo se klani be lo prenu}
04:33 < zipcpi> {la'u}? What the heck is {la'u}
04:33 < gleki> seldom used
04:33 < gleki> but will work for you too
04:33 < gleki> jbo:la'u
04:33 < zipcpi> lo la'u prenu?
04:33 < mensi> la'u = [BAI] fi'o klani
04:33 < gleki> wth with la vrici
04:34 < zipcpi> I'm not sure sumtcita works that way but who cares by now
04:34 < gleki> lo sela'u prenu = a quantified number of people
04:34 < gleki> ehm, more like "people of quantified number"
04:34 < zipcpi> But all it does is modify {prenu}
04:35 < zipcpi> Doesn't change it into a "unit selbri" like mitre, cacra
04:35 < gleki> lo prenu pe sela'u li re = two people
04:35 < zipcpi> I want to be able to treat "number of people" like a measurement
04:35 < gleki> or even {lo prenu pe sela'u li re} = people who are twosome in an obvious property
04:36 < gleki> zipcpi: i think {li re ni prenu} works.
04:36 < zipcpi> But what about the old {ni sutra} usage? Do we have to split that off to another cmavo?
04:37 < gleki> i dont remember such construct. but i do remember {nilsutra}
04:38 < zipcpi> But... li re ni prenu kei ma? There is no place for the "mass" of people
04:38 < gleki> en:ni
04:38 < mensi> ni = [NU] abstractor: quantity/amount abstractor; x1 is quantity/amount of [bridi] measured on scale x2.
04:38 < gleki> jb:klani
04:38 < mensi> klani = klani — x1(entity)  is measured by  x2(number)  on  x3(property of x1 with kau)
04:38 < mensi> :lo pa mlatu cu klani li pi mu lo ka mitre ma kau lo ka clani — A cat is measured 0.5 meters in length.
04:38 < mensi> :loi mlatu cu klani li ci lo ka gunma ma kau i je va'i lo mlatu cu vo mei — The mass of cats is measured as having 4
04:38 < mensi> units, in other words, there are 4 cats.
04:38 < mensi> :Comment: to specify the number of object loi is usually used in x1 of klani. To specify size fill x3 of klani.
04:38 < mensi> :Related words: pa, namcu
04:39 < gleki> another explanation of {lo ni prenu} can of course be as {lo nu prenu cu klani makau}
04:39 < zipcpi> Hmm...
04:39 < gleki> so I guess {-mei} is the safest.
04:40 < gleki> {botmei} is just what users entered.
04:40 < zipcpi> I want to be able to say things like "hours per person"
04:40 < gleki> oh no
04:40 < gleki> can you give a more complete example?
04:40 < zipcpi> Yes, it's {pi'ai} again T.T
04:41 < zipcpi> The working hours of these employees average 7.5 hours per person.
04:42 < gleki> lo'e se jibri cu gunka ze'a lo cacra be li 7.5
04:42 < zipcpi> I'm not sure {lo'e} means "average"
04:43 < zipcpi> The mathematical average is a very specific concept
04:43 < zipcpi> THat my {lo'e} is not meant to be used for
04:43 < dutchie> "average" is pretty ambiguous in english
04:43 < zipcpi> True
04:44 < zipcpi> Also, "this project is estimated to take 700 man-hours"
04:44 < gleki> en:cnano
04:44 < zipcpi> Which is yet another implied {pi'ai}
04:44 < mensi> cnano = x1 [value] is a norm/average in property/amount x2 (ka/ni) among x3(s) (set) by standard x4.
04:44 < gleki> it's just that lojban doesnt have a word for "avergae"
04:44 < gleki> *average
04:44 < zipcpi> Ah yes, but that's a separate issue
04:45 < zipcpi> From how to describe the quantity
04:45 < zipcpi> "hours per person"
04:45 < zipcpi> "man-hours" (number of people * number of hours)
04:45 < zipcpi> "hours per person" (number of hours / number of people)
04:47 < gleki> en:sumji
04:47 < mensi> sumji = x1 is a mathematical sum/result/total of x2 plus/increased by x3.
04:47 < zipcpi> Actually if you want to fully define {pi'ai}, {te'ai} (and now {fei'u}) in Lojban, it might be possible if we're going to say that all units they accept act like {cacra}, {snidu}, {mitre} etc.
04:47 < zipcpi> Basically it makes anything within them a new selbri
04:47 < gleki> li 700 se cacra be lo sumji be lo nu lo gunka cu gunka ze'a makau ><
04:48 < zipcpi> That performs the requisite mathematical operations, using mekso or other stuff
04:48 < zipcpi> I'm not that certu though
04:49 < gleki> i need a brivla for "x1 is the sum of all x2"
04:49 < gleki> no, more precisely "x1 is the sum of x2 (set)"
04:50 < zipcpi> But then we also need a way to convert anything into a {cacra/mitre}-like selbri
04:51 < zipcpi> Probably a NU
04:51 < zipcpi> Accepts a ke'a, like poi'i
04:52 < gleki> i only need a new sumji to complete this task
04:52 < zipcpi> Right
04:52 < zipcpi> What about hours per person though?
04:52 < gleki> that's what robin complained about actually
04:53 < gleki> zipcpi: you just sum all hours of all persons to get the sum
04:53 < zipcpi> Then divide them by all the people
04:53 < gleki> since if you have 100 people that doesnt mean that each worked for 7 hours.
04:53 < gleki> ie doi zy
04:54 < zipcpi> But we still need some way of talking about a statistical average
04:54 < zipcpi> As well as an abstract, dimensional quantity.
04:54 < zipcpi> "2.5 children per family"
04:55 < gleki> we need
04:55 < gleki> cnano doesnt work
04:55 < zipcpi> cnano is too laic
04:56 < zipcpi> Which is fine, we need laic terms; most gismu should in fact be laic
04:56 < zipcpi> But we also need technical ones
04:57 < zipcpi> If we have to calculate the actual mathematical average of everything before using cnano... well then we can't use it can we?
04:58 < zipcpi> Same thing with my {lo'e} really
04:58 < gleki> i could take http://pt.forvo.com/search/%D9%85%D9%8E%D8%AC%D9%92%D9%85%D9%8F%D9%88%D8%B9/ for this new brivla
04:59 < zipcpi> I can't read that?
04:59 < gleki> listen to it
04:59 < gleki> {majmu}
04:59 < zipcpi> Huh
04:59 < gleki> or {iumla} from Swahili
05:00 < zipcpi> iumla? That makes me think of something else :p
05:00 < gleki> or {sumla} from ropno + swahili
05:02  * nuzba @nivertech: . @ultimape I think the problem is that Toasters and Fridges speak different languages, maybe the solution is Esperanto or Lojban for IoT ;) [http://bit.ly/1KQlbNW]
05:03 < zipcpi> But that's all what "miles per hour" really is
05:03 < zipcpi> An abstract number of miles divided over an abstract number of hours
05:03 < zipcpi> Whether it is an average speed or an instantaneous speed
05:04 < zipcpi> Same thing with "children per family" or "man hours"
05:07 < zipcpi> They're not actual children, actual families, actual workers, actual hours; just abstract quantities
05:08 < gleki> en:si'i
05:08 < mensi> si'i = [VUhU4] trinary mathematical operator: [sigma summation of a using variable b over range c].
05:09 < zipcpi> lol
05:09 < gleki> si'i lo se cacr be lo nu gunka vau ge'a ma
05:09 < gleki> sa i si'i lo se cacra be lo nu gunka vau ge'a ma
05:09 < gleki> actually si'i is never explained in CLL
05:10 < zipcpi> Is it time for the BSFK to define them them? We need someone who's a physicist/mathematician though. Someone like Curtis :p
05:11 < gleki> li 700 du li si'i na'u se cacra ?
05:11 < gleki> exp: li 700 du li si'i na'u lo se cacra 
05:12 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "c" found.
05:12 < gleki> exp: li 700 du li si'i na'u se cacra 
05:12 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "c" found.
05:13 < gleki> exp: li 700 du li si'i mo'e lo se cacra 
05:13 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "c" found.
05:13 < gleki> i give up
05:16 < zipcpi> lol foiled by VUhU again
05:17 < zipcpi> It's probably the first-ever kurtynomvla :p
05:17 < akmnlrse> exp mekso has at least one bug ba'a nai
05:21  * nuzba @fotono: #lojban ma'oste/gimste/vlaste update: Português do Brasil version was added with only one word http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/stardict.html http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/gismu-cmavo.html [http://bit.ly/1JrjPc5]
05:21 < gleki> i wish i could concatenate {li si'i} and {lo se cacra} into a larger string
05:21 < gleki> with only one word <--!
05:21 < gleki> hall i add this language to mensi ?
05:21 < gleki> shall i add this language to mensi ?
05:23  * nuzba @uitki: 已更新页面：nuzyfle/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzyfle/en 由 Guskant - zoi zoi {{clear}} zoi se lidne la tu'iter [http://bit.ly/1FBiDLV]
05:24 < zipcpi> Oh, gleki... about {ni}
05:24 < zipcpi> {lo ni lo prenu cu sormei}
05:25 < zipcpi> or {lo ni loi prenu cu sormei}, to make the mass distinction clearer
05:26 < gleki> this {ni} makes no sense to me here
05:26 < zipcpi> ni is how "much" the abstraction is true
05:26 < zipcpi> The "amount of truthness"
05:27 < gleki> that's {jei}
05:27 < zipcpi> In the form of a quantity, rather than binary true/false
05:27 < zipcpi> No, jei is between 0-1
05:27 < gleki> okay what is ni2 here??
05:28 < zipcpi> Scale?... hm... not sure what that speaks to me
05:28 < gleki> en: jei
05:28 < mensi> jei = [NU] abstractor: truth-value abstractor; x1 is truth value of [bridi] under epistemology x2. |>>>
05:28 < mensi> officialdata
05:28 < zipcpi> lo si'o mitre? But that seems superfluous
05:28 < zipcpi> jei is sort of like "fuzzy logic"
05:29 < zipcpi> Where you can say "the water is hot" is only half-true
05:29 < gleki> i dont think its superflous. if you say "amount of truth" then one needs to specify how it is calculated
05:29 < zipcpi> While ni... is the quantity of the abstract
05:29 < gleki> measured in what?
05:29 < zipcpi> If you'd forgive my use of pi'ai
05:30 < gleki> sure
05:30 < zipcpi> lo pi'ai minli fei'u cacra be li munono cu ni le trene cu sutra
05:31 < zipcpi> 500 miles per hour is the speed of the train
05:31 < zipcpi> Or, 500 miles per hour is how fast the train is
05:32 < zipcpi> 500 miles per hour is the amount of (the train is fast)ness
05:32 < zipcpi> So why is there a need for an x2? lo pi'ai minli fei'u cacra is already in the first place
05:35 < zipcpi> Later positions in NU are kinda awkward anyway
05:36 < zipcpi> Only good one I remember is sedu'u, which is mostly useful because you can say stuff like "a'y cusku losedu'u broda", not because you want to put anything there
05:38 < gleki> i doubt {lo minli} can go into ni2 of {lo trene cu sutra}. 
05:38 < gleki> http://korp.alexburka.com/#?cqp=%5B(trans%20%5E%3D%20%22ni2%22%20%7C%20tags%20%5E%3D%20%22ni2%22)%5D&stats_reduce=word&search_tab=1&hpp=50&search=cqp
05:38 < gleki> doi mat. ma ni lo do mlatu cu jmive kei lo nanca
05:39 < gleki> this makes more sense, although why no just fill nanca2
05:39 < zipcpi> No, you want something with {clatei} :p
05:39 < zipcpi> Otherwise you are asking "how alive is your cat"
05:39 < gleki> {gradu fi le se ni} can also make sense
05:41 < gleki> but in general usage is terrible
05:49 < zipcpi> Oh, and gleki, if you're asking "Why do we need mass gadri", well, actually, {lu'o} exists
05:50 < zipcpi> It's just... two extra syllables o.o
05:50 < gleki> was i asking?
05:51 < gleki> i said i didnt like LE
05:51 < zipcpi> Well you were suggesting we use {gu'au} or something
05:51 < gleki> yes
05:51 < gleki> and {lu'o} is a new selmaho
05:51 < gleki> whereas tags can do the same
05:51 < zipcpi> Sumtcita can't change how outer quantifiers work
05:52 < gleki> what can do lu'o that {fa je gu'au} cant?
05:52 < zipcpi> Change how outer quantifiers work?
05:53 < zipcpi> Imagine loi didn't exist
05:53 < zipcpi> pimu lu'o lo djacu
05:53 < zipcpi> vs. pimu lo gu'au djacu
05:54 < zipcpi> How does {gu'au} change the numericity of djacu?
05:54 < zipcpi> Or replace it with prenu if you want something more countable
05:55 < gleki> no, i say {faje gu'au}, not {lo gu'au}
05:55 < zipcpi> That just makes it even worse
05:56 < gocti> {re loi mu prenu} = two groups of five people; {fa je gu'au re lo mu prenu} = ???
05:56 < gleki> which meanings do you need?
05:57 < zipcpi> Mass gadri (and lu'o) change how outer quantifiers work
05:57 < zipcpi> It's not just a fancy malglikslu plural
05:57 < gleki> lo mu prenu ku noi remei
05:57 < gocti> na'i
05:58 < gleki> re lo mu gu'au prenu
05:58 < gocti> ^ i'a
05:59 < gleki> lu lo mu prenu ku noi remei li'u zo'u ma nabmi
05:59 < gleki> ija lu lo mu prenu ku noi gunma re da
05:59 < gleki> li'u
05:59 < zipcpi> No, to me that reads "two out of five people who happen to be in a group"
06:00 < gocti> lu "lo mu prenu ku noi remei" li'u zo'u na ka'e ge mu mei gi re mei
06:01 < gocti> lu "lo mu prenu ku noi gunma re da" zo'u mi na kakne lo ka tersmu
06:37 < ctefa`o> Thinking about my na'oi idea again, how is "sai" actually used?
06:37 < ctefa`o> from what I have seen "sai" is used as "stronger" and cai "very strong", as compared to the actual definitions..
06:39 < zipcpi> No one cares about the cmavo definitions :p
06:39 < zipcpi> They are entered *waaaaaay* back when and never changed
06:40 < ctefa`o> err, nvm, newer definition is different
06:40 < ctefa`o> old definition was "sai = na'oi" and "cai = sai"
06:40 < zipcpi> But what good is that lol
06:40 < ctefa`o> ok so there wasn't a hole there then
06:41 < zipcpi> Just go make na'oi
06:41 < ctefa`o> am working on it
06:42 < gleki> jb:cai
06:42 < mensi> cai = cai [interjection modifier] — critical, extreme intensity interjection
06:42 < mensi> :oi cai — Ah, pain, I'm going to lose consciousness now!!!
06:42 < mensi> :Comment: can be used either on its own or as a modifier of interjection.
06:43 < ctefa`o> how long was it since vlasisku was shown any love?
06:43 < ctefa`o> "cai - attitudinal: strong intensity attitude modifier."
06:44 < gleki> en:sai
06:44 < mensi> sai = [CAI] attitudinal: moderate intensity attitude modifier.
06:44 < gleki> strong/moderate are relative terms
06:46 < ctefa`o> well yeah, but it seems "uisai" is stronger than the implied intensity of just "ui", which is itself stronger than "ru'e"
06:47 < gleki> yes
06:49 < zipcpi> I think it's just a bad choice of words, and sai is always meant to be an intensifier
06:49 < zipcpi> As per even the CLL
06:51 < zipcpi> sai comes from tsali, cai comes from carmi
06:52 < zipcpi> Although {tsali} is somewhat malglixlu :p
06:53 < zipcpi> So is {pe'i} <- {pensi} too ({jinvi} would be better)
06:53 < gleki> invent {penvi} then
06:53 < zipcpi> lol
06:53 < zipcpi> Folk etymology gismu
06:53 < gocti> {pevna}, {cnabu}, {fanbu}, etc
06:54 < gleki> zo cnabu mo
06:54 < gocti> ca'abna je zva'ati
06:55 < gleki> na slabu mi
06:55 < gocti> so'u sai roi se pilno
06:56 < ctefa`o> ...and na'oi comes from cnano
06:56 < zipcpi> Yeah I know
06:57 < ctefa`o> all nice and consistent and logical
06:57 < ctefa`o> jb: na'oi
06:58 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
06:58 < zipcpi> By the way gleki, what do you think of ja'ai / nai as the "never-wrong" yes/no?... though I'm not sure what it does to {ba'apei}
06:58 < gocti> jbo: na'oi
06:58 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
06:58 < gocti> mensi: ko ningau
06:58 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
06:58 < gocti> {ba'a ja'ai nai} could be a hackish solution
06:58 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
06:58 < ctefa`o> oh well it is added now
06:58 < gocti> jbo: na'oi
06:59 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
06:59 < ctefa`o> uina'oi zo'o
06:59 < gocti> ko'oi la vrici di'a kanro
06:59 < zipcpi> gocti: Yeah... it'd be kinda silly to interpret {ba'apei} as "Do you expect it, experience it, or remember it"?!!!(^$("^(^$276
06:59 < gleki> en:na'oi
06:59 < mensi> na'oi = [CAI] Indicator for moderate or normal attitudinal intensity
06:59 < ctefa`o> uisai
07:00 < gocti> zipcpi: pe'i that should be the interpretation
07:00 < ctefa`o> so will the parser bots accept this now too?
07:00 < gocti> ctefa`o: it needs to be added manually
07:00 < zipcpi> gocti: But that is weird an unnatural
07:00 < gocti> by whoever runs them
07:00 < ctefa`o> ok
07:01 < ctefa`o> as I wrote in the definition, is probably mostly useful together with pei
07:01 < gocti> {ba'a ja'ai pei} can be "do you expect"
07:01 < gocti> etc.
07:02 < zipcpi> Yeah, hacky though
07:02 < gocti> (the first NAI being eaten by the ba'a, and the others meaning the usual negation)
07:03 < zipcpi> Well in La Bangu gleki favors {je'u} / {je'unai}
07:04 < gleki> favors for what purpose?
07:04 < zipcpi> I still kinda trip up when trying to decide how to answer yes/no
07:05 < zipcpi> Sometimes I even use the malglixlu {ie}... oi
07:05 < ctefa`o> So basically this makes "pei ui" and "uipei" different in that I can now say "uina'oi" to the latter and...whatever was used before for "pei ui"
07:06 < zipcpi> Most of use just repeat {ui} and don't even use ja'ai
07:07 < ctefa`o> yeah I was wondering which one was used
07:07 < ctefa`o> but without na'oi you would use "ui" as answer to both right?
07:07 < zipcpi> I'm not even sure what {pei ui} is
07:08 < ctefa`o> "Are you happy" vs. "How happy are you"?
07:08 < gleki> {ba'a} has a special brivla under it. vedli/kanpe/lifri are only approximations
07:08 < zipcpi> No, to me it reads like
07:08 < ctefa`o> "pei ui" seems to imply that the ui-newss holds
07:08 < ctefa`o> ui-ness
07:08 < gleki> yes
07:08 < zipcpi> "How do you feel? I'm happy."
07:08 < gleki> yes
07:08 < gocti> ^
07:10 < zipcpi> So {vedli} is like morji, but a more visceral form of remembering?
07:10 < zipcpi> As if you're experiencing it again?
07:11 < zipcpi> Oh
07:11 < zipcpi> morji is for facts {du'u}
07:11 < ctefa`o> so no one actually uses "pei" in front?
07:11 < gocti> vedli is, sa'e nai sai, pu lifri gi'e ca morji lo du'u lifri
07:11 < zipcpi> ctefa'o: I suppose so
07:11 < gleki> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/scmpl7EtCBg/discussion
07:12 < gleki> a link to Wikipedia included
07:12 < zipcpi> Right I understand {vedli} now
07:12 < gleki> ctefa`o: you may use KzS, it's used a lot
07:12 < ctefa`o> KzS?
07:13 < gleki> korp.alexburka.com
07:13 < gleki> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyd_-Nb56uk
07:17 < ctefa`o> ok
07:18 < ctefa`o> going out for a bit co'oru'e
07:34  * nuzba @misterian: Lojban http://ift.tt/1FyhNAD [http://bit.ly/1KJdyWy]
07:50  * nuzba @uitki: L17-03 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-03 by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1KJg1Ab]
07:50 < zipcpi> Might need a "folk origin-word" for {bi'ai}; it's really from {bilga} but {bilga} has got nothing to do with philosophical or logical necessity :p
07:51 < gleki> binba
07:52 < gleki> from {fanbu}
08:19 < gocti> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/User:Guskant#ni.27o_lo_finti_be_la_zantufa
08:19 < gocti> za'a lo tinke be lo gerna cu zenba lo ka memkai
08:21 < zipcpi> xu gy finti lo tcecitno gentufa
08:21 < gocti> zo'o mutce ba ma citno
08:21 < gocti> .i lo te frica zo'u tu'e:
08:22 < gocti> .u'a nai dai lo lerpoi lo naclerpoi co'u .entangle
08:22 < zipcpi> {I tent to use citno for "new" when talking about when something is created. It's an anti-malglixlu thing :p)
08:22 < gocti> .i zo jo'au se zanru gi'e na ku'i rinka da
08:23 < gocti> .i zo te'i noi ki'u lo na se djuno be mi di'a pagbu ma'oi bai
08:23 < gocti> .i zo pi'e co'e ge co'u ku ma'oi pa gi co'a ku ma'oi vu'u
08:23 < gocti> tu'u
08:23 < gocti> .i je'e
08:24 < gocti> My point was just that current use would have {citnytce} for your {tcecitno}
08:24 < zipcpi> Oh
08:25 < gocti> s/rinka/jai rinka/ li'a
08:25 < gocti> camxes: te'i da
08:25 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
08:25 < gocti> exp: te'i da
08:25 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
08:25 < gocti> en: te'i
08:25 < mensi> te'i = [BAI] at a point on time axis |>>> temjudri modal. See also de'i and ti'u. ex.) su'o da nuntumdesku te'i li re no
08:25 < mensi> pa mu pi'e mu pi'e ci no pi'e re no pi'e re vo noi sinxa lo mentu ku'o te te'i u'y ty cy xi ma'u so (There was an
08:25 < mensi> earthquake at 2015-05-30 20:24 UTC+9.) / su'o da nuntumdesku te'i li re vo mu ze pa ze re pi so ze mu te te'i la juli'us
08:25 < mensi> (There was an earthquake at 2457172.975 of Julian date.) |>>> gusnikantu
08:25 < gocti> cizra
08:25 < gocti> ah
08:25 < gocti> su .i mi bebna
08:26 < zipcpi> Yeah te'i is her merging of de'i and ti'u
08:26 < gocti> .i mi pu kanpe lo du'u bailma'o zo steci
08:27 <@xalbo> I hate things like {citnytce} in place of {tcecitno}, unless you actually want to put mutce3 in front of citno2 (and if you do that, you're even crazier).
08:28 < zipcpi> Yeah it's... I dunno. I think it's just best for xorxes' proposal not to touch LI...LOhO. Because it's not just my date proposal that's at stake. It's character strings
08:28 < zipcpi> Yeah it just doesn't fit with the Lojban I was taught, even though I don't remember the jvojva
08:29  * gocti 's mutce has no x3
08:29 < zipcpi> lol look at me talking about the Lojban I was taught
08:29 < gocti> toltce ftw
08:29 < zipcpi> I'm sure there was no selpa'is connectives there
08:29 < zipcpi> Or maybe I'm really from the future o.o
08:30 <@xalbo> The same people would have you use {citno mutce} in place of {mutce citno}, because they view the underlying relationship as {mutce lo ka citno}. But I disagree; the fundamental thing you're asserting is {citno}, with something like {la'u lo mutce} or so.
08:30 < zipcpi> Yeah technically both work. But {mutce citno} has a more convenient place structure
08:31 < gocti> I've completely drunk the koolaid and don't see anything wrong with {mutce lo ka citno} being lightweight for lack of a better word
08:31 < gocti> but then lindar's {sutra lo ka klama} rant was one of the first things I read
08:32 < zipcpi> tanru will never have an unambiguous expansion
08:32 < gocti> li'a
08:34 < zipcpi> Yeah why do you need te mutce? So you can lie and say "haha! I actually meant te mutce to be negative!"???
08:34 < gocti> bu'a'a dai
08:38 <@xalbo> I think for me it's mostly that tanru are all about the tertau, not the seltau. If I want to say I'm traveling quickly, I do want to assert both, but it seems that the more important part is {mi klama}, not {mi sutra}. Especially if I do want a destination, which gets really awkward in the {klama sutra} order. (klama be ... [be'o] sutra}, or {sutra co klama ...} or {sutra lo ka klama ...}
08:39 <@xalbo> And all of that is even worse with {mutce}, where {mi mutce citno} just makes so much more sense. Again, {mi citno} is the base, and we're piling on top of that, it's not {mi mutce}.
08:39 < zipcpi> lu klama sutra li'u u'iru'e
08:39 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Sorry, that joke is so old I'd stopped seeing it :)
08:39 < zipcpi> lol
08:39 <@xalbo> {ka ma sutra} also gets used, although it's harder to work into conversation
08:40 < zipcpi> na laldo ma'i mi
08:40 < gocti> old as the language itself la'a
08:42 <@xalbo> .i na tolcnino do .i tolcitno zu'i
08:42 < zipcpi> je'u
08:42 <@xalbo> (And now we've gone full-circle, back to the distinction between {cnino} and {citno} :))
08:42 < zipcpi> :p
08:43 < gocti> ni'o lo nabmi pe zo'oi si si zo fazdmru zo'u:
08:44 < gocti> ba'o cipyzu'e tu'a ro fu'ivla be ma'i la .camxes. be'o poi pagbu lo se .irci vreji
08:44 < gocti> .i no valsi cu jai nabmyrfazdymru
08:45 < gocti> (to va'i ro zi'evla poi se vreji na va'o co'u gendra toi)
08:47 < zipcpi> Are you saying that you're allowing my "alternate spelling" of syllabic consonants?
08:47 < gocti> It's been allowed in my parser for weeks now
08:47 < zipcpi> Ah
08:48 < gocti> I've run the same test I ran earlier, but now on all zi'evla ever said on the IRC
08:48 < gocti> and every word accepted by vanilla camxes is accepted by mine
08:48 < zipcpi> je'e
08:48 < gocti> i.e. no one ever said a fazdmru type word
08:49 < zipcpi> Oh, so my proposal does theoretically break down with words like "fazdmru", but such zi'evla doesn't actually exist :p
08:49 < gocti> go'i
08:50 < zipcpi> Yeah... does mean that it's gotta be an all-or-nothing thing though
08:52 < gleki> so {li R2D2} can't be an expression in reverse polish notation because otherwise it has to have an explicit rpn marker?
08:52 < zipcpi> It's just ugh... don't mess with me'o
08:52 < zipcpi> It's for character strings
08:52 < gocti> Not really; you can add "!onset" to the middle of consonantal_syllable and it would forbid fazdmru without allowing cidjyrspageti
08:52 < zipcpi> I'm with Lojbab there
08:53 < zipcpi> People are taking the "mekso" thing too literally
08:53 < gocti> Number/letter strings zo'u I prefer allowing mixtures but could live with PAbu
08:54 < zipcpi> The problem with PAbu is strings with a lot of numbers
08:54 < gocti> ie
08:54 < gleki> off: li su'i pa boi re boi
08:54 < mensi> ([li {su'i <(¹pa boi¹) (¹re boi¹)> KUhE} LOhO] VAU)
08:54 < gleki> off: li pa boi re boi
08:54 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,], [gG], [lL], [mM], [nN], [rR] or [vV] but "b" found.
08:54 < gleki> aha
08:54 < gocti> lo'u 33554432 le'u bu sei fegli
08:54 < gocti> exp: lo'u 33554432 le'u bu sei fegli
08:54 < mensi> ([{<lo'u (¹ci ci mu mu vo vo ci re¹) le'u> bu} BOI {sei fegli SEhU}] VAU)
08:55 < zipcpi> kurtynomvla to the rescue! {joi'i}
08:58 < gleki> so many people complaining that there is no course for Lojban on one educational website. But those are Anki and Memrise for which courses should be developed.
08:59 < gleki> Not those "My wolf drinks milk" courses.
08:59 < zipcpi> lo mi labno cu pinxe lo ladru
09:00 < gleki> i need a converter from Anki courses to Memrise.
09:00 < gocti> lo ratcu cu citka lo cirla se pi'o lo forca joi lo dakfu
09:01 < zipcpi> lo mlatu co'a viska le ratcu
09:01 < gocti> .i co'e
09:01 < gocti> li'o
09:03 < zipcpi> sa'ei mr~~~~~i~~~~~iaus
09:03 < gocti> sa'ei .iiiiiiiiiiiiiiin.
09:03 < zipcpi> u'i
09:04 < gocti> (to na ku zo'u mi kancu me'o .i'y pu lo nu benji toi)
09:04 < gocti> .oi http://web.archive.org/web/20140426211241/http://www.peteschlette.com/memrise2anki.html
09:05 < gocti> pu za ku da finti lo proga gi'e nai gubgau lo se sampla
09:05 < gocti> ja mo kau
09:06 < gocti> sa .i
09:06 < gleki> mi pu kucli tu'a lo anki poi galfi ke'a la memraiz
09:06 < zipcpi> Oh yes not only are masses important for outer quantifiers, they're also important for ... gasp... scope
09:06 < Ilmen> https://github.com/pschlette/memrise2anki-extension
09:07 < gocti> ua .i mi jifxu'a
09:07 < Ilmen> https://github.com/wilddom/memrise2anki-extension
09:07 < Ilmen> this second one is a rewrite
09:08 < Ilmen> "This is more or less a complete rewrite of Pete Schlette's original addon "
09:08 < Ilmen> http://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/1bb5q7/memrise2anki_online_tool_for_painlessly/
09:09 < gleki> i asked the reverse: anki to memrise
09:10 < gocti> je'e
09:10 < gocti> .i ie si'au no da tutci fe ku
09:10 < gocti> 'Memrise's "max 100 lines at a time" requirement'
09:11 < hif> What requirement is that?
09:11 < Ilmen> "to create a Memrise course you can copy and paste from an excel spreadsheet : 100 words by 100"
09:11 < Ilmen> "You just have to click on bulck add"
09:11 < Ilmen> :S
09:12 < gocti> ru'a va'o lo nu pleji cu curmi tu'a lo bramau
09:13 < Ilmen> http://www.memrise.com/thread/1300033/
09:13 < durka42> mo
09:13 < Ilmen> bu'a .u'i
09:14 < gocti> mlu lka zan
09:14 < ctefa`o> coi
09:14 < durka42> coi ctefa`o
09:15 < durka42> ma mlu lka zan lka mo doi goc
09:15 < Ilmen> well it does bulk upload only for media files, ju'inai
09:15 < Ilmen> at least I think
09:16 < gocti> ah
09:16 < hif> What Memrise course are you trying to create?
09:17 < gocti> durka42: l kibseljudr pe la .ilm pu mlu lka zan lka cru lnu kibdud l za'u 100 mei be l juf
09:17 < gocti> la medmraize
09:17 < Ilmen> .u'i
09:17 < durka42> ua
09:17 < durka42> .i cizra fa lo nu jimpe
09:19 < gocti> mi na sciz
09:20 < zipcpi> le nu bauspo cu ranji
09:20 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
09:32 < gleki> i need to write a converter to bavjbobau
09:33 < gleki> gismu will be converted to CVC or CCV words
09:33 < gleki> or last vowel will be dropped
09:33 < ldlework> coi
09:34 < gocti> coi
09:35 < gleki> uat. a macos app?
09:35 < gleki> how to run it on linux/windows?
09:57 < Ilmen> No idea
09:58 < gleki> Ilmen: have u found a good Anki/Memrise course in any language that teaches thru sentences, not isolated words?
09:59 < Ilmen> gleki: Honestly I haven't tried any shared Anki deck, and didn't touch Memrise for ages
10:00 < gleki> ah
10:00 < gleki> ai si
10:09 < gleki> looks like i just can't find any decks where sentences would be used to teach a language.
10:09 < gleki> except Pimsleur  probably
10:13  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Abstractors - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Abstractors by Cirko - category [http://bit.ly/1BP652W]
10:27 < gleki> feel the malkemglibau: mw.lojban.org/papri/Special:RecentChanges
10:27 < gleki> still english there
10:28 < gleki> i mean in the url itself
10:32 < durka42> Cizra:LampruCenba
10:33 < durka42> zo cizra cizra
10:33 < durka42> zo steci xu
10:38 < zipcpi> What's the lojban for "sub-selma'o"? :p
10:42 < gleki> better to just invent a completely new term
10:42 < gleki> although why not just selma'okle
10:43 < gleki> jvozba would disagree ofc.
10:43 < gleki> lujvo: se cmavo klesi
10:43 < mensi> selma'olei[9305], selma'okle[9316], selcmavylei[10926], selcmavykle[10937], selma'oklesi[11355], ...
10:43 < gleki> -lei is fine provided that it's always the last suffix
10:51 < durka42> no da jbovla zo'oi sub-selma'o soi lo du to'e vajni cu krinu zo'o zo'onai .u'i
10:57 < gleki> mi tugni fi lo nu na vajni
10:57 < gleki> i lo me'oi subselmaho cu selma'o
10:58 < zipcpi> Hm... yes, you may have a point there; technically se cmavo are "parts of speech", and can refer to natlangs as well
10:58 < zipcpi> If you wanted to define English cmavo in terms of Lojbanic selma'o you'd probably have one for each one :p
10:58 < zipcpi> Maybe there should just be another word for "true" selma'o
10:59 < durka42> vlaste: cmavo
10:59 < vlaste> cmavo = x1 is a structure word of grammatical class x2, with meaning/function x3 in usage (language) x4.
10:59 < gleki> another question is whether "true selmaho" is a useful concept
10:59 < durka42> you can divide the cmavo by grammatical function, that's selma'o
11:00 < durka42> dividing them up by meaning is orthogonal and so attempting to do it by the same hierarchy always runs into issues
11:00 < zipcpi> Yes... but then we ended up merging some
11:00 < zipcpi> What a mess :p
11:01 < zipcpi> It's like, really, the sumtcita should just be TAG1, TAG2 etc lol
11:05 < gleki> i can even say " {vi} is a cmavo of "SUMTCITA" class".
11:06 < zipcpi> zo vi cu cmavo zo'ei lo sumtcita
11:06 < zipcpi> ?
11:06 < gleki> cizra
11:07 < durka42> xu lo sumtcita cu selma'o
11:07 < durka42> braselma'o
11:07 < zipcpi> zo vi sumtcita .iku'i zo vi na selma'o
11:07 < gleki> ju'o selma'o ju braselma'o
11:08 < durka42> ma'oi vi selma'o
11:08 < gleki> la'oi TAG a la'oi SUMTCITA enai lo sumtcita cu selma'o
11:08 < zipcpi> ja'o fu'ebi'a lo sumtcita fu'o naka'e selma'o
11:09 < gleki> li'a
11:09 < gleki> i ku'i lo su'a sumtcita cu cmavo ma
11:11 < zipcpi> le se cmavo be loi sumtcita
11:11 < zipcpi> u'i
11:11 < gleki> ie ie
11:14 < gleki> the same as with "I walk where you walk" problem
11:15 < durka42> lu la'oi SUMTCITA li'u cizra .i sa'e cizra fa lo nu no da jbovla lo'e selma'o
11:15 < zipcpi> lu ma'oi sumtcita li'u cu gendra
11:15 < gleki> i no da jbovla lo'e selma'okle
11:16 < gleki> exp: ma'oi sumtcita
11:16 < mensi> ([ma'oi sumtcita] VAU)
11:16 < zipcpi> zo vi cu cmavo ma'oi sumtcita
11:16 < gleki> snuti gendra
11:16 < ldlework> I walk: where you walk
11:16 < gleki> en: ma'oi
11:16 < ldlework> this isn't hard to express in lojban
11:16 < mensi> ma'oi = [ZO] selma'o quote; quotes a word (a cmavo) and uses it to name a selma'o. |>>> Example: ma'oi coi is equivalent
11:16 < mensi> to COI. See also ra'oi.  |>>> latros
11:16 < gleki> ldlework: translate that then
11:16 < ldlework> Its only hard to express if you want to express it in terms of an anaphora
11:16 < gleki> ldlework: what is ur full translation
11:17 < ldlework> mi cadzu le se cadzu be do
11:17 < ldlework> Its only hard to express if you want to express it in terms of an anaphora.
11:17 < ldlework> Because lojban has no generalized antecedent-anaphora phrase system
11:17 < gleki> ah, heh, indeed. Sorry then. Try translating "I sing where you sing".
11:18 < ldlework> mi sanga bu'u lo nu sanga
11:18 < ldlework> do sanga*
11:18 < gleki> and that's the problem
11:19 < ldlework> right, no generic-antecedent anaphora
11:19 < gleki> mi sanga bu'u lo poi'i do sanga bu'u ke'a
11:19 < ldlework> you can say ko'a, but its unspecialized
11:19 < ldlework> it doesn't specify the sense of what you want to access
11:19 < durka42> mi sanga bu'u lo jai bu'u do nei
11:19 < ldlework> what you did
11:19 < ldlework> where you when
11:19 < ldlework> when you did it
11:19 < durka42> er
11:19 < ldlework> etc
11:19 < durka42> mi sanga bu'u lo jai bu'u se nei be do
11:19 < durka42> zo'o
11:20 < ldlework> our le'e is interesting but it only provides the actual anaphorical description
11:20 < zipcpi> Do we need another {tu'a}? o.o
11:20 < ldlework> it doesn't ascribe what sense of the antecedent it refers to
11:21 < gleki> exp: mi sanga bu'u lo jai bu'u do sanga
11:21 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "s" found.
11:21 < ldlework> tu'a only works for other sentences
11:21 < ldlework> not antecedents in the same sentence
11:21 < ldlework> it works very well as that though
11:21 < durka42> mi sanga bu'u lo jai bu'u nu do sanga
11:21 < zipcpi> Yeah awkward
11:22 < durka42> camxes: mi sanga bu'u lo jai bu'u nu do sanga
11:22 < camxes> ([mi CU] [sanga {bu'u <lo (¹jai bu'u [nu {do CU} {sanga VAU}] KEI¹) KU>} VAU])
11:22 < durka42> correct tho :p
11:22 < durka42> oh I lost the anaphoric selbri
11:22 < durka42> fau'u
11:22 < durka42> camxes: mi sanga bu'u lo jai bu'u nu do no'a
11:22 < camxes> ([mi CU] [sanga {bu'u <lo (¹jai bu'u [nu {do CU} {no'a VAU}] KEI¹) KU>} VAU])
11:22 < ldlework> zo no'a ua
11:23 < ldlework> what's wrong with "mi sanga bu'u lo nu no'a
11:23 < gleki> can anyone annihilate those two {bu'u}? zo'o
11:23 < ldlework> gleki: sure with a new tu'a
11:23 < gleki> ldlework: lowering
11:23 < durka42> xu lo nu co'e cu stuzi
11:24 < ldlework> why wouldn't it?
11:24 < ldlework> oh
11:24 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu:_Dictionary_with_Examples#Advanced_situations
11:24 < zipcpi> mi stidi tu'a zo tau zo'o
11:24 < gleki> A clause place in a noun can be put into an entity place of the main verb:
11:24 < gleki> ...
11:25 < durka42> xm
11:25 < durka42> .i'a ru'e
11:26 < gleki> These last two rules can be found in colloquial speech. They are sometimes avoided by careful speakers. However, if you bump into them you will know how to deal with them.
11:29 < ldlework> mi sanga bu'u tu'o no'a
11:30 < ldlework> tu'o is extracts the sense from the sumti on the right, as the tag on the left
11:30 < ldlework> bu'u tu'o no'a : located, at the location of no'a
11:30 < ldlework> sepi'o tu'o no'a : using, what no'a used
11:31 < ldlework> mi morsi ko'a sepi'o tu'o lo nu ko'e morsi ko'i
11:31 < ldlework> "I killed ko'a using what ko'e used to kill ko'i
11:32 < zipcpi> zo tu'o mo uanai
11:32 < ldlework> I literally just explained it
11:32 < zipcpi> No the real tu'o
11:32 < ldlework> who cares
11:32 < zipcpi> lol
11:33 < ldlework> its a tag reflector
11:33 < ldlework> as used here
11:33 < zipcpi> Hmm... sort of the opposite of selpa'i-s tu'a?
11:33 < ldlework> yes
11:34 < ldlework> except it has an explicit target, rather than always extracting from the last sentence
11:34 < ldlework> BAI tu'o SUMTI
11:34 < zipcpi> no'a is not a sumti
11:34 < ldlework> extracts the same bai from sumti, the result of which, is used to fill the outer BAI
11:34 < ldlework> sure lo nu no'a, whateves
11:35 < zipcpi> mi sanga bu'u *tu'o lo nu do no'a
11:35 < ldlework> right
11:35 < ldlework> no need for do though
11:35 < ldlework> it doesn't extract a selbri
11:35 < ldlework> err
11:35 < ldlework> no'a isn't a selbri
11:35 < ldlework> its a bridi
11:35 < ldlework> of no'a is extracted as a selbri
11:36 < ldlework> all you need is
11:36 < zipcpi> But how do I get "I sing where *you* sing"?
11:36 <@xalbo> zipcpi: The real {tu'o} is *exactly* what we were talking about yesterday, roughly {zi'o ze'ei pa}
11:36 < ldlework> no'a is already "you sing"
11:36 < ldlework> because that's what the outer bridi is
11:36 < ldlework> if no'a is extracted as a selbri meaning the bridi
11:36 < ldlework> zipcpi: ohhh
11:36 < ldlework> right
11:37 < zipcpi> Yeah where did you get the do :p
11:37 < ldlework> so no'a must be a selbri-thing like go'i
11:37 < ldlework> not a bridi
11:37 < zipcpi> no'a is a pro-bridi; acts like a selbri
11:37 < zipcpi> Imagine it's broda
11:37 < gleki> yes, no'a copies all sumti unless they are overriden. this is how GOhA works.
11:37 < ldlework> gleki: ie
11:37 < zipcpi> It's in the same "selma'o" if you will
11:37 < ldlework> right so your example was correct
11:38 < gleki> there is a problem with recursion but it's not a problem to me
11:38 < ldlework> ie
11:38 < ldlework> It probably doesn't copy a sumti in which the GOhA appears
11:39 <@xalbo> So {BAI tu'o SELBRI} = {BAI lo jai BAI SELBRI}?
11:39 < gleki> whatever solution with recursion is used it's fine
11:40 < zipcpi> Should it accept a sumti or a selbri? Maybe selbri does make more sense
11:40 < zipcpi> What selma'o would it be
11:41 < zipcpi> Looks like it might be LE o.o lol
11:41 < gleki> so i talked to Curtis about his new clockwise gismu and thay are not -wise imo.
11:41 < gleki> not only didnt he convince me but changed his opinion over and over again.
11:41 < zipcpi> I dunno, I think the concept of clockwise/counterclockwise is useful. It's just I don't know what place structure they should have
11:41 < gleki> the result is that it's no better than what La Bangu says by its decree
11:41 < ldlework> zipcpi: this would be a verrrrrry specific LE lol
11:42 < gleki> jb: carna
11:42 < mensi> carna = carna — x1(entity)  turns or rotates around axis  x2(entity)  in direction  x3(entity)
11:42 < mensi> :lo carna — rotating. lo se carna — axis of rotation. lo te carna — direction of rotation.
11:42 < mensi> :ko carna fe'e mo'u lo pritu — Turn right.
11:42 < mensi> :ko pritu carna — Turn right.
11:42 < mensi> :lo xislu pu carna lo grana lo zunle ma'i lo galtu — The wheel was rotating around the rod counterclockwise when viewed
11:42 < mensi> from above.
11:42 < mensi> :Comment: in x3 use lo pritu for clockwise movement and zunle for counterclockwise movement.
11:42 < mensi> :Related words: gunro, jendu
11:42 < zipcpi> ldlework: Yeah probably doesn't fit in our system. It could be tu'ai or something
11:42 <@xalbo> LE would work, sorta kinda. ({sorta}: x1 is kinda x2 (ka) by standard x3. {kinda}: x1 is sorta x2 (ka) by standard x3)
11:42 < ldlework> xalbo: that looks right
11:43 < zipcpi> mi sanga bu'u tu'ai nu do sanga
11:43 < ldlework> I think a thing that only fits into the slot of a BAI is best since it is a thing that only makes sense there
11:43 < ldlework> woah a selbri, interesting
11:43 <@xalbo> Yeah, and that would need its own grammar.
11:43 < zipcpi> I wish it could be {tau}, but it'd break both standard Lojban *and* cekitaujau :p
11:44 < ldlework> xalbo: ii
11:44 <@xalbo> I really feel like the overhead here isn't worth it. New cmavo in a new selm'ao for something that's not used often, and isn't really much shorter at all than {lo jai BAI}.
11:44 < zipcpi> Is tu'a still in LAhE?
11:44 < ldlework> not used often because its incredible hard to express
11:44 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Yes.
11:45 < ldlework> but a generalized antecedent system sure sounds amazingly useful
11:45 < zipcpi> So all LAhE work like selpa'i-tu'a? Not sure what those would mean
11:45 <@xalbo> ldlework: {lo jai BAI} isn't hard at all, I think. I mean, as soon as I understood what you were saying it came pretty much instantly.
11:46 < ldlework> first, the semantic of jai BAI takes its own non-trivial explanation
11:46 < ldlework> in grammar and semantic
11:46 < ldlework> and its something you can teach as explicit access to antecedents
11:46 < ldlework> rather than conventional access to antecedents
11:47 < ldlework> ti poi is a lot less annoying than lo jai BAI SUMTI but I still think le'i is amazing
11:48 < ldlework> Its taking a conventional semantic and raising it to a supported feature. A core feature of language becomes a first class feature of our language.
11:48 < ldlework> the act of taking elaborate semantics from a logical form, to an encapsulated form makes the language easier to learn, teach and use
11:48 < zipcpi> exp: mi djuno la'e naku
11:49 < mensi> (mi [CU {djuno <la'e (¹na ku¹) LUhU> VAU}])
11:49 < ldlework> zipcpi: objective antecedent anaphorical descriptions?
11:49 < zipcpi> Huh?
11:49 < ldlework> "I know that I don't know."
11:50 < ldlework> tu'a in LE form
11:50 < ldlework> I'm guessing at where you're going with la'e
11:50 < zipcpi> No I was just playing with the parser
11:50 < ldlework> oh okay
11:51 <@xalbo> ldlework: It's all a balancing act, though. Every feature added to the language adds a cost to learning it. There's a reason {LENU} is two words, not one. We have compositionality.
11:51 < ldlework> xalbo: I agree completely.
11:51 < zipcpi> Because selpa'i-tu'a broadened the grammar of LAhE, but I'm not sure what the semantic of the other LAhE should be :p
11:51 < ldlework> zipcpi: ah
11:52 < gleki> LAhE should die
11:52 <@xalbo> When something can be built really easily from existing mechanisms, and isn't used often, it becomes more of a burden to add and learn to use it than just to learn how to use what already exists.
11:52 < ldlework> xalbo: anaphora with arbitrary antecedent types is a hugely useful thing in language though
11:52 < ldlework> the ability to not only refer back to noun-phrases or even sentences, regardless of their content
11:53 < ldlework> but the ability to refer back to arbitrary specific qualities of those nouns, and propositions is huuuuuuge
11:53 < gleki> ldlework: what is the word for it?
11:53 < ldlework> tu'o as a standin
11:53 < ldlework> don't care which cmavo
11:54 < durka42> sounds like this feature reduces use of {jai}, which is my favorite word, uinai .u'i
11:54 < ldlework> xalbo: I'm arguing that we don't refer to antecedent aspects "often" because its hard, and behind a strange compositional convention
11:54 < ldlework> jai isn't complex on its own, but it isn't the most straightforward semantic either
11:54 < gleki> this tu'o is similar to pagbu tags that i wanted. but i wanted a tag.
11:54 < ldlework> and its not just jai
11:55 < ldlework> its jai used in a very specific way
11:55 < zipcpi> Yes, I would've been lazy and translated using zo'ei
11:55 < ldlework> having to explain the underlying justification of why there are two BAI tags, and how jai performs that, is easier than just explaining the sematnic of tu'o
11:56 < ldlework> is harder*
11:56 < ldlework> but maybe it should go the other way or something
11:56 < ldlework> tu'o sepi'o lo nu do nu'o
11:57 < ldlework> tu'o: "with the same BAI as SUMTI"
11:57 < durka42> BAI the BAI
11:58 < ldlework> mi zbasu lo mi zdani tu'o sepi'o lo nu do nu'o lo do zbasu
12:00 <@xalbo> ({no'a})
12:00 < ldlework> ki'e
12:01 <@xalbo> It seems like you're ok with repeating pretty much everything but the {sepi'o}. And, I guess, the {zbasu}.
12:01 < durka42> mi zbasu lo mi zdani sepi'o lo se pilno be do bei lo nu no'a ra'o
12:01 < durka42> just experimenting over here :p
12:01 <@xalbo> mi fa'u do se pi'o zo'e zbasu lo vo'a zdani
12:02 < zipcpi> zo vi cu cmavo lo se cmavo be zo vi
12:02 < durka42> do mi dunli lo ka pilno makau lo nu zdani zbasu
12:02 < gleki> zo vi e lo sumtcita cu cmavo pa da
12:02 < ldlework> the point is, yes, you can use an aspect-less anaphora and provide the aspect with predicates
12:02 < ldlework> I get it
12:03 < zipcpi> Is there an evil twin of {tu'a}
12:03 < zipcpi> Wait that's jai isn't it?
12:03 < zipcpi> But that doesn't quite do what we want
12:04 <@xalbo> Take an abstraction and retrieve some (unspecified) concrete sumti therefrom? Yeah, there isn't something exactly like that.
12:04 < zipcpi> {la'e}?
12:05 <@xalbo> Not really. {la'e} turns a symbol into its referent (opposite of lu'e)
12:05 <@xalbo> So {la'e lu'e} is a no-op.
12:05 <@xalbo> (and {lu'e la'e} would be a no-op for any symbol, and who knows what for a nonsymbol.)
12:07 <@xalbo> What's most often used for that is {zo'ei}, although it's vague as hell.
12:07 < zipcpi> Exactly
12:07 <@xalbo> (Which is what makes it useful.)
12:07 < zipcpi> Like I said if I was translating that I'd cop out and use zo'ei
12:07 < zipcpi> But yeah
12:09 < zipcpi> How about this
12:09 < zipcpi> mi tirna lo nu do sanga .i mi sanga bu'u ?
12:11 < zipcpi> mi sanga bu'u tu'ai le'e nu sanga
12:11 < zipcpi> Dunno
12:12 < zipcpi> Maybe it should be a LAhE rather than a LE
12:12 < zipcpi> Because it could theoretically be {tu'ai ko'a} as well
12:13 <@xalbo> I have no problem using events as spacetime markers, so I'd use {bu'u lo se go'i}
12:15 < zipcpi> Right... after all bu'u le nunsla probably makes sense, and nunsla is just nu salci
12:16 <@xalbo> 90% of uses of nunsla should be tersla.
12:16 < zipcpi> Probably o.o
12:16 < zipcpi> jbotersla
12:18  * nuzba @selpahi: ko ba'e *pilno* lo jbobau doi lo prenu poi ru'i tavla fi lo jbobau fo ku'i lo na'e lojbo [http://bit.ly/1FyW8Iv]
12:18 < zipcpi> I need to go to bed
12:19 < zipcpi> u'i doi selpa'i
12:19 < zipcpi> o'anairu'e
12:21 < durka42> ba'anai ju'ocu'i lo jbonunsla pu jbotersla .i cnegau lo cmene mu'i lo se tolmo'i
12:30 < justeno> coi
12:31 < durka42> coi
12:31 < justeno> ldlework: how does one choose a name in lojban? what are some rules and so forth
12:31 < durka42> jbo:salci
12:31 < mensi> salci = x1 jarco lo ka sinma x2 kei ta'i lo nu zukte x3
12:32 < durka42> "justeno" is a fine name :p
12:32 < gocti> ju steno
12:33 < durka42> oi
12:33 < durka42> jursteno
12:33 <@xalbo> justeno: Names in Lojban come in two sorts: There are cmevla (name-words), which are treated as opaque markers, just sound, no meaning. Or you can use actual Lojban words as a name, in which case the meaning is (slightly) carried over. For instance, I am named {xalbo}
12:33 <@xalbo> en: xalbo
12:33 < mensi> xalbo = x1 uses levity/is non-serious/frivolous about x2 (abstraction). |>>> See also junri, linto. |>>>
12:33 < mensi> officialdata
12:33 < durka42> mi'e durkavore
12:34 <@xalbo> je'e durkycti
12:34 < justeno> i thought I read names needed to end in a V
12:34 < justeno> er, C*
12:34 <@xalbo> cmevla always end in a consonant, yes.
12:35 < justeno> but if a lojbanic word, V is ok?
12:35 <@xalbo> (I didn't even begin to describe the rules about either of those options, just getting the groundwork out there)
12:35 <@xalbo> All lojban words that aren't cmevla end in a V :). But yes, you can use any selbri as a name, if you want.
12:36 < justeno> awesome
12:37 <@xalbo> (Strictly speaking, a selbri-tail, so lots of options. Roughly, whatever you can put after {lo} you can put after {la}.)
12:39  * nuzba @seraph_jesrad: @SwiftOnSecurity We should all switch to Lojban, written in ideograms. It's the most rational option. [http://bit.ly/1FyYdEp]
12:41 < gleki> xu la selp'ai cu sezymipri jundi cai fau lo nu na go'u  vau ta'i ma djuno lo du'u ma'a na pilno lo jbobau
12:41 < gleki> *selpa'i
12:42 <@xalbo> la selpa'i ro da zgana .i la selpa'i ro da djuno .i la selpa'i ro da selcme
12:43 < justeno> lo lemonade iced tea ku kukte
12:44 <@xalbo> lo pelnimre ke lenku tcati ku je'a kukte
12:45 <@xalbo> .i mi ca pinxe lo glare tcati ku .i ca carvi
12:46 < la_kristan> coi
12:46 <@xalbo> .i va'o lo to'e melbi tcima ku mi tcati pinxe nelci
12:47 < la_kristan> um,... melbi... pinxe nelci - that's all I got out of it.
12:48 < zipcpi> Actually I might have an idea that might be able to kill all "regular lujvo" once and for all, but I don't know if it's too late for that
12:48 < zipcpi> Basically a new class of cmavo
12:48 < zipcpi> That attach into words
12:48 < zipcpi> *attach to selbri
12:48 < gocti> mi ca'o ca'atlu xoi se bilma vau lo se .irci fu'ivla liste
12:48 < la_kristan> oh! you're agressive!
12:48 < zipcpi> But change their semantic, and even place structure, in certain well-defined ways
12:49 < zipcpi> Just like "regular lujvo" are supposed to do
12:49 < gocti> gi'e cilre fi lo vanbi be lo nu pilno lo bi'u nai fu'ivla
12:49 < durka42> so basically assigning a bunch more rafsi?
12:49 < zipcpi> But are prone to being misentered into JVS or having exceptions
12:49 < zipcpi> ... hm... two letter rafsi? :p
12:49 < durka42> maybe
12:50 < durka42> they wouldn't conflict
12:50 < gocti> .i ti'e zo'u tu'e: manku .i dargu .i mutce lo ka cipni .i manku .i ii .i cumki fa lo nu lo crinrgru mi citka
12:50 < gocti> tu'u
12:50 < durka42> well… unless you tried to use one CCV rafsi + a "regular" rafsi
12:50 < durka42> because then you get a gismu form lol
12:50 < la_kristan> whatever.
12:50 < zipcpi> But I kinda want them to (also?) be cmavo so that you can even attach them to long selbrisle like nu lo broda cu brode lo brodi kei
12:51 < durka42> uanai
12:51 < la_kristan> the gismu thesaurus seems to be missing all the colors.
12:51 < durka42> remember what xalbo said earlier about everything adding a barrier to learning :/
12:51 < durka42> la_kristan: what thesaurus?
12:52 < zipcpi> But yeah I don't know if it's too late for that. But are "regular lujvo" any better?
12:52 < la_kristan> The Android app.
12:52 < durka42> link?
12:52 < durka42> I'm only familiar with "Lojban dictionary"
12:53 <@xalbo> The point of regular lujvo is to give guidance for how to create lujvo. If you're proposing adding cmavo, you're basically creating a different kind of Deep Gismu Structure. Nothing wrong with that.
12:53 < durka42> oh I found it
12:53 < zipcpi> I don't mean jvojva
12:53 < zipcpi> I mean stuff like -mau, -ze'a, etc.
12:53 < gleki> la_kristan: there is La Bangu dictionary that has some classes of verbs including colors. See if that helps more. you may copy this spreadsheet btw to edit it yourself for your needs. Coumns E to H are groups of verbs https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19faXeZCUuZ_uL6qcpQdMhetTXiKc5ZsOcZkYiAZ_pRw/edit#gid=7
12:54 < zipcpi> -rai
12:54 < zipcpi> -lai even
12:54 < zipcpi> "promiscuous rafsi" as I call them
12:54 < gocti> cnino cmavo be ma'oi me'oi zo'u zastybazi sai!
12:55 < durka42> "regular derivational affixes" as others call them
12:55 <@xalbo> I don't think I've seen -lai before.
12:55 < zipcpi> lol
12:55 < durka42> lai is from klani, right?
12:55 < zipcpi> Yes
12:55 <@xalbo> Yes.
12:55 <@xalbo> I just haven't seen it used in lujvo.
12:55 < gleki> no, -lai- is from klani, not lai ;P
12:55 < gleki> en:/full lai
12:55 < mensi> 108 da se tolcri: lai, bevma'elai, blaia, blaiasapida, botlai, bralai, bramuclai, carcylai, cenlai, ci'erkeilai,
12:55 < zipcpi> lol
12:55 < mensi> cmamuclai, crelai, jetlai, kabrylai, la'erlai, lai'e, lairka'e, mafnenlai, momlai, muclai, mulselylai, paxlai, plaina,
12:55 < mensi> rozrkarolaina, xanlai, banbu'egu, banfususu, bankuvufu, banlu'icu, banluju'i, banlumuxu, banpu'atu, banpuluke, banpusudu,
12:55 < mensi> banrugusu, banru'ocu, banru'ogu, bansuzu'a, banvesuvu, botrportcelanu, ciksi, ckafre'ole, jadycau, oi, oire'e, oiro'u,
12:55 < mensi> patsku, patyta'a, pe'ai, platesa, portcelanu, posxu'a, stakrportcelanu, bancuruku, banlu'a'i, banpumuve, banvukupu,
12:55 < mensi> boltsemaku, cabna, fancysuksa, glaladyckafi, go'i, go'ira'o, gubysku, gunma, jetrinsku, jibypante, jifxu'a, jifyjunxu'a,
12:55 < mensi> ju'e, jugysmuci, kafrspreso, ki'arzau, krali, la'ai, la'au, ladyckafi, lesrxapsurdie, mai'i, mifra, ...
12:56 < gleki> durka42: how to search for -lai in vlaste?
12:56 < gleki> vlaste: *lai
12:56 < vlaste> klani = x1 is a quantity quantified/measured/enumerated by x2 (quantifier) on scale x3 (si'o).
12:56 < durka42> la_kristan: Life > Perception > Vision
12:57 < durka42> vlaste: affix:lai
12:57 < vlaste> klani = x1 is a quantity quantified/measured/enumerated by x2 (quantifier) on scale x3 (si'o).
12:57 <@xalbo> I can never keep track of the bots around here.
12:57 < durka42> there is a wiki page
12:57 < gleki> neither me. sometimes i forget what even mensi has
12:57 < durka42> la_kristan: "thesaurus" is definitely the wrong word for whatever this is, haha
12:57 <@xalbo> One of these days, someone just needs to make a lojban dictionary bot that uses standard lojban as its query language. {ra'oi lai ma rafsi}
12:58 < gleki> rafsi:lai
12:58 < mensi> zo klani se rafsi zo'oi lai
12:58 < gleki> wont be hard
12:58 < durka42> fairly simple ontology I guess
12:58 < durka42> needs to know the place structure of {rafsi}, {cmavo}, {valsi}, {ciksi}, ...
12:58 <@xalbo> zo klama valsi ma ne bau lo glico
12:59 < durka42> ma valsi zo klama lo glico
12:59 <@xalbo> ma valsi la'e zo klama lo glico
13:00 < zipcpi> Anyway I really need to get to bed; just wanted to throw that dangerous idea here :p
13:00 <@xalbo> co'o ba zi sipna
13:00 <@xalbo> ko senva lo melbi ja tu'a lo melbi
13:01 <@xalbo> {ja}? Y'all are rubbing off on me. Bad xalbo, stick to your stubborn pigheaded principles!
13:02 < gocti> .u'i
13:03 < durka42> .u'i
13:04 < gleki> ra'oi mib rafsi ma
13:04 < mensi> zo mi se rafsi zo'oi mib
13:05 <@xalbo> .i'e
13:05 < gocti> malrxaka zanrxaka
13:05 <@xalbo> ma rafsi zo mi
13:05 < gleki> do djica lo dukse
13:05 <@xalbo> ze'e go'i
13:05 <@xalbo> lo munje na banzu
13:06 < la_kristan> durka: thank you!
13:06 < durka42> je'e
13:07 < durka42> gleki: xu pilno lo jvame'o
13:07 < gleki> na
13:07 < gleki> case text.search("ra'oi [a-z']+ rafsi ma") == '0': 
13:07 < gleki> u'ise'i
13:08 < durka42> jvame'o
13:08 < gleki> ua
13:09 < durka42> ra'oi .a'a'a'a'az rafsi ma
13:10 < durka42> y
13:10 < gleki> zo'oi .
13:10 < durka42> oi
13:10 < durka42> ra'oi a'a'a'a'az rafsi ma
13:10 < mensi> y no da se tolcri
13:11 < durka42> ma se rafsi ra'oi mau
13:11 < durka42> .u'i
13:11 < durka42> .ei la tersmus cu spuda
13:11 < gleki> tersmus: ma se rafsi ra'oi mau
13:11 < tersmus> Parse error at 12
13:11 < gleki> tersmus: ma se rafsi zo mau
13:11 < tersmus> ? x1. rafsi({mau},x1)
13:12 < gleki> tersmus: ma zo mau se rafsi
13:12 < tersmus> ? x1. rafsi({mau},x1)
13:12 < gleki> tersmus: zo mau rafsi fe ma
13:12 < tersmus> ? x1. rafsi({mau},x1)
13:12 < durka42> LQL zo'o
13:12 < gleki> au la tersmus cu fanva fi lo lojbo
13:13 < durka42> tersmus: jbo: zo mau rafsi fe ma
13:13 < tersmus> ma goi ko'a zo'u zo mau rafsi ko'a
13:14 < durka42> tersmus: jbo: zo mau se se se se te se te se te se rafsi fe ma
13:14 < tersmus> ma goi ko'a zo'u zo mau rafsi ko'a
13:14 < ldlework> I wonder if Ilmen introduced the idea of doing Saturday casnu with la jboguhe
13:16 < gocti> lo nu mlauca cu nu klacpe vau vau za'a
13:16 < gocti> s/mlauca/tavla fi ku/
13:23 < gocti> Ilmen: 05-2214 < ldlework> mi kucli lo du'u xu kau la .ilmen. cu jungau fo lo da'i nu la jbogu'e cu jai nu xavdei casnu
13:24 < Ilmen> y
13:24 < gocti> .i .e'u sa'u jungau ro co'a jundi be la mumble lo du'u la jbogu'e cu zasti je lo du'u ta'i ma kau jonbi'o
13:25 < la_kristan> le ninmu the Valkyrie has displaced Barbie the Barbarian at the top of the high score list.
13:25 < Ilmen> vi'o .i la jbogu'e cu te tavla gi'e se vitke vau lo jundi be la .mambl. bei ca lo prula'i krefu
13:26 < Ilmen> doi la gocti
13:26 < gocti> je'e .i ba'a nai mi na pagzu'e
13:36 < gocti> .i xu lo balnema ku ji'a vitke la jbogu'e
13:37 < Ilmen> je'u ji'i ji'i no nu voksa casnu cu fasnu ca lo prula'i .i sa'u basti fa lo nu jbogu'e vitke
13:37 < gocti> ua
13:38 < Ilmen> .i ji'a mi pu tirna no da .i ki'u bo la'a pu snuti gasnu lo nu la .mambl. cu tinynarka'e
13:38 < Ilmen> .i pu srera jinvi lo du'u no da bacru
13:40 < gocti> .a'o ca lo bavlde cu fau gi vitke gi voksnu
13:40 < Ilmen> ĭe
13:40 < Ilmen> pe'i pei do kansa
13:41 < gocti> la'a
13:41 < gocti> .i ba'a djuno ca lo cerni
13:41 < Ilmen> .i za'a lo prula'i masti zo'u lo bacru kansa cu memjdika .i la .xorxes. joi la .guskant. joi la selpa'i vu'o mu'a po'o nai co'u vitke
13:42 < Ilmen> .i cumki fa lo nu lo tcika cu na'e mapti
13:42 < Ilmen> .i ku'i la'a mapti la .niftyg. noi kansa cafne mutc
13:42 < Ilmen> e
13:43 < Ilmen> .i ju'o lo drata cu zifre lo ka stidi tu'a lo drata tcika .i ku'i no roi fasnu .u'i
13:45 < gocti> mi gleki lo nu N zenba lo ka xoi cafne cu kansa .i sei N ji'a xusra cu xagmau fa lo nu casnu ka'ai lo drata vau lo nu cusku fi zi'o po'o
13:46 < Ilmen> ki'a ru'e
13:47 < Ilmen> .i lo nu casnu fi zi'o po'o ki'a cu xagmau lo nu casnu xoi lo drata cu kansa gi'e nei ju'a dai
13:47 < Ilmen> si si si si
13:47 < Ilmen> kei ju'a dai
13:48 < gocti> soi la'a rigni zo'u pe'i lo ka broda zi'o po'o cu sa'e nai ka ge broda no da gi broda
13:49 < Ilmen> broda no .e su'o da
13:49 < Ilmen> vu'o xu
13:49 < Ilmen> sisi
13:49 < gocti> .i mu'a lu lo selcmi be zi'o po'o li'u cu voi lo smuni be ki cu jai nandu fai lo ka smusku ki fo lo drata
13:50 < gocti> .i na go'e
13:50 < gocti> .i broda no da gi'e broda zi'o
13:50 < Ilmen> kunti selcmi xu
13:50 < gocti> (to soi mi djuno vau so'i da xebni zo zi'o toi)
13:50 < gocti> ie
13:50 < Ilmen> ja'o no mei
13:50 < durka42> broda lo nomei
13:51 < Ilmen> je'e'e
13:51 < gocti> .u'i
13:51 < durka42> .u'i cabypei
13:52 < gocti> ge'è
13:52 < Ilmen> xu la durkai su'o roi vitke la jbogu'e
13:52 < gocti> .i .ai co'a ti mi pilno va'o ro nu zo ca'abna mapti vau ri je nai zo cabna
13:53 < ctefa`o> lololoolol
13:53 < gocti> ma se lodlololo
13:53 < ctefa`o> err ok this is weird
13:53 < ctefa`o> my brother can control my computer via Steam
13:54 < Ilmen> lololololololdi kumokumokumokumo
13:54 < gocti> banli
13:55 < ctefa`o> I have no idea what just happened
13:55 < Ilmen> .oi dai
13:55 < ctefa`o> but we were trying to stream a game so he could play it on his laptop from my desktop
13:56 < ctefa`o> wtf
13:56 < ctefa`o> gotta investigate
13:56 < Ilmen> di'ai facki troci
13:56 < gocti> da'i mi kanpe lo nu lo cevni cu zukte lo ka tolcru lo tai nu stri'ime
13:58 < Ilmen> ta'o doi la ctefa'o .i ca lo prulamdei ku je va'i ba za lo cacra be li ji'i pa mu cu voksa casnu jmaji do'e la .mambl.
13:58 < la_kristan> that's brothers for ya.
13:58 < ctefa`o> ok so for some reason Steam has remote desktop
13:59 < Ilmen> (Tomorrow, in about 15½ hours, there's a Lojban vocal chat gathering on Mumble, Zbaga server)
13:59  * gocti de'a
13:59 < ctefa`o> for its streaming
13:59 < ctefa`o> wow
13:59 < Ilmen> di'ai de'anmo si de'a jundi
13:59 < Ilmen> noi va'i de'andi
13:59 < ctefa`o> this is awesome
14:00 < Ilmen> What's so?
14:00 < ctefa`o> eh, the streaming thing
14:00 < ctefa`o> nvm
14:00 < ctefa`o> sususu
14:01 < Ilmen> je'e
14:01 < Ilmen> ju'inai dai
14:09 < la_kristan> just curious; are any of you familiar with Arika Okrent's book?
14:09 < la_kristan> "In the Land of Invented Languages "
14:11 <@xalbo> It's definitely been talked about around here a lot, though I haven't read it.
14:14 < la_kristan> I've read it, it's pretty interesting.  But there were some inaccuracies relating to Esperanto,
14:15 < la_kristan> so I wondered if anyone had noticed inaccuracies relating to Lojban too.
14:23 < Ilmen> I haven't read it either.
14:27 < ctefa`o> pe'u Can someone give me a good example of "lo du'u broda kei be lo brode cu brodi"?
14:28 < durka42> xm
14:29 < ldlework> lo du'u do melbi mi kei be lo do notci cu spaji mi
14:29 < ctefa`o> I don't quite get how du'u and sedu'u relate to each other
14:29 < ldlework> uups
14:29 < durka42> lo du'u do nu'o prami mi be lo puzi se cusku be do cu se cnicro mi
14:29 < ldlework> lo du'u do prami mi kei be lo do notci cu spaji mi
14:29 < ldlework> durka42: haha
14:29 <@xalbo> It's rare to fill both du'u1 and du'u2. By far the most common use of du'u2 is in {lo se du'u}, like in {mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}
14:29 < durka42> lol our examples have quite different emotions :p
14:29 < durka42> it's easier to show how they relate:
14:29 < ldlework> durka42: yes but we both reached for love
14:29 < ctefa`o> well just an example so I can see how the two relate
14:30 < ldlework> ctefa`o: those examples word
14:30 < ldlework> work
14:30 < durka42> lu mi do prami li'u se du'u mi prami do
14:30 < ctefa`o> was answering la xalbo
14:30 < ctefa`o> ki'e
14:30 < durka42> se du'u is like a paraphrase quotation, "he said that he would be late"
14:30 < Ilmen> en: du'u
14:30 < mensi> du'u = [NU] abstractor: predication/bridi abstractor; x1 is predication [bridi] expressed in sentence x2. |>>>
14:30 < mensi> officialdata
14:30 < ldlework> [meaning] du'u [text expressing meaning]
14:31 < Ilmen> I don't like this place structure, because I don't see why a predication would intrinsically be tied up to a sentence
14:31 < ldlework> Its not about the predication being tied up to a sentence
14:31 <@xalbo> .i mi xagji .i lo du'u go'i kei be di'u cu se djuno do ri'a lo nu do di'u tcidu
14:31 < ldlework> Its about the sentence having predication
14:32 < ldlework> se du'u ~=  [text] that means [meaning]
14:32 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: if a magic spell is cast and du'u-2 is removed, how would you say the same thing instead?
14:32 < Ilmen> You can use {smuni}
14:33 < Ilmen> "lo se smuni be..."
14:33 < Ilmen> or {sinxa}
14:33 < Ilmen> ldlework: if du'u2 is really an essential part of {du'u}'s concept, then it lacks an interpreter sumti slot
14:33 <@xalbo> dei se du'u no'a
14:34 < ctefa`o> ahhh right, ok, so sedu'e doesn't have to be an actual *text*/lu
14:34 < ctefa`o> at least that's what I think I was thinking
14:34 <@xalbo> It definitely has to be text, but as you can see, there are lots of places that can be text.
14:34 < ctefa`o> well not the *actual* text
14:35 <@xalbo> Right, it doesn't have to be literally filled with quoted text. Again, most common use is as {se du'u} as a way of getting text without quoting.
14:36 < ctefa`o> for "The predication of bridi expressed by" ?
14:36 < Ilmen> When I say {mi jijnu lo du'u ko'a ca'o sipna}, what is filling du'u2?
14:36 <@xalbo> zo zo'e li'a
14:36 < ctefa`o> zi'o? ;)
14:36 < Ilmen> What is zo'e refering to?
14:36  * ctefa`o runs
14:37 <@xalbo> probably some text like lu ko'a ca'o sipna li'u, though there are many, many texts that could fill that place and have the same result.
14:38 < Ilmen> In what aspect is this text relevant to what I'm trying to express with the aforementioned example sentence?
14:38 <@xalbo> I understand your issue. du'u2 is a convenience place, but it doesn't cause trouble, because any predication can be expressed in text (or we couldn't use {du'u} for it in the first place)
14:38 < ldlework> du'u is nice when someone says something and you want to quote the content of their argument or expression without actually quoting them
14:39 <@xalbo> It's a cheap way to get indirect quotation without adding another NU.
14:39 < ldlework> ie
14:39 < Ilmen> To me, an indirect quotation is a du'u
14:39 < ldlework> isn't that what we're saying?
14:39 < Ilmen> because it's the meaning of the original quote, not the original sentence itself
14:39 < ldlework> Instead of saying
14:40 < ldlework> You said "You hate me"
14:40 < ldlework> You said that you hate me.
14:40 <@xalbo> {mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}; cusku2 wants text. du'u2 gives that to us.
14:40 <@xalbo> du'u do melbi kei lo se cusku be mi
14:40 < ldlework> which might have been expressed as "wow"
14:40 < ldlework> as she comes down the stair in her prom dress
14:41 < Ilmen> Sorry, I got disconnected
14:42 <@xalbo> That's nice, yes.
14:42 < Ilmen> {ko'a cusku lu mi sipna .ai} / {ko'a smusku lo du'u ko'a .aidji lo ka sipna}
14:43 < Ilmen> I've never really understood what {sedu'u} was all about, and I think I've almost never used it
14:43 < Somelauw> any ithkuil speakers here?
14:43 <@xalbo> {lo nu mi cisma cu se du'u mi do prami} seems like some sort of rock song from the '50s.
14:43 < Ilmen> moreover it's much longer than lu
14:45 <@xalbo> Yes, but {lu} requires you to know the words.
14:45 <@xalbo> "Did you talk to John?" "Yeah, he said he was coming to the party."
14:46 < Ilmen> Either one want to express the original meaning (using one's own rephrasing, with du'u), or the original quote (using lu), but I don't really see a middle ground
14:46 <@xalbo> It's likely that he did not literally say "I am coming to the party"; in fact, it's likely that I have no memory whatsoever what words he said, and if I do, they're not relevant.
14:46 < Ilmen> *wants
14:47 <@xalbo> Because there are many places that want text, instead of a du'u1. So du'u2 lets us use a {du'u} to fill them. That's really it.
14:47 < Ilmen> In the worst case there's {lo simsa be lu...}
14:47 < ctefa`o> Somelauw: no but I know the case system a bit
14:47 < ctefa`o> probably not what you are after though
14:47 < Ilmen> "he said something like «...»"
14:48 < Ilmen> {ko'a cusku lo simsa be lu...}
14:49 < Somelauw> I'm wondering it they exist. I mean lojban seems pretty overcomplicated in some ways, but they push it to an extreme.
14:49 < ctefa`o> why the ithkuil cases exist?
14:51 < Somelauw> many languages have nominative, genitive, accusative, dative, ablative and instrumental
14:51 < Somelauw> well many natural languages at least
14:52 <@xalbo> .i mi tcidu lo se du'u la .xaris.patr. cu te makfa
14:52 < Ilmen> "He said that he was tired" / "He said «I am tired.»"  ---> {ko'a pu smusku lodu'u ko'a tatpi} / {ko'a pu cusku lu mi tatpi li'u}
14:52 < tatpi> That's me!
14:52 < Ilmen> "He said that he was tired" is just like "I know that he was tired"
14:53 < Ilmen> ie nai cai pei
14:53 < ctefa`o> The idea behind Ithkuil's cases seems to be to completely replace grammatic cases with semantic ones. Dunno if it really succeeds though.
14:53 < ctefa`o> In lojban the equivalence is basically FA+BAI+tenses+GOI+others?
14:53 < Somelauw> lojban creates these associations and makes up x1 ... x5 which don't correspond to these associations at all. ithkuil invents 100 extra cases, when these 5 don't work
14:54 < ctefa`o> I opine that only Ithkuil's "transrelative" cases correspond to FA
14:54 < ctefa`o> lojban's BAI is pretty big too
14:54 < durka42> pushing complexity to the extreme is the whole reason ithkuil exists, isn't it
14:54 < ctefa`o> not counting the infinite amount of fi'o-s
14:55 < ctefa`o> actually lojban's FA is a mess
14:55 < ctefa`o> or the X-places of selbri, to put it another way
14:56 < Somelauw> For example lojban has many words for language, because you can speak/talk/think in a language.
14:56 <@xalbo> Ilmen: Sure, but then in addition to {cusku} you need {smusku}, and in addition to {tcidu} you need {smutcidu} (or whatever), and likewise for every single place of every selbri that takes text.
14:56 < Somelauw> and so you have x5_tavla, x5_talk_about, etc
14:57 < ctefa`o> there is also bau
14:57 < Ilmen> xalbo: I'll need {smusku} anyway, because things aren't necessarily only expressible via texts
14:58 < Ilmen> you can also use {cusku lu'e lo du'u...}
14:58 < Somelauw> bangu of course
14:58 < ctefa`o> i meant the bau tag
14:58 <@xalbo> You can. Or you can use {se du'u}. It really isn't that horrible a thing.
14:58 < Ilmen> hmm so {lo se du'u} is just a shorthand for {lo se smuni be lo du'u}
14:59 < durka42> pretty much
15:00 < ctefa`o> so if that magic spell was cast, that's what one would have to use?
15:00 < Ilmen> I'm not fond of the idea of adding a sumti slot not because it's intrinsically necessary but because it's sometimes helpful. But if we imagine du'u2 is not there when not invoqued, why not
15:01 <@xalbo> ua dai
15:01 < Ilmen> (for example, in the case of {mi jijnu lo du'u...} there's not text involved whatsoever, and requiring a text slot is awkward)
15:02 < Ilmen> but if it's zi'o-ed by default, there's no problem
15:04  * nuzba @uitki: bauspo fazykamni - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni by Cirko - /* ni'o lo cmima */ dragau. i oi se'i ko mi fraxu [http://bit.ly/1APDmjH]
15:06 < durka42> na fraxu .i ko cmitolbi'o BSFK iau zo'o
15:07 < durka42> zo strimgau .u'i
15:07 < durka42> mensi: ko ningau
15:07 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
15:08 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
15:08 < durka42> en: strimgau
15:08 < mensi> strimgau = x1 streams/shows via streaming x2 (broadcast/signal) through streaming medium/service x3 |>>> See also: tivni,
15:08 < mensi> cradi, benji, kibro. |>>> selpahi
15:10 < durka42> ra'oi -ze rafsi ma
15:11 < durka42> zo selja'e xu
15:21 < bigcentaur> hey, i've got a grammar question about tenses
15:31  * nuzba @bgcarlisle: I wonder how many Lojbanists wrote to Randall Monroe to correct him on the mouseover text. http://xkcd.com/191/ #lojban [http://bit.ly/1cCI4W8]
15:34 < ldlework> bigcentaur: go on
15:35 < ldlework> I wonder what they think is wrong with the hovertext on the xkcd?
15:35 < ldlework> maybe mixing "zo'o" and "that's false"
15:36 < bigcentaur> {ta} is only good for things you can point to.
15:36 < bigcentaur> should have said {la'e di'u}
15:36 < ldlework> nah
15:37 < ldlework> no other lanugage has "only spatial" demonstratives
15:38 < ldlework> Any jbopre that wrote him to correct him on using a literary demonstrative is a jackass.
15:40 < bigcentaur> https://lojban.github.io/cll/7/4/
15:40 < bigcentaur> "Using “ta” instead of “di'u” would cause the listener to look around to see what the speaker of the second sentence was physically pointing to. "
15:40 < ldlework> I'm aware of how it is prescribed
15:40 < ldlework> Yeah except no one would do that in the real world.
15:41 < ldlework> And the authors of the cll don't have a monopoly on our listener's comprehension or skills in identifying referents to descriptions.
15:41 < ldlework> And if we audited everyone's use of lojban by way of the cll, we'd communicate nothing and we'd all be jackasses.
15:41 < durka42> gee, it's a good thing we never do that then :p
15:42 < durka42> xo'o'o'o'o'o'o
15:42 < durka42> co'o ei mi barkla
15:42 < durka42> whoops
15:42 < durka42> ca'e zo ei cmavo ma'oi DOhU
15:44 < Ilmen> co'o ro do
15:45 < ctefa`o> co'o
15:47  * nuzba @bgcarlisle: .i zo'o mi kucli lo du'u xokau lo jbopre cu te xatra la .randyl.mynros. ki'u lo nu draga'i lo samxa'e notci http://xkcd.com/191/ #lojban [http://bit.ly/1T2a4E6]
15:48 < bigcentaur> so here's my question about tenses
15:49 < bigcentaur> i've only seen ba, pu and ca used with events tagged to them
15:49 < bigcentaur> e.g. {.i mi ba lo nu carvi ku klama lo zdani}
15:50 < la_kristan> and if I say "le barda xunre zdani" people will prolly know what I mean...
15:50 < la_kristan> that doesn't mean I should do it.
15:51 < bigcentaur> can you tag other tense words with event abstractions and have them make sense?
15:51 < bigcentaur> e.g. {.i mi roroi lo nu carvi ku klama lo zdani}
15:52 < la_kristan> so just because you'll be understood if you say ta for something nonphysical, doesn't mean you should.
15:53 < ldlework> la_kristan: no that's exactly why you should say something
15:53 < ldlework> the reason to say anything at all, is to be heard and undertstood
15:54 < ctefa`o> what is wrong with {broda fi'o brode lo brodi fe'u}?
15:54 < ldlework> bigcentaur: the problem that your sentence has, is that it has no predicate
15:55 < ldlework> if you're using roroi as a BAI tag
15:55 < ldlework> which I don't think you can
15:55 < la_kristan> so I should say things that are grammatically or semantically wrong
15:55 < ldlework> la_kristan: they are not grammatically wrong
15:55 < la_kristan> just cuz my meaning will be conveyed
15:55 < ldlework> saying things that are grammatically wrong, will never lead to a better understanding since parsing what you say is yourl isteners first step
15:55 < bigcentaur> Idlework: what sentence do you mean?
15:55 < ctefa`o> oh right I am putting the fe'u too late
15:55 < ctefa`o> nvm
15:55 < la_kristan> exactly.
15:56 < ldlework> TONS of what you say must be interpreted by your listener outside the provisions of lojban's prescription
15:56 < ldlework> lojban doesn't tell me how to interpret "blabi prami"
15:57 < ldlework> That someone decided that lojbanists only deserve spatial demonstratives, is true.
15:57 < ldlework> That lojbanists only deserve spatial demonstratives is false.
15:58 < ldlework> That lojbanists communicating, after having read the CLL, are incapable of identifying a literary reference of a spatial demonstrative is false
15:58 < bigcentaur> i guess that would depend on context
15:58 < ldlework> absolutely
15:59 < ldlework> as understanding -anything- in language does
15:59 < bigcentaur> which is why it's maybe a good distinction to have :)
15:59 < ldlework> even formally defined things
15:59 < ldlework> like descriptions
15:59 < bigcentaur> anyway
15:59 < bigcentaur> you said a sentence was missing a predicate?
15:59 < ldlework> e.g. {.i mi roroi lo nu carvi ku klama lo zdani}
15:59 < bigcentaur> i ran it through camxes
15:59 < bigcentaur> definitely has a predicate
16:00 < ldlework> camxes: .i mi roroi lo nu carvi ku klama lo zdani
16:00 < camxes> (i [{mi <ro roi> <lo (¹nu [carvi VAU] KEI¹) ku>} CU] [klama {lo zdani KU} VAU])
16:00 < ldlework> What is the predicate?
16:00 < ldlework> woah
16:00 < ldlework> cu
16:00 < ldlework> oh ku
16:00 < ldlework> bigcentaur: sorry, carry on
16:00 < bigcentaur> okay all on the same page :)
16:00 < ldlework> its still strange though
16:00 < bigcentaur> yeah
16:00 < ldlework> because roroi isn't a BAI tag
16:00 < ldlework> you've put the predicate modifier, not next to the predicate
16:01 < ldlework> surprised that works
16:01 < bigcentaur> but it's in the chapter with all the other tense words
16:01 < bigcentaur> bu, ca and pu aren't BAI either
16:01 < ldlework> this is an example in the CLL?!
16:01 < bigcentaur> but they take tags
16:01 < ldlework> bigcentaur: ah right
16:01 < ldlework> does roi?
16:01 < bigcentaur> that's my question
16:01 < bigcentaur> "can i do this?" "how to interpret it?"
16:01 < ldlework> well camxes doesn't seem to think so
16:02 < ldlework> bigcentaur: but the other /tenses/ can work as tags, indeed
16:02 < ldlework> some of them have quite hard to understand semantics
16:02 < ldlework> pu'o broke my brain
16:02 < bigcentaur> so pu'o can take a tag?
16:02 < ldlework> yeah
16:03 < bigcentaur> so if it were {.i mi pu'o lo nu carvi ku klama lo zdani}
16:03 < ldlework> ta drani
16:03 < bigcentaur> that would be "before it rains, i go to the house"
16:03 < ldlework> wellll
16:03 < bigcentaur> ?
16:03 < ldlework> I'm not going to say what it means
16:03 < bigcentaur> hahaha
16:03 < bigcentaur> okay
16:03 < ldlework> because pu'o isn't a simple "until"
16:03 < ldlework> It says
16:04 < ldlework> I wont go to the house, until it rains
16:05 < ldlework> "The bridi wont happen until tag."
16:05 < ldlework> not
16:05 < ldlework> "The bridi happens, until tag."
16:05 < bigcentaur> all right
16:06 < ldlework> btw
16:06 < ldlework> demonstrative descriptions are pretty cool
16:06 < ldlework> le'i sibdo cu cizra
16:06 < ldlework> that idea is crazy!
16:06 < ldlework> but we can't have them
16:06 < ldlework> if you're going to be a fluff about literary ta
16:07 < bigcentaur> and is there a way to express exact amounts of time? e.g. "two years ago, i went to the market"
16:07 < ldlework> because le'i only makes sense in terms of literary ta
16:07 < ldlework> mi klama le zarci ba re nanca
16:07 < ldlework> err
16:08 < ldlework> pu
16:08 < ldlework> its one of those two
16:08 < ldlework> gotta go
16:08 < ldlework> co'o
16:08 < bigcentaur> haha okay
16:08 < bigcentaur> co'o
16:08 < ldlework> bigcentaur: like 'until's semantics being inverted from what you expect
16:08 < ldlework> using ba and pu are similiarly inverted if I remember
16:10 < bigcentaur> okay
16:13 < ctefa`o> co'o
16:22 < la_kristan> everybody leaving...
16:23 < bigcentaur> .i mi stali
16:24 < la_kristan> bigcentaur : .i do na cliva
16:25 < la_kristan> ?
16:25 < bigcentaur> .i mi ba ze'a stali
16:25 < la_kristan> now you're going over my head, lol
16:25 < bigcentaur> haha
16:26 < bigcentaur> just saying i'll be around for a medium interval of time :)
16:26 < la_kristan> ah.
16:33 < demize> Anyone know if the LMW user Cirko is on IRC?
16:35  * nuzba @Soc_of_Greece: @cooperlewis_  if you have about 45 minutes to burn, this guy gives a good explanation of what lojban is, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpn0OEpT40 [http://bit.ly/1QcJb1l]
16:35  * nuzba @Soc_of_Greece: @cooperlewis_ but if you don't, then here's the website, http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban [http://bit.ly/1FCU1T0]
16:50 < la_kristan> i don't think i have 45 min atm
17:10 < la_kristan> .i mi cliva
17:10 < la_kristan> co'o
18:31  * nuzba @ligervision: @fnxTX @EvanMcM @stevedekorte lojban is a trip [http://bit.ly/1dktQtG]
18:40 < saigais> co’o
18:40 < demize> xu do cliva
18:41 < saigais> melci(>)
18:41 < saigais> (?)
18:41 < saigais> melbi
18:42 < demize> (Beautiful/pleasant? co'o means good bye, so I asked if you are leaving)
18:43 < saigais> oh whoops!
18:43 < saigais> coi
18:43 < saigais> coi la dy.
18:43 < saigais> er, lo?
18:44 < demize> coi la saigas
18:44 < demize> {la} is for names, yeah.
18:46 < saigais> ok!
18:46 < saigais> I’m mega new, sorry.
18:47 < demize> Trust me, I'm not much better. :)
18:48 < saigais> Psh, yeah right
18:48 < demize> Quite right.
18:48 < demize> I'm really bad at studying things on my own.
18:49 < saigais> My issue here too
18:49 < saigais> Hard to find lojban things to study
18:49 < saigais> Need a lojban buddy
18:49 < saigais> TEAMWORK!
18:49 < demize> Hehe. :)
18:50 < demize> Well, the CLL, maybe the wave lessons, then reading short stories, like eg, Terry the Tiger.
18:52  * nuzba @bgcarlisle: Pro-tip: You can say {co'o} in #Lojban rather than "bye" in any context, and no one will even notice. [http://bit.ly/1ATpy7s]
19:51  * nuzba @uitki: PAGE MISE À JOUR :  Nuzba:xu do djuno - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Nuzba:xu_do_djuno par Guskant - gau nuzyfle [http://bit.ly/1JxHd6j]
20:15 < deltab> I noticed it yesterday, but forgot to mention it, sorry
20:23 < demize> hm?
20:24 < deltab> misuse of co'o
20:25 < demize> Ah.
20:25 < deltab> I meant to point it out but was distracted
20:28 < gusvli> coi prenu ja zmuni
21:20 < gleki> demize: cirko=gocti
22:44 < gleki> mensi: doi durka i ku'i la tersmu cu me lo xaske moi i mi nitcu lo djavaskripti
22:44 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.durka.gy. di'a cusku da
22:47 < gleki> how do we say "1°56'04.8"N 73°32'23.2"E"?
23:17 < deltab> I guess something like  pa pi'e mu xa pi'e no vo pi bi ny ze ci pi'e ci re pi'e re ci pi re .e.bu
23:18 < gleki> there is a suggestion not to allow such things within LI
23:19 < deltab> yeah, were you asking about that? I haven't been following it
--- Day changed Sat Jun 06 2015
00:19 < niftg> zo do'a zo'u vecu'u la xuncku la'e di'e ve ciksi mu'onai
00:21 < niftg> glico panra fa zoi gy broadly construed gy
00:21 < gleki> jb:do'a
00:21 < mensi> do'a = do'a [interjection] — generously, broadly construed, do'a nai — at least (parsimoniously)
00:21 < mensi> :do'a mi do ka'e ctuca lo se jmina — I could teach you some additional things.
00:21 < mensi> :do'a nai do no da zekri lebna — At least you didn't steal anything.
00:21 < mensi> :a'o mi te dunda lo kargu karce a ke do'a nai lo karce poi na spofu — Hopefully, I'll be given an expensive car or at
00:21 < mensi> least one that isn't broken.
00:21 < mensi> :Related words: dunda
00:23 < gleki> pe'i tcika lo nu le vlaste co'a se traduki fi lo drata bangu
00:25 < niftg> .ua zoi gy at least gy ji'a plixau fi lo nu ciksi
00:27 < gleki> niftg: a'o do ba drani fanva fi lo ponjo
00:32 < gleki> en:grimace
00:32 < mensi> 2 da se tolcri: frufra, frumu
00:32 < gleki> en:frufra
00:32 < mensi> frufra [< frumu frati ≈ Frown treat] = fru1=fra1 frowns/grimaces at/in reaction to fra3.
00:32 < gleki> en: frumu
00:32 < mensi> frumu = x1 frowns/grimaces (facial expression). |>>> x1 frowns/grimaces at/in reaction to x2 (= frufra).  See also cmila,
00:32 < mensi> cisma. |>>> officialdata
00:32 < gocti> "treat"???????//////////slashslashslash
00:33 < gleki> ma xe fanva zoi gy. make faces .gy. i na dunli zo'o grimace
00:33 < gleki> sisi
00:33 < gleki> zo'oi grimace
00:34 < gocti> .ei da poi dunli zo corci lo drata be lo ka tai ma kau ciksi ce'u cu zasti
00:34 < gocti> doi ro da ma na zukte'a lo ka stika lo velcki pe la kurti
00:34 < niftg> pe'i lo ponbau vreji zo'u lo velckijufra cu banzu .i lo mupli jufra zo'u so'uda ka'e ba se jmina vau la'a
00:35 < gleki> ie la bangu cu nelci lo mupli enai loza'e cnano  ve ciksi
00:36 < gocti> lo mupli cu ja'a plixau .i fanta lo nu ba bilga lo ka .ermenefti
00:40 < gleki> https://sites.google.com/site/loglanlojban/
00:41 < zipcpi> pe'i lo ka ermenefti cu mutce se ckaji lo'e lojbo .i ebu bi'ainai srana lo lijda
00:42 < gleki> ka bu enai ebu
00:42 < gleki> en: ka bu
00:42 < mensi> ka bu = the last sumti having a ka-abstraction at its topmost level inside |>>> See also nu bu, ni bu, du'u bu |>>>
00:42 < mensi> gleki
00:42 < zipcpi> ua
00:42 < gleki> ebu prenu
00:46  * nuzba @uitki: la .teris. ku noi tirxu cu stuvi'e lo barda tcadu - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/la_.teris._ku_noi_tirxu_cu_stuvi%27e_lo_barda_tcadu by Cirko - dragau lusilo'u ni'o .i le'u [http://bit.ly/1AQQSne]
00:47 < zipcpi> ei mi cliva co'o pendo
00:47 < gocti> co'ordo
00:48 < niftg> ge'e lo'u da papa donsu le'u noi ka'e zilfanva fo lu da pupu dunda li'u
00:49 < gocti> mi se ci'izra lo nu pilno zo da tai lo nu ri mixre zo da jo'u zo ko'a
00:49 < niftg> .i'i
00:50 < gocti> "DA PRANO O DZORU" [...] "DA PRANO O DE DZORU"
00:50 < gocti> .i rarbau simlu
00:50 < niftg> .io dzejbo
00:52 < niftg> mi nu'o mulno tcidu fi lo loglan ctucku
00:52 < niftg> nu'o co'a go'i
00:52 < gocti> go'i ra'o
00:55 < niftg> mu'i lo nu lo kibro cukta cu zenba lo ka memkai cu zenba mukti le bi'unai nu mulno tcidu kei za'ure'u
00:59 < niftg> .u'i bau lo loglo zo cidja cu se smuni lo si'o cikna
01:05 < niftg> mi djica lo nu fi'o se krefu be fi li pa lo nu tcidu fi lo loglo srana ku tcidu fi lo romoi noi la'a ninrai jenoi ku'i .uinai nu'o samlervei co'e
01:07 < niftg> .imu'ibo ti'e lo gerna ku mu'a mutce cenba
01:08 < niftg> lo nu pare'uku tcidu fi lo loglan pamoi cu banzu xu ju'ocu'i
01:15 < gocti> mi pu na ganse lo nu da loglo ctucku gi'e za'o na kibro gubni
01:16 < gocti> .i ca'o milxe co tcidu la pa moi
01:25 < niftg> la'a .a'o ju'ocu'i roda kibro gubni .i ku'i .ia lo romoi zo'u za'o pixra jenai lerfu fukpi
01:26 < niftg> .iseri'abo na'e plixau
01:30 < gocti> ua la .infyjajycku 3 moi
01:30 < gocti> (to .ei da melmau gi'e xe fanva zo'oi notebook toi)
01:31 < gocti> uo ru'e .i sa'u zo tsautycku
01:31 < niftg> .i'apei lu notci jmaji cukta li'u
01:32 < niftg> la'a zo notci cu tidysmu valsi
01:33 < gocti> ticysmu xu
01:33 < gocti> .i ie
01:33 < niftg> ki'anaidai fi'o ve lujvo fe'u stidi smuni
01:33 < gocti> ua
01:34 < niftg> ta'o ba'a da poi jai racli cu smuni zo ticysmu
01:34 < gocti> .i zo .tid. zo'u ba'a nai zo tcidu se rafsi
01:34 < niftg> .ue
01:34 < gocti> rafsi: tid
01:34 < mensi> zo tcidu se rafsi zo'oi tid
01:34 < niftg> je'u
01:35 < niftg> ja'o zo sidysmu cu drani .i .u'u
01:35 < niftg> jbo:sidysmu
01:35 < mensi> [< stidi smuni ≈ Stidi* smuni*] pe'a = [UI3c] tcita le se cusku le du'u ri se sidysmu
01:36 < niftg> ba'anai mi pu pensi zo tidju'i noi rimni je smusmi zo tinju'i
01:37 < niftg> gi'e lujvo fo lu tcidu jundi li'u
01:37 < zipcpi> OK I have defined some of my new gadri in Lojban: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
01:37 < niftg> lo mi fonxa mo'u livla culno binxo .isemu'ibo .ai mi ze'a lo su'o cacra cu cadzu litru co'o
01:37 < gocti> je'e co'o
01:37 < zipcpi> Not sure how to deal with lo'i yet, or to replace the corci
01:38 < zipcpi> the kurtynomgismu {corci}
01:39 < gocti> ia bu'o zo'u .ei casnu fa joi la kurti ja cu sa'u si'u nai stika lo vlavelcki
01:39 < zipcpi> Also virtu'ale doesn't have a jbojbo definition
01:40 < zipcpi> lubu can be used as a pronoun right?
01:40 < zipcpi> But not zo bu o.o
01:40 < gocti> go'i
01:40 < gocti> lu zo zo bu li'u co'e
01:41 < zipcpi> ua
01:55 < gleki> xu lu lu bu li'u sinxa zo'oi " iji lo go'i cu anfora valsi vau sa'u
02:33  * nuzba @uitki: la .teris. po'u lo tirxu cu vitke zi'o le barda tcadu - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/la_.teris._po%27u_lo_tirxu_cu_vitke_zi%27o_le_barda_tcadu by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1dkPkqv]
02:43  * nuzba @uitki: PAGE MISE À JOUR :  nuzba - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzba par Guskant - gau nuzyfle [http://bit.ly/1QdkyBR]
03:16 < ctefaho> uaicoi
03:22 < niek> coi ro do
03:23 < zipcpi> OK also defined {lo'i}
03:23 < mensi> zipcpi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: how to say "Every monday" in your system? | 2015-06-06T09:47:51.
03:23 < mensi> 034Z
03:23 < Ilmen> coi .i ba za lo cacra be li ji'i re cu jbobau vokta'a jmaji la .mambl. xoi se platu
03:24 < zipcpi> Does li take outside quantifiers? Does it even make sense?
03:24 < Ilmen> to sa'e jmaji la zbaga ku noi kibyse'u toi
03:25 < Ilmen> zipcpi: As any sumti, li can be preceded by an outer quantifier.
03:25 < zipcpi> ISO 8601 has ways of handling intervals and repetitions I'm sure, but I'm not sure it can be adaptable. And I'm already grating on the mathematicians by abusing magic vlale'u :p
03:25 < niek> mi na kakne lo nu jundi la mambl iki'u mi ba klama la xakyrspeis
03:26 < Ilmen> je'e .i .a'o se pluka
03:26 < niek> ki'e
03:27 < zipcpi> mensi: doi gleki {li} can take outside quantifiers, but I don't know if it'd cause any problems. Also, ISO 8601 has ways of handling intervals and repetitions I'm sure, but I've not tried adapting it yet. And I'm already grating on the mathematicians by abusing magic vlale'u :p
03:27 < mensi> zipcpi: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.gleki.gy. di'a cusku da
03:29  * nuzba @uitki: PAGE MISE À JOUR :  nuzba/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzba/en par Guskant - gau nuzyfle [http://bit.ly/1FAaOHo]
03:37 < gleki> zipcpi: just how would you say "I voice chat every Saturday"?
03:37 < mensi> gleki: cu'u la'o gy.zipcpi.gy.: {li} can take outside quantifiers, but I don't know if it'd cause any problems. Also,
03:37 < mensi> ISO 8601 has ways of handling intervals and repetitions I'm sure, but I've not tried adapting it yet. And I'm already
03:37 < mensi> grating on the mathematicians by abusing magic vlale'u :p | 2015-06-06T10:27:55.353Z
03:38 < zipcpi> Tentatively, {de'i ro li jydy xa}
03:38 < gleki> aha
03:38 < gleki> another question: how do we say "1°56'04.8"N 73°32'23.2"E"?
03:38 < zipcpi> That one? That would require a different system altogether
03:38 < zipcpi> And I'm not sure we can avoid pi'e
03:39 < zipcpi> Probably will need a new brivla
03:39 < gleki> one new brivla with a li-place?
03:39 < gleki> you may use {judri} for now
03:40 < zipcpi> I dunno, maybe one for "latitude", one for "longitude", and one that combines the two
03:41 < zipcpi> Ah {judri}
03:41 < gleki> those are important words since they are in onebook translated to Lojban
03:41 < zipcpi> Yeah that is yet another "magic" gismu
03:42 < zipcpi> Actually if mekso can support cartesian coordinates, all we need to say is (+1/56/04.8, +73/32/23.2)
03:42 < zipcpi> Wait the other way around
03:43 < zipcpi> Negatives for S and W
03:43 < gleki> for zipcpi they are probably positives vau zo'oru'e
03:44 < zipcpi> I'm just following mathematical convention. But yes, I do happen to be in the NE quadrant :p
03:45 < zipcpi> Alternatively we could use FAhA1 + bu
03:46 < zipcpi> li be'abu pa pi'e muxa pi'e vo pi bi du'abu zeci pi'e cire pi'e reci pi re
03:47 < zipcpi> Again, recognizability is quite useful... I don't expect any other system to use FAhA1 + bu
03:49  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: lo nu prami lo nu prami cu se prami    #lojban [http://bit.ly/1FAc39v]
03:50 < zipcpi> I'm favoring prefix to postfix because that's how Lojban works for almost every other thing... except for ROI / MOI / MAI :p
04:28  * nuzba @uitki: Nuzba-nuzyfle-url/ja - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/MediaWiki:Nuzba-nuzyfle-url/ja by Guskant - http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=nuzba&action=feed [http://bit.ly/1dkVgzF]
04:46 < zipcpi> Crap I know you told me this the other day but I forgot what is used to attach a relative clause to more than one sumti joined by logical connectives
04:49 < demize> gocti told you to use vu'o
04:49 < zipcpi> ki'e
04:50 < zipcpi> exp: ti ja ta ja tu vu'onoi broda
04:50 < mensi> ([{ti <ja ta> <ja tu>} {vu'o <noi (¹CU [broda VAU]¹) KUhO>}] VAU)
05:14 < gusvli> coi se jbobau
05:15 < zipcpi> coi
05:15 < gusvli> ge'epei?
05:15 < zipcpi> zo'oi gusvli na vlatai gendra
05:16 < zipcpi> nitcu tu'a zo gusyvli
05:16 < gusvli> y
05:16 < gusvli> camxes gusvli
05:16 < zipcpi> ta'oi ja zo gu'ivli
05:16 < gocti> coi
05:16 < gusvli> coi gy
05:17 < gocti> demize: xu do ganse lo nu mi spuda lo do preti
05:17 < Ilmen> zo'oi gusvli na gendra .i .e'u zo gusyvli
05:18 < gusvli> oiru'e doi la zipcpi. lo mi lujvo ni kakne cu so'umei
05:18 < demize> go'i doi gocti
05:18 < gocti> je'e
05:18 < zipcpi> zo gusyvli ja zo gu'ivli
05:19 < gusvli> la valsi cu morsi
05:19 < gocti> la vlaste ku ku'i na go'i
05:19 < Ilmen> lujvo: gusni vlipa
05:19 < zipcpi> la valsi mo
05:19 < zipcpi> .y. la valsi cu mo
05:20 < gocti> pu zi morsi gi'e vlaste sisku ke .irci zmiku
05:20 < niftg> irci selfu
05:20 < gocti> ie matmau
05:21 < zipcpi> gu'ivli 6367 gusyvli 6978 gusnyvli 8008 gusyvlipa 9017
05:21 < zipcpi> cu'u la jvozba
05:25 < niftg> la valsi cu puza morsi .i la mensi cu puzi sipna
05:31 < selpli> ca drata se cmene (doi jai se bau gendra)
05:33 < selpli> rodo ca jai gau mo?
05:34 < gocti> lo ci mei ca'o voksa casnu se pi'o la mumble
05:34 < niftg> mi ji'a vokta'a sepi'o la'oi mumble
05:35 < niftg> va'i mi cmima le cimei
05:35 < selpli> ua e'edai
05:36 < gocti> va'o lo nu do kansa djica zo'u ko jorne la'o pu. zbaga.ax.lt:64738 .pu
05:36 < gocti> noi kibyse'u
05:38 < selpli> xu lo'i se certu jbobau cu zenba?
05:39 < gocti> cumki .i ku'i ju'o ri'a lo da'i nu jundi kei lo ka certu tu'a lo jbobau cu se zenba
05:40 < selpli> na'e ponse la mumbl
05:40 < gocti> (lo'i se certu jbobau -> the set of Lojbans that people are skilled at, sa'e nai)
05:42  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: Mumble の使い方 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Mumble_%E3%81%AE%E4%BD%BF%E3%81%84%E6%96%B9 by Guskant - lerfu dragau [http://bit.ly/1BRfaZg]
05:45 < selpli> u'i lo'i certu se jbobau ku li'a
05:47 < gocti> la'a ca'o zenba lo ka xo kau da cmima .i ie
05:50 < gleki> en:coi
05:50 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
05:50 < gleki> na sipna
05:51 < selpli> coi to la toi gleki
05:51 < gleki> coi
05:51 < selpli> lo do cnino jbobau ku mo
05:51 < selpli> y ji'a DO mo?
05:51 < gleki> lo me mi xu moi
05:52 < selpli> la y
05:52 < selpli> ma cmene?
05:52 < selpli> la bangu
05:57 < ctefaho> so I have a question about how "pei" is actually used
05:57 < selpli> re'i
05:58 < ctefaho> A lone pei asks for UI, while pei after UI asks if that UI applies, while pei UI is "How you feel, I feel UI"?
05:58 < selpli> drani
05:59 < ctefaho> ok, good, that's the impression I got
06:00 < ctefaho> so if I ask "ie pei" both "ie" and "ienai" are valid?
06:00 < mensi> ei mi tugni
06:00 < ctefaho> as well as iesai
06:01 < ctefaho> or iesairo'i
06:02 < selpli> kakne co cusku zo zai po'o vau ji'a
06:02 < selpli> *zo sai
06:02 < gleki> selpli: ma pilno do ma
06:02 < ctefaho> right
06:04 < ctefaho> so ok, after my na'oi proposal I now have an idea for 2 other cmavo
06:05 < selpli> doi la gleki: do pilno mi lo se tavla vau iepei
06:05 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
06:05 < ctefaho> 2 pei-ish ones, mainly one asking specifically for the category of an attitudinal, but also one asking specifically for CAI (and/or nai)
06:06 < gleki> selpli: lo te xu tavla
06:06 < ctefaho> let's call them pei'a and pei'o
06:06 < zipcpi> I'm not sure why you'd need to ask so specifically though
06:06 < selpli> valsi tavla
06:06 < valsi> tavla = x1 talks/speaks to x2 about subject x3 in language x4.
06:06 < ctefaho> .oi - .oipei'o
06:06 < selpli> u'i iesai caku mi se tavla je te tavla je tavla
06:06 < ctefaho> "What kind of oi?"
06:06 < gleki> x1 x2 x3 x4 tavla ~= x1 ce x2 casnu x3 bau x4
06:07 < gleki> sa
06:07 < zipcpi> If you ask me whether I feel something, I'm going to express it, regardless of what form your question takes
06:07 < gleki> i oi pu drani
06:07 < gleki> x1 x2 x3 x4 tavla ~= x1 ce x2 casnu x3 bau x4
06:07 < zipcpi> I mean would the jbocei strike me dead if I decide to attach a sai or a cai anyway to a yes/no question?
06:08 < ctefaho> no no, pei still works as is
06:08 < ctefaho> pei'o just asks specifically about the category
06:08 < zipcpi> Ah
06:08 < ctefaho> and you can answer with the whole UI
06:08 < selpli> ctefaho: The benefits of your word is doubtful
06:08 < ctefaho> or just the category
06:08 < zipcpi> je'e mi co'a jimpe
06:09 < ctefaho> well that's what I am trying to find out before deeming them useless out of hand
06:09 < selpli> ctefaho: If you ask "ui pei?", the proper answer is a UI anyway
06:09 < ctefaho> yes
06:09 < ctefaho> see above
06:09 < ctefaho> this doesn't change pei
06:09 < selpli> ctefaho: There is no reason to assume an answer to "ui pei" is yes/no
06:09 < ctefaho> question is how pei and pei'a relate
06:09 < ctefaho> I am not
06:09 < zipcpi> No he wants something that replaces bare pei
06:10 < zipcpi> Because bare pei can be ambiguous
06:10 < gleki> selpli: la bangu ca'o farvi i do ka'e zgana
06:10 < selpli> I don't follow - how ambiguous?
06:10 < zipcpi> uipei still works as is
06:10 < ctefaho> ie - iepei'a - iesai
06:10 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
06:10 < ctefaho> ok, so how do I right now ask with pei "How much do you agree with me?"
06:10 < selpli> goi la gleki: mi ca'o sisku
06:10 < zipcpi> The problem is {pei ui} vs {ui pei}. I read the former as "How do you feel, I'm happy"
06:10 < ctefaho> err
06:11 < ctefaho> "How much agreement"
06:11 < zipcpi> But that means that once you say ui, it's hard to separate it from "how do you feel"
06:11 < selpli> {eipei}
06:11 < zipcpi> Wihout using {ui .i pei}
06:12 < zipcpi> Am I getting the gist of your idea?
06:12 < ctefaho> it is just an idea, just throwing it out so I can actually test it with people without having to commit it to jbovlaste first
06:12 < selpli> Isn't that what {eipei} already means? You're asking for a term on the einaicai to eicai scale?
06:12 < gleki> selpli: mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu:_Dictionary_with_Examples http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=L17-01&action=history
06:12 < ctefaho> Again, how pei and pei'a would relate is the big question
06:13 < ctefaho> but I have to unexpectedly leave right now, sorry
06:13 < ctefaho> thought I could stay and discuss it more, but nope
06:13 < ctefaho> so, ttyl
06:13 < ctefaho> co'o
06:13 < zipcpi> co'o
06:14 < zipcpi> Or possibly {ui ge'epei}
06:22 < selpli> ca lonu co'a slabu mi fa la bangu ku krici lodu'u la bangu jai gau daspo la lojban
06:23 < selpli> za'a la bangu cu na'e drata lo'e irci jbobau
06:23 < gleki> *cu jai gau
06:23 < selpli> e'edai
06:23 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu
06:24 < zipcpi> balcme : x1 is the title (honorific appellation) of x2 used by x3
06:24 < zipcpi> pei
06:24 < gleki> i ze'a ma do pu na lojbo doi la selpli
06:25 < selpli> y co'a tadni zi li renopano
06:25 < selpli> ku'i ze'u na'e pilno segau lonu tolmo'i
06:25 < zipcpi> rafme'e ki'a
06:25 < gleki> ca lo renopanomoi nanca do co'a tadni
06:26 < gleki> zipcpi: za'adai mi puzi pilno lo na'e do detri ciste i ei ma'a zukte ma pe lo lerfu poi pagbu lo li zei sumti
06:27 < selpli> doi zipcpi zo rafme'e valsi lo rafsi cmene
06:27 < selpli> perhaps
06:28 < zipcpi> doi selpli mi xa'o djuno .iku'i mi na jimpe lodu'u srana zo'oi <title> makau
06:28 < selpli> xm
06:29 < zipcpi> Gleki: Erm, what do you want me to do with the letters?
06:31 < gleki> idk what's happening to LI. what to do so that everyone is happy
06:31 < zipcpi> Oh...
06:32 < zipcpi> guskant has played with my idea in the mriste, trying to subscript the numbers with the letters, or something
06:33 < zipcpi> exp: li vu'u pa boi re boi
06:33 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,], [gG], [mM], [nN], [rR] or [vV] but "b" found.
06:34 < zipcpi> But I'm really skeptical about this. Even if it wasn't for my system, it would really mess with using me'o for character strings
06:34 < gleki> exp: li su'i pa boi re boi
06:34 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,], [gG], [mM], [nN], [rR] or [vV] but "b" found.
06:36 < zipcpi> Just use bu they say... What if your string is something like 34829058239058369083490A ?
06:36 < zipcpi> You'd be starting with {me'o}
06:36 < zipcpi> Reading it like a number
06:36 < zipcpi> And then *oops*, a mabla vlale'u
06:36 < zipcpi> Yeah...
06:37 < zipcpi> Seriously what is gained by messing with LI...LOhO
06:37 < zipcpi> I understand his concerns with everything else, but not this
06:37 < gleki> en:dau
06:37 < mensi> dau = [PA2] digit/number: hex digit A (decimal 10) [ten].
06:37 < zipcpi> I don't mean the hex digit A
06:38 < zipcpi> I mean the letter A
06:38 < zipcpi> And what if it's the letter Z? :p
06:38 < gleki> we need a cmavo for it zo'o
06:39 < zipcpi> New vlale'u cmavo but in PA
06:39 < selpli> abu?
06:39 < zipcpi> Yeah great idea xo'ozo'o
06:39 < selpli> valsi bu
06:40 < zipcpi> No, selpli, we're talking about a proposal to separate numbers from letters, and how it'll break my idea for a system for indicating dates in Lojban
06:40 < valsi> bu = convert any single word to BY.
06:40 < selpli> Goddamn it la valsi, why must thou so foresake me? My lojban skills drop at least 75% when you're not here
06:40 < zipcpi> Use sutysisku... let me dig you a link
06:40 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/index.html#
06:40 < gleki> there is mensi bot
06:40 < selpli> ki'e
06:40 < gocti> va'o zo'u .ei da cmavo gi'e panra zo bu lo ka cupra lo namcu je nai valsi lerfu
06:40 < gleki>  http://lojban.org/papri/IRC_Bots
06:40 < gleki> en:coi
06:40 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
06:41 < gleki> ru:coi
06:41 < mensi> coi = [COI] звательная частица: приветствие/здравствуйте
06:41 < gleki> jbo:coi
06:41 < gleki> exp:coi
06:41 < selpli> jbo:kakne
06:41 < gleki> co'a masno
06:41 < mensi> coi = [COI] tcita lo cmene ja ve skicu le du'u sinxa le du'u makau te cusku .e le du'u rinsa le te
06:41 < mensi> cusku
06:41 < mensi> (coi DOhU)
06:41 < mensi> kakne = lo nu x1 zukte ja ckaji x2 cu cumki x3
06:41 < gleki> gloss:mi prami do
06:41 < mensi> Me love you
06:41 < gleki> rafsi:mi
06:41 < mensi> zo'oi mib rafsi zo mi
06:41 < gleki> lujvo: klama gasnu
06:42 < mensi> klagau[5847], klagasnu[7917], klamygau[7977], klamygasnu[10047]
06:42 < mensi> klagau [< klama gasnu ≈ Come do] = x1 brings x2 to x3
06:42 < gleki> selmaho:coi
06:42 < mensi> .i lu coi li'u cmavo zo'oi COI
06:42 < mensi> http://lojban.github.io/cll/6/11/
06:42 < mensi> http://lojban.github.io/cll/13/14/
06:42 < mensi> cmavo: a'oi, be'e, bu'oi, ci'oi, coi, coico'o, co'o, co'oi, di'ai, doi'oi, fau'u, fe'o, fi'i, fi'i'e, fi'inai, je'e,
06:42 < mensi> je'enai, ju'i, ju'icu'i, ju'inai, ke'o, ki'ai, ki'e, ki'enai, mi'e, mi'enai, mu'o, mu'onai, nu'e, nu'ecu'i, nu'enai,
06:42 < mensi> o'ai, pe'u, re'i, re'inai, sa'ei, sau'ei, ta'a, tai'i, vi'o
06:42 < selpli> u'a
06:42 < gleki> mensi: io
06:42 < mensi> ko smusku lo se jmina pe la'e di'u
06:42 < gleki> y
06:58 < zipcpi> It's weird to me that there isn't a {te srana} defined
06:58 < zipcpi> I know there's {ckini}, but... that's different I think
06:58 < gleki> x1 x2 srana = x1 x2 lo co'e cu ckini
06:58 < zipcpi> oi
07:00 < selpli> zipcki What should the x3 be?
07:00 < zipcpi> in manner x3
07:00 < zipcpi> Something about how they pertain to each other
07:01 < zipcpi> Because I just accidentally used the x3 above if you haven't noticed :p
07:04 < Ilmen> doi la zipcpi mi'a zvati la jbogu'e fau lo nu vokta'a
07:04 < Ilmen> sepi'o la mambl
07:10 < zipcpi> je'e
07:17 < zipcpi> mensi: doi ldlework za'a mi pofygau le bolci skari co'e
07:17 < mensi> zipcpi: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.ldlework.gy. di'a cusku da
07:42 < zipcpi> exp: lo'u bu
07:42 < mensi> ([{lo'u bu} BOI] VAU)
07:42 < zipcpi> exp: zozobu
07:42 < mensi> ([{<zo zo> bu} BOI] VAU)
08:09 < zipcpi> exp: mau'ucmo
08:09 < mensi> (CU [mau'ucmo VAU])
08:15 < ctefaho> coi
08:17 < zipcpi> coi
08:18 < durka42> coi
08:18 < mensi> durka42: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: i ku'i la tersmu cu me lo xaske moi i mi nitcu lo djavaskripti | 2015-06-06T05:44:21.
08:18 < mensi> 973Z
08:19 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article#Tentative_Lojban_definitions
08:19 < durka42> mi na se vajni lo du makau se djica la gleki
08:22 < gleki> sa'u la xalbo pu djica lo nu la mensi cu jimpe tu'a lo rafsi
08:23 < durka42> zipcpi: .u'i pilno zo co'i lo velcki be zo le'i
08:23 < durka42> lo narviska'e cu gidva vo'a
08:24 < zipcpi> u'i
08:25 < zipcpi> xu zo ze'i xagmau
08:28 < zipcpi> mi aidji tu'a la'e zoi gy. at this particular instant gy
08:29 < zipcpi> pu xlamau .icabo mi pilno zo corci
08:31 < zipcpi> ta'oi poi pluja se ciksi xoi kurti staile
08:31 < ctefaho> so...had some more thoughts about the attitudinals
08:31 < ctefaho> and questions
08:31 < ctefaho> first of does anyone use sai/cai/ru'e after a cu'i?
08:31 < ctefaho> uicu'isai ?
08:32 < zipcpi> I can't answer that, but you might want to look up {ne'au}
08:32 < ctefaho> hmm well yeah but that isn't really cu'i is it
08:32 < durka42> not with {ui} probably, but some of the attitudinals have better-defined meaning under {cu'i}
08:32 < durka42> ba'acu'isai seems like it would make sense
08:33 < ctefaho> .a'acu'isai ?
08:33 < durka42> ie
08:34 < ctefaho> .aicu'isai too I guess
08:34 < durka42> here :) http://korp.alexburka.com/#?cqp=%5Bword%20%3D%20%22cu%27i%22%5D%20%5B(pos%20%3D%20%22CAI%22%20%7C%20pos%20%3D%20%22NAI%22)%5D&stats_reduce=word&search_tab=1&search=cqp
08:34 < ctefaho> or even iecu'icai
08:34 < durka42> .aicu'isai <— my life right there
08:35 < ctefaho> ju'o cu'i cu'i ?
08:36 < ctefaho> err does that make sense
08:36 < ctefaho> from your link
08:36 < durka42> not really...
08:37 < durka42> probably {ju'o ru'e ru'e} was meant
08:37 < ctefaho> right
08:37 < ctefaho> ok, so cu'i is really more like nai than the ru'e/sai/cai?
08:37 < ctefaho> ./na'oi
08:37 < durka42> yes
08:39 < ctefaho> brings me to my next question: "ui" and "uija'ai" are basically identical right?
08:39 < zipcpi> Yes, although ja'a and ja'ai tends to carry the emphatic "indeed" sense
08:39 < ctefaho> ja'ai is sort of built-in into every attitudinal as the default
08:39 < ctefaho> ui(ja'ai) vs. uicu'i & uinai
08:40 < zipcpi> ja'ai is not part of the original description of the language, it was added later
08:40 < zipcpi> Indeed you can recognize most experimental cmavo for either being at least four non-apostrophe letters long, or being three non-apostrophe letters and beginning with x
08:40 < ctefaho> so a bare ui is basically ui(ja'ai)(na'oi)?
08:41 < zipcpi> Yes
08:41 < ctefaho> zipcpi, this is more to get at the mechanic, and to think of how pei'a would relate with pei
08:41 < ctefaho> with/to
08:42 < ctefaho> with this idea it becomes quite clear how na'oi is different from ja'ai
08:43 < ctefaho> like uinaina'oi
08:43 < zipcpi> Attitudinals can be messy though. Like ba'aja'ainai has a meaning
08:44 < ctefaho> well
08:44 < ctefaho> now you are affirmning and denying at the same time
08:44 < zipcpi> No
08:44 < zipcpi> It's because of the strangeness of the definition of ba'a
08:45 < ctefaho> so what does "ba'aja'ainai" *mean* ??
08:45 < zipcpi> ba'anai isn't just simple or polar negation of ba'a, but runs along a different continuum
08:45 < zipcpi> (ba'aja'ai)nai
08:45 < ctefaho> my god
08:46 < ctefaho> does anyone actually *use* that?
08:47 < zipcpi> Yeah... I have *tried* to organize attitudinals... see {koi'e}, {toi'e} (not mine, but I had incorporated it in my attemps), {i'au}, and {ji'au}. But they are rather messy
08:47 < gleki> i think it'a {ba'a[ja'ai nai]}
08:47 < gleki> since modifiers modify what is to the left
08:47 < zipcpi> But they're both NAI
08:47 < gleki> since modifiers modify what is immediately to the left
08:48 < zipcpi> exp: ba'aja'ainai
08:48 < mensi> (ba'a [ja'ai nai])
08:48 < zipcpi> oi
08:48 < gleki> 08:47 < zipcpi> But they're both NAI <-- how that matters
08:48 < zipcpi> Then what? ba'aja'ai toi'e nai
08:48 < ctefaho> .oipei'o ;)
08:48 < zipcpi> I don't remember which is which
08:48 < ctefaho> http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/UI4
08:49 < zipcpi> Perhaps we should just throw out {ba'a} and make three new attitudinals
08:49 < gleki> nope
08:49 < zipcpi> Cause this is insanity
08:49 < gleki> it's one meaning with a scale
08:49 < gleki> if they are bad glossed to english then it's another question
08:49 < zipcpi> But you can't say "I do not expect X", instead, you have to say "I expect NOT X"
08:50 < zipcpi> I think that's a real problem
08:51 < ctefaho> kanpe?:)
08:51 < gleki> ba'anai - experience complete, ba'acu'i - experience being accumulated, ba'a - experience is not complete
08:51 < ctefaho> I know I know not an attitudinal...
08:51 < zipcpi> It's not a matter of the English gloss. It is that it runs on a completely different continuum than what most people would expect from other attitudinals
08:51 < zipcpi> And it's not just about expectation; it breaks some things
08:51 < gleki> idk, im fine with this scale. it's useful for me
08:52 < ctefaho> One more question: if I say uipei, uisaipei, uisairo'apei, what answers could one except for each?
08:53 < gleki> ui/uinai/uisai etc.
08:53 < zipcpi> {kai'e} <- {kanpe}, {li'ei} <- {lifri}, {vei'i} <- {vedli}
08:54 < ctefaho> so, answer with just the bare ui, with or without CAI and categories?
08:54 < gleki> anything with ui
08:54 < ctefaho> So one can answer uipei with .oi?
08:54 < zipcpi> The main problem with ba'a is that you can't negate it properly
08:55 < zipcpi> Because negating it makes it flip on a different continuum
08:55 < ctefaho> So can one*
08:55 < gleki> zipcpi: what are your test cases?
08:55 < zipcpi> kai'enai nabmi -> I don't expect any problems
08:56 < ctefaho> ah, nvm, anything with "ui" (not "UI")
08:56 < zipcpi> It's quite similar to ba'a naku nabmi, but it's different
08:56 < ctefaho> So to rephrase, one does not answer UIpei with another UI than the one the pei is attached to?
08:56 < ctefaho> in regular usage
08:58 < gleki> zipcpi: different in what? the lack of the attitude
08:58 < gleki> ?
08:58 < zipcpi> Denial of expectation, rather than expectation of negation
08:59 < zipcpi> It becomes even more important for {vei'i}
08:59 < zipcpi> {vei'inai} = I don't remember. {ba'anainai} = ????
09:00 < gleki> then state that {na'i} is an interjection modifier
09:00 < zipcpi> And {ba'anai naku} means I remember that this didn't happen
09:00 < zipcpi> I don't even know how na'i works with other attitudinals
09:01 < gleki> no ,this means that i have an experience of not having something
09:01 < zipcpi> Yeah, which is different from not remembering
09:01 < gleki> not remembering is {na morji}
09:02 < zipcpi> {vei'inai nabmi} = I don't remember any problems
09:03 < zipcpi> Point of discursives is so that we don't have to wrap the sentence up into an abstraction and put it into kanpe etc
09:04 < gleki> you can't deny experience actually. denying experience is just stating another experience.
09:04 < zipcpi> It means mi na lifri zo'e
09:06  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Gleki - /* Practice. cmila - to laugh. cisma - to smile */ [http://bit.ly/1BRosUS]
09:07 < gleki> zipcpi: i see. if you insist then you may use {ro'inai}
09:08 < zipcpi> I don't think so
09:08 < zipcpi> It means denial of emotional sphere. Compare with the other ro'V
09:10  * ctefaho bazi sipna
09:12 < bigcentaur> coi ro do
09:13 < niftg> coi
09:28 < bamtman> coi rodo
09:29 < niftg> coi bamtman
10:52 < jenca> coi
10:52 < jenca> is the meeting/talk on mumble still happening?
10:53 < zipcpi> Nope T.T
10:53 < niftg> nau smaji
10:53 < niftg> smaji casnu ka'e
10:53 < jenca> did it already happen? or is it going to?
10:54 < _mukti_> xu la'o zoi rlpowell zoi cu jundi
10:54 < gleki> e'u do benji lo sivni CGM
10:54 < niftg> la'a pu ba'o fasnu doi la jenca
10:54 < gleki> ita'o coi lo kurji ku noi du la mukti
10:55 < _mukti_> coi la gleki .i ie mi ca'o kurji
10:55 < _mukti_> .i mi troci lo nu cikre lo nuzyfle pe la tu'iter
10:56 < jenca> ki’e
10:56 < gleki> _mukti_: ta'i lo ka stika le uitki vau xu
10:56 < _mukti_> si'au stika la'o zoi curl zoi
10:57 < gleki> uanai i ma ca nabmi
10:58 < _mukti_> my lojban is not up to the task of describing the insanity which is SSL
10:58 < _mukti_> queryfeed.net is now redirecting to HTTPS
10:58 < _mukti_> but curl, which mediawiki uses, isn't configured to accept their certificate
11:00 < niftg> ta'o lo bemro mu'a .a lo ketco mu'a cu pu'i zvati lo nu vokta'a sepi'o la mambl vau vau xu
11:00 < gocti> jenca: ca lo nu casnu cu kucli lo du'u lo do plini ciste cartu cu mo kau
11:00 < gleki> u want a new rss feed?
11:01 < gocti> .i sa'e lo du'u xu kau mu'a lo plini ru'i ku je xoi masno cu muvdu ja me'au lo simsa
11:01 < _mukti_> No, I just want to fix the twitter feed
11:16 < tsani> coi
11:16 < _mukti_> coi la tsani
11:18 < bigcentaur> coi la .tsani.
11:18 < gocti> coi le .tan.
11:24 < gleki> _mukti_: ta'o ma nuzba API pe JVS
11:25 < _mukti_> na nuzba
11:25 < _mukti_> su no da nuzba
11:26 < gleki> lo nu no da nuzba ka'e na nuzba
11:29 < gleki> this {lo jai se pa'u xrula} for "bouquet" is just terrible
11:29 < _mukti_> Oh... I think I see the problem
11:29 < _mukti_> start date: Jun 06 00:00:00 2015 GMT
11:29 < _mukti_> The certificate was installed before it is valid.
11:30 < _mukti_> Oh, no, it's the 6th.
11:30 < _mukti_> Hmm
11:31 < gleki> and {lo jai ci'e xrula} might not work.
11:31 < gleki> _mukti_: why do you need such a tool? you mean you can't download data at all from Twitter API using your tool?
11:32 < _mukti_> Is there even a twitter api any more?
11:32 < _mukti_> Queryfeed is the only working source I could find for a twitter-based RSS feed.
11:32 < _mukti_> (based on a search, that is)
11:33 < _mukti_> However, they seem to have installed a certificate which isn't supported everywhere.
11:33 < gleki> okay, RSS.
11:33 < _mukti_> Works fine on my laptop. But jukni rejects it.
11:33 < gleki> there are plenty of such tools.
11:33 < gleki> nuzba: coi
11:33 < gleki> ^
11:34 < _mukti_> well, if you can fix it, be my guest!
11:34 < gleki> what's the purpose of it?
11:35 < _mukti_> To show recent tweets about lojban
11:35 < gleki> create a list of X most recent mentions of some string(s) on Twitter and turn it into some readable format?
11:35 < gleki> and by that readable format you mean RSS?
11:37 < _mukti_> yes, RSS works with the mediawiki ... there may be a plugin for ATOM as well
11:38 < demize> _mukti_: Seen my RSS thing on the ML?
11:39 < _mukti_> demize: No, did you just post?
11:39 < demize> No, was a while ago
11:39 < demize> [ sF]  23/05  To lojban@googlegrou  [lojban] Language specific twitter feeds about Lojban
11:40 < _mukti_> Oh, right, I remember that. Do you have that running anywhere? I'm highly motivated to move us off of queryfeed now!
11:41 < demize> It's not currently running anywhere, no. It's meant to run as a cron job however often is wanted
11:42 < demize> You basically just have to configure which feeds are wanted (the ones in the default config are the languages for which there was lojban tweets back when I made it), and then run the script every day or so.
11:42 < demize> Oh right, just remembered that I never added the rquirements.txt file.
11:43 < demize> oh right, API keys need to be generated too, due to rate limiting and stuff.
11:44 < demize> (<https://apps.twitter.com/>)
11:45 < demize> _mukti_: I can generate the feeds and put them up so you can see how they look.
11:45 < _mukti_> If somebody sets that up, I'd be glad to make use of it.
11:46 < demize> https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/feeds/en.atom.xml
11:46 < demize> The number of tweets to include is configured in config.ini too.
11:47 < _mukti_> Oh, goodness, the SSL on jukni seems really broken.
11:47 < _mukti_> Doesn't work with that site either, although different error.
11:47 < zipcpi> SSL ki'a?
11:47 < _mukti_> "https"
11:48 < _mukti_> encrypted transport layer for the web
11:48 < zipcpi> I... might have broke it. I was kinda naughty on JVS and "stole" the gloss words from tirxu and jukni
11:49 < gleki> this is the most obvious explanation
11:49 < zipcpi> To favor the more specific and less malglixlu-prone tigra and ankabuta
11:49 < gleki> en: ankabuta
11:49 < mensi> ankabuta = x1 is a spider (order Araneae) of species x2 |>>> More specific than jukni. See cinki |>>>
11:49 < mensi> gleki
11:49 < gleki> heh, it's there
11:49 < _mukti_> "jukni" is also the name of a server -- so it wasn't you're doing
11:49 < gleki> {tirxu} is not malglixlu at all. it's just cizra
11:49 < zipcpi> Ah
11:50 < zipcpi> Yeah, I assume {te tirxu} is there so you can distinguish between them somehow... but come on
11:50 < gleki> gimsye was created by making usual SAE concepts broader 
11:51 < gleki> gimste was created by making usual SAE concepts broader 
11:52 < zipcpi> Well the malglixlu is more in the back-translation
11:54 < zipcpi> But ie it's such a cizra taxonomy. What language has a word that means exactly what {tirxu} or {jukni} does lol
12:00 < _mukti_> li'a lo tirxu cu tirxu fi da
12:01 < gleki> if {cinfo} didnt exist then most wouldnt complained
12:03 < _mukti_> lo cinfu cu se barna lo te tirxu
12:03 < _mukti_> su lo cinfo cu se barna lo te tirxu
12:05 < gleki> so it'd be strange to invent a LE shortcut for {lo jai se pa'u}
12:06 < zipcpi> Nah I think it'd have to be a lujvo =/
12:09  * nuzba @nickpascucci: .@Duolingo Excited to see the new Esperanto course! Are there any plans to introduce one for Lojban? [http://bit.ly/1QA0ynK]
12:10 < _mukti_> Hmm... so I was thinking
12:10 < _mukti_> since tirxu is a ternary relationship, then it would be valid to say something tiger striped is a tiger ... x2 = no da
12:11 < _mukti_> do tirxu no da de
12:11 < _mukti_> you are a tiger, not of any breed, with coat markings
12:12 < _mukti_> So I see the problem with queryfeed at last
12:13 < _mukti_> They need to install two intermediate certificates, and they've only installed one
12:20 < pilno> coi ro do .ui
12:21 < pilno> .au cilre fi lo jbobau
12:22 < _mukti_> coi pilno au dai
12:25 < _mukti_> ha, I see queryfeed blogged about the SSL change
12:26 < _mukti_> https://queryfeed.net/pages/ssl/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
12:26 < _mukti_> I just emailed them about the problem ... hopefully they're still tuned in
13:05 < pilno> I'm trying to write in my journal about it's annoying when people visit my house and I'm not sure this is right: fazgau vitke lo nu mi re'azda
13:07 < gocti> {fanza fa lo nu da vitke lo mi zdani}, or {lo prenu cu jai fanza fai lo nu vitke lo mi zdani}
13:08 < gocti> {lo nu mi re'azda} would mean "the event of me being a house"; {fazgau vitke lo nu mi re'azda} = "[someone] annoyingly visits me being a house"
13:09 < pilno> Ah! I thought that might be where I was messing up.
13:10 < Ilmen> coi la selpa'i si pilno
13:10 < gocti> .u'i
13:11 < _mukti_> ue la selpa'i cu pilno
13:12 < Ilmen> na ba'a
13:12 < Ilmen> .i ku'i ca lo cabdei nu vokta'a zo'u la selpa'i zo pilno pu se cmene
13:12 < _mukti_> ua
13:13 < Ilmen> pu vitke lo virtu'ale jbogu'e fau lo nu vokta'a sepi'o la mambl
13:13 < Ilmen> kei fa mi'a
13:24 < pilno> ki'a .i mi na se bangu la lojban.
13:29 < Ilmen> mi pu tavla la mukti  --  I was talking to Mukti
13:29 < Ilmen> doi la pilno
13:46 < ldlework> coi ro do
13:46 < mensi> ldlework: cu'u la'o gy.zipcpi.gy.: za'a mi pofygau le bolci skari co'e | 2015-06-06T14:17:03.
13:46 < mensi> 054Z
13:46 < ldlework> doi zipcpi, mo'oi bolci cu spofu
13:47 < ldlework> srana le sisku kelci
13:47 < ldlework> xu
13:48 < zipcpi> .y. bu'u la jbogu'e
13:48 < zipcpi> mi so'ore'u kli'iki .ibabo spofu
13:49 < zipcpi> mi tolmo'i tu'a mo'oikau skari
13:49 < Ilmen> mi pu lifri lo simsa
13:50 < Ilmen> ju mintu
13:51 < zipcpi> .y. na srana syky
13:51 < zipcpi> srana lo skari
15:07  * nuzba @ro_bot_: ロジバン トワ ジンコウゲンゴノヒトツ ノコトデス [http://bit.ly/1RTxSZj]
15:15 < rexrula> coi
15:17 < Ilmen> coi
15:19 < bigcentaur> coi
15:19 < ldlework> Anyone who hasn't yet
15:19 < ldlework> Come visit la jbogu'e!
15:22 < rexrula> if i was quoting a book title would i use la'o?
15:22 < bigcentaur> la .jbogu'e. ki'a
15:23 < Ilmen> rexrula: If it has a foreign title, yes
15:24 < Ilmen> co'o ro do
15:24 < rexrula> la'o glico. Harry Potter .glico
15:24 < rexrula> right?
15:24 < Ilmen> That's fine
15:25 < Ilmen> "gy" is also a very common zoi-separator  (la'o gy .... gy)
15:25 < Ilmen> when quoting an english text
15:25 < Ilmen> (gy, the G letteral, here stands for "glico")
15:26 < Ilmen> it's only common in usage, it's nothing mandatory
15:27 < Ilmen> co'o ta'o
15:27 < rexrula> ki'e sai do
15:28 < rexrula> I've only been studying lojban for three days so I've got a lot to learn!
15:39 < ldlework> aww they left
16:05  * nuzba @uitki: PAGE MISE À JOUR :  proga:LMW - Lojbanic MediaWiki - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/proga:LMW_-_Lojbanic_MediaWiki par Guskant - /* ToDo and the future of le uitki */ [http://bit.ly/1GgJulm]
16:08 < AndChat|320025> Is http://lojban.github.io/cll/ the best online resource?
16:11 < ldlework> AndChat|320025: this chatroom is also a pretty good resource
16:13 < AndChat|320025> Cool
16:13 < ldlework> AndChat|320025: did you just learn about lojban?
16:15 < AndChat|320025> Yeah do you think I could learn the grammar in a week?
16:16 < AndChat|320025> Like all next week
16:45 < bigcentaur> depends on what exactly you mean by "learn the grammar" ha
16:57 < ldlework> dang they left :(
16:58 < ldlework> bigcentaur: I've been teaching people the core grammar left and right the last couple weeks
16:58 < ldlework> Its strange the influx of new speakers
17:07 < demize> ldlework: You should hold proper, planned classes. ;)
17:08 < ldlework> demize: I've been available so much because I'm having this strange unproductivity at work. Its real bad. I don't hope it continues.
17:08 < ldlework> Of course the idea sounds pleasant.
17:08 < demize> Well, you don't have to be online /often/ to have classes, just maybe have an hour or two available somewhere
17:09 < demize> Anyway, yeah, "real" classes would be nice.
17:12 < bigcentaur> yay
17:12 < bigcentaur> new speakers
17:18 < bigcentaur> come to montreal. we've had quite a few people at our intro lojban meetings :)
17:19 < demize> You paying for the plane ticket? ;)
17:20 < bigcentaur> lolnope
17:23 < bigcentaur> you can hitchhike like the rest of us :P
17:30 < demize> I would rather not hitchhike across the Atlantic ocean.
17:31 < demize> Anyway, night.
17:44 < ldlework> demize: You don't seem the kind that really needs lessons
17:45 < demize> ldlework: Hah, how do you figure that?
17:45 < ldlework> you know most of the major features of the language no?
17:45 < demize> Far from it. :)
17:45 < demize> My Lojban knowledge is exceedingly basic.
17:45 < ldlework> demize: noun phrases?
17:45 < ldlework> lo - ku and friends?
17:46 < demize> To a degree.
17:46 < ldlework> ah okay maybe an itemization isn't due here
17:46 < ldlework> demize: would you agree to hold the lessons in la jbogu'e?
17:47 < demize> Of course. ;)
17:47 < ldlework> cinri
17:48 < demize> Anyway, issue with me is that I have a really hard time sticking with it when learning something. I sort of need some form of class-ish thing to keep me from drifting away.
17:48 < ldlework> the problem is that, while giving lessons might only take an hour or two; preparing one or two hours of content takes longer
17:48 < demize> Quite so, but that can be split out over a longer period of time.
17:48 < ldlework> I'd want to teach the new gadri, but would feel guilty for doing so.
17:49 < ldlework> How much experimental stuff does one teach?
17:49 < demize> Now that is a good question.
17:50 < ldlework> I can think of tons of stuff in jbogu'e to do for teaching though
17:50 < ldlework> especially if it is multiparticipant
17:58 < ldlework> demize: how do you feel about roleplay?
19:48  * nuzba @voxelcomposer: @unintelligibl3 I am certain there is a complicated and yet inhumanly precise way to express this in Lojban. Now I'm tempted to try. [http://bit.ly/1BS1q07]
20:12 < zahlman> gleki: when mensi decomposes lujvo, it currently uses "face" as a gloss for {lifri}, which could be confusing (since most speakers would first think of it in the {flira} sense)
20:12 < zahlman> (er, english speakers)
21:28 < isd> .i coi rodo
21:30 < cizypij> coi ro do
21:30 < cizypij> .i mi do zu'i rinsa
21:35 < isd> .i doi cizypij mo
21:36 < cizypij> .i zo'o li'a mi do fo la lojban. tavla .u'i
21:39 < isd> u'i
21:40 < cizypij> ni'o zo'o zu'i cfari
21:41 < isd> .i mi troci lonu surla
21:41 < cizypij> .i ko sipna
21:43 < isd> .i na tatpi .i surla lonu tavla
21:44 < cizypij> .i do ma vreta
21:45 < isd> lo te kumfa
21:46 < isd> .i menli surla
21:48 < cizypij> .i zo'o pau nai do lo drudi cu vreta
21:49 < isd> u'i
21:50 < isd> .i xu do bazi sipna
21:50 < cizypij> go'i
21:51 < cizypij> ni'o zo'o pau nai ma se bacru lo lorxu .u'i sai
21:54 < isd> uanai
21:55 < zipcpi> be'e
21:55 < cizypij> ni'o coi doi la zipcpi
21:56 < ldlework> coi
21:56 < zipcpi> coi
21:56 < isd> e'a
21:56 < isd> .i coi la zipcpi
21:56 < zipcpi> coi
21:57 < cizypij> .i do zo'e ma la lojban. tavla
21:58 < ldlework> zipcpi: I think I'm at a place where I see {le'i (meta) broda} => {ta poi broda} and {le'e (mera) broda} => {ra poi broda}
21:59 < gleki> zipcpi: {lo jai se pa'u} can't be a lujvo at all.
22:00 < ldlework> zipcpi: since RA implies bi'unai
22:00 < ldlework> basically a combination of our ideas and selpa'i's
22:00 < gleki> zahlman: when mensi decomposes lujvo it uses glosses from JVS.
22:00 < zahlman> aha
22:00 < zahlman> are those easily edited?
22:00 < cizypij> .i coi doi la gleki
22:01 < gleki> gocti: xu do ca'o favgau lo gloso tutci
22:01 < gleki> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/lifri "face ; deal with"
22:02 < ldlework> gleki: but he's not wrong that face is also a gloss for a different word
22:03 < gleki> in order to be able to better gloss lujvo structure what we need to is to have brivla translated as verbs. this hasnt been done yet. as nouns we already have it in La Bangu dictionary. JVS never separates nouns/verbs in glosses which causes most issues extending to the fact that newcomers forget {lo}
22:04 < gleki> ldlework: not a question to me. mensi just uses what you feed her with. if you have another dictionary i can enable it in mensi
22:04 < gleki> cizypij: coi
22:05 < cizypij> I thought Lojban lacked the traditional verb/noun/adjective distinctions.
22:06 < ldlework> not really
22:06 < gleki> we are talking not about lojban but about glossing of it
22:06 < ldlework> those are pretty fundamental to language
22:06 < gleki> ofc. nouns/verbs dont exist in many languages in the same sense as they are used in english
22:07 < cizypij> But lojban isn't a naturalistic language.
22:07 < gleki> Tagalog is something like lojban in this regard. also no noun/verb distinction.
22:08 < isd> I mean, from a pedagogical standpoint, even in cases where there is a real relationship, it can be better to just not associate them as far as not screwing up
22:09 < isd> but yeah, different languages have different parts of speech.
22:09 < cizypij> Has anyone begun using/teaching logic with Lojban?
22:11 < gleki> Has anyone begun using logic?
22:13 < cizypij> Allegedly, Quine did...
22:13 < cizypij> .i coi doi la'o sy. skapata .sy. do'u
22:14 < isd> .i ctuca ma fo lo logji
22:16 < cizypij> .i ko ctuca ro da fo la logji
22:20 < cizypij> What is everyone's favorite feature of Lojban?
22:24 < gleki> that it exists
22:25 < isd> .i sampu
22:27 < cizypij> .i la lojban. ma sampu
22:29 < cizypij> .i coi doi la'o gy. Quantourisc .gy.
22:29 < cizypij> si Qantourisc
22:30 < cizypij> .gy.
22:33 < cizypij> co'o ro do
22:37 < zipcpi> ldlework: Hm that's interesting
22:37 < ldlework> re'i
22:38 < zipcpi> vi/va/vu does work for the spatial case. They are sumtcita, so they actually modify broda rather than the gadri. They just happen to mean the right thing
22:38 < ldlework> wait what
22:39 < ldlework> vi/va/vu ?
22:39 < zipcpi> ti vi broda = This is a broda, and it's close by
22:39 < ldlework> that's a tautology
22:39 < zipcpi> So lo vi broda means a broda that is close by
22:39 < ldlework> oh sure
22:40 < zipcpi> So le'i vi broda just happens to mean ti noi broda, if ti refers to spatiality
22:40 < ldlework> are you saying, instead of formalizing le'i and le'e in terms of TA and RA
22:40 < ldlework> ah to avoid meti?
22:40 < zipcpi> Nah I'm just giving my reasoning on why vi/va/vu works with le'i and not le'e. But if it makes the system better to use the {me} thingy...
22:40 < ldlework> right
22:41 < ldlework> but I might actually want to talk about the nearby-broda in the sense, not that it is right there, but is nearby
22:41 < ldlework> like, demonstrative is different than {vi zarci}
22:41 < zipcpi> Bare le'i is agnostic as to distance
22:42 < ldlework> I imagine it as default meta, but whatever sure
22:42 < ldlework> but if I add a vi
22:42 < ldlework> I'm not only controlling the le'i semantic
22:42 < ldlework> but also the zarci semantic
22:42 < zipcpi> Yes
22:42 < ldlework> which is ba
22:42 < ldlework> d
22:42 < ldlework> meti literally means, within the set of things this demonstrative would designate on its own
22:42 < ldlework> but also broda
22:43 < ldlework> IE, ti poi broda
22:43 < ldlework> precisely what is wanted
22:43 < zipcpi> Yeah I can see that
22:43 < Qantourisc> aw i missed cipr
22:43 < Qantourisc> i mean cizypij
22:43 < Qantourisc> no autocomplete on disconnected :p
22:43 < ldlework> :)
22:43 < gleki> Qantourisc: you may send him  a message
22:44 < zipcpi> Technically with that me system you don't need le'i or le'e though
22:44 < Qantourisc> since when ?
22:44 < zipcpi> Just attach them to le
22:44 < ldlework> zipcpi: I think I'm OK with lojban being a language which distinguishes between discourse dictic demonstratives and spatial demonstratives
22:44 < gleki> mensi: doi Qantourisc coi do ma nuzba
22:44 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.Qantourisc.gy. di'a cusku da
22:44 < ldlework> zipcpi: its true, except that you get a way to do it if you care to be distance agnostic
22:45  * zipcpi nods
22:45 < ldlework> and still get bi'unai
22:45 < ldlework> well
22:45 < ldlework> ignore that last bit
22:45 < gleki> Qantourisc: now mensi paste this message to the chat when you say something again. this is how you can send delayed messages to others
22:45 < ldlework> RA is bi'unai too
22:45 < gleki> rather {mi'u} than {bi'unai}
22:46  * Qantourisc confused
22:46 < gleki> Qantourisc: say something
22:47 < ldlework> oh its not even RA its KOhA5 :/
22:47 < Qantourisc> mensi: hello
22:47 < mensi> Qantourisc: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: coi do ma nuzba | 2015-06-07T05:44:31.176Z
22:47 < mensi> la'e di'u sinxa ma do
22:47 < zipcpi> ta'o ma'oi ko'axire zo'u: I think they actually do follow a system of some sort; it's not the i/a/u we're used to, but rather i/e/a
22:48 < Qantourisc> ua
22:49 < Qantourisc> gleki: but i don't have something to say say, then again it would be good to get the ball rolling again on lojban, but i should just study instead, trying without a bag of vocabulary is fustrating
22:50 < zipcpi> It's just technically you don't have to change grammar or semantics to make KOhA2 anaphoric markers with {le} or {le'e}
22:50 < zipcpi> {le mi broda} = the broda that is associated with me
22:50 < zipcpi> {le di'u broda} = the broda that is associated with the recent utterance
22:50 < zipcpi> Which... is quite clearly anaphorical
22:50 < zipcpi> Don't even need to reverse KOhA2
22:51 < ldlework> zipcpi: in the literature, I was reading that in languages, that adverbial demonstratives usually are morphologically evolved from anaphoric demonstratives
22:52 < ldlework> which would align exactly with how selpa'i is doing it
22:54 < ldlework> I wonder why he wants me
22:54 < ldlework> if you can just do
22:54 < zipcpi> It's just no one has ever really used le KOhA5 broda in that way
22:54 < ldlework> le ri broda
22:54 < ldlework> ie
22:54 < zipcpi> Well it's a bit more ambiguous, because le ri broda can also mean le broda pe ri
22:54 < ldlework> hmm
22:55 < ldlework> so that's why it is me
22:55 < zipcpi> Yeah
22:55 < ldlework> god damn that jbopre is smart
22:57 < zipcpi> Also ri/ra/ru is weird. {ri} always means the last sumti (skipping over "definite pronouns" like {mi}, {do}, and {ly}, but catching "changeable pronouns" like {ti})
22:57 < zipcpi> ra and ru though are more ambiguous
22:58 < ldlework> I think I would only use ra and ru for proxial and distal
22:58 < zipcpi> I agree... ri already has a very specific meaning
22:58 < zipcpi> So doesn't usually need a {noi} expansion
22:59 < ldlework> And in most languages, the remote-distal is hardly used, as I've read
22:59 < ldlework> but it seems strange to exclude ti from the spatial demonstrative cases
22:59 < ldlework> but
23:00 < ldlework> in normal languages where spatial demonstratives are used as discourse diectic demonstratives, the proxial is actually refer to _future_ text
23:00 < ldlework> "I know. And this is the kicker:"
23:00 < ldlework> "I know. I can't believe that."
23:01 < zipcpi> We do have {di'e} for that. Which tends to turn out to be {la'edi'e}... yeah mablamabla but it's off topic
23:02 < zipcpi> Also zo'u
23:02 < zipcpi> And tu'e
23:02 < ldlework> zo'u?
23:02 < zipcpi> lo "kicker" zo'u
23:02 < zipcpi> Then you just give your sentence
23:03 < zipcpi> No need for any equivalent to "this" in this case
23:03 < ldlework> eh
23:03 < ldlework> "Take this example: the boy jumped"
23:04 < zipcpi> lo mupli goi my zo'u
23:04 < ldlework> what
23:04 < zipcpi> {I put the goi my because we're probably going to talking about that example a lot}
23:04 < ldlework> That isn't the same semantic
23:05 < ldlework> It says "this sentence concerns the an example called my"
23:05 < ldlework> it doesn't ascribe exampleness to the sentence
23:05 < zipcpi> zo'u does two things: It can be used for logical prenexes, and also as a "topic marker"
23:05 < ldlework> yes topic marker
23:05 < ldlework> it doesn't qualify the sentence itself
23:05 < ldlework> "And this you wont believe: He cheated"
23:05 < ldlework> not
23:06 < ldlework> do you know what I mean
23:06 < ldlework> the topic of the sentence, isn't really the same as what you could say about it
23:07 < ldlework> "This is going to be long-winded but: "
23:07 < zipcpi> Well it's just we have really become creative to make up for the lack of ana-cata-exophorics :p
23:07 < ldlework> lo clani jufra zo'u:
23:07 < ldlework> the sentence isn't about a long jufra
23:07 < zipcpi> The connection to the topic is inherently ambiguous; it just sets a frame of mind for the listener
23:08 < ldlework> the cll is pretty clear on the topicness of the word
23:08 < zipcpi> Which is all your "this" examples do really. It's just that English likes filling places with empty pronouns
23:09 < ldlework> not really
23:09 < ldlework> "this is going to be long but bear with me"
23:09 < ldlework> "this" refers to a unit of discourse
23:09 < ldlework> not the subject of that discourse
23:09 < zipcpi> Like I said, if you really need it, there's {la'edi'e}
23:09 < zipcpi> Or actually just {di'e} in this case
23:09 < ldlework> well, commenting on the discourse itself, I think you can use just di'e
23:09 < ldlework> heh
23:10 < isd> ldlework: What if you
23:10 < isd> 're asking me to get my very long rope out of your well?
23:10 < isd> :P
23:10 < ldlework> isd: heh then it works!
23:10 < ldlework> context is everything hehe
23:12 < ldlework> di'e clani .i ku'i o'o ko'oi .i mu'o zo'o
23:14 < zipcpi> Would you mind though if I put {le di'u broda}, {le de'u broda}, and {le da'u broda} as a way of distinguishing anaphoric distance?
23:14 < zipcpi> To replace my old {le'e'V} idea
23:15 < ldlework> le di'e ve ciksi ku clani .i ji'a ku'i vajni
23:15 < zipcpi> {le'e} would remain agnostic
23:15 < ldlework> what do we need le'e for?
23:15 < zipcpi> You mean if we could use di'u/de'u/da'u?
23:16 < ldlework> I say we run with selpa'i's use of lo meKOhA5 and our new encouraging light formalizing of the semantics of lo KOhA2
23:16 < zipcpi> No me here
23:16 < zipcpi> It's associated with the utterance
23:16 < ldlework> you need it for ri ra ru
23:16 < zipcpi> Not the utterance itself
23:16 < zipcpi> Yeah
23:16 < ldlework> right that' KOhA2
23:16 < ldlework> I didn't include me there
23:16 < zipcpi> Right
23:16 < ldlework> yay less gadri to learn
23:16 < zipcpi> I didn't read your sentence properly
23:17 < ldlework> the question is now
23:17 < ldlework> do we also scrap le'i
23:17 < zipcpi> Better than bi'unai at least
23:18 < zipcpi> Which I'm not even sure how you indicate anaphoric distance with
23:18 < zipcpi> bi'unaisai = ???
23:18 < ldlework> right that's the advantage :)
23:18 < ldlework> the shortness is secondary
23:18 < ldlework> well who am I kidding
23:18 < ldlework> anyway, le meta nixli cu melbi ?
23:19 < ldlework> its adverbial
23:19 < ldlework> versus adding a new determiner
23:19 < ldlework> hmm
23:19 < zipcpi> Technically it's a tanru
23:19 < zipcpi> exp: le meta nixli
23:19 < mensi> ([le {<me ta MEhU> nixli} KU] VAU)
23:19 < ldlework> that's what tanru are
23:19 < ldlework> adverbs
23:19 < zipcpi> Right
23:20 < ldlework> Now I'm suspicious that le'e and le'i are not useful
23:20 < zipcpi> Meaning things that modify verbs (selbri)
23:20 < ldlework> in the case you don't care about the distance
23:20 < ldlework> which I'm guessing is most of the time
23:20 < ldlework> the times you really need to go down to the granularity of meti or meta is probably not all that often
23:20 < ldlework> same with discourse deictic
23:20 < ldlework> also I learned that in many languages
23:21 < ldlework> discourse deictics generally don't hold longer than a unit of discourse
23:21 < ldlework> meaning le'e sidbo probably doesn't exist past the sentence its in (to refer to the previous)
23:21 < ldlework> just because "that" is -so- demonstrative
23:22 < ldlework> I feel like we could formalize le'e and le'i as being enocded as the median defaults
23:22 < ldlework> but does le'e refer to koha5 or koha2?
23:23 < gleki> tanru are not adverbs. tanru are compound verbs. adverbs in Lojban  are TAGs.
23:24 < gleki> Also topic/comment is more bi'unai/bi'u rather than {zo'u}.
23:24 < zipcpi> Erm, not in the sentences he asked me to translate
23:24 < zipcpi> {zo'u} is much more convenient there
23:24 < gleki> but ofc. not {mi'u/mi'unai}
23:25 < gleki> there is a huge difference between 1. which term CLL uses 2. which term linguist use 3. which term logicians use 4. which real life sentence you need to translate
23:26 < gleki> *linguists
23:26 < zipcpi> lol
23:27 < ldlework> gleki: An adverb is a word that modifies a verb, adjective, other adverb, determiner, noun phrase, clause, or sentence. Adverbs typically express manner, place, time, frequency, degree, level of certainty, etc., answering questions such as how?, in what way?, when?, where?, and to what extent?. This function is called the adverbial function, and may be realised by single words (adverbs) or by multi-word
23:27 < ldlework> expressions (adverbial phrases and adverbial clauses).
23:27 < ldlework> You're right that tanru are more generally "compound verbs", but we have some verbs that when used as a compound affect the main verb adverbially
23:28 < ldlework> And certainly, meta, specifically, is more 'adverbial' than forming a 'complex predicate'
23:29 < ldlework> since 'meta' doesn't have a whole lot of semantic meaning outside of denoting discourse deixis
23:29 < ldlework> but I agree to the wider point
23:30 < ldlework> Especially to the point that tags are the more concrete 'lojban adverb'
23:30 < zipcpi> But yeah the funny thing about the di'u/de'u/da'u as anaphoric modifiers are already standard Lojban. It's just that no one has used them that way
23:30 < ldlework> agreed
23:32 < ldlework> have you updated your thing?
23:32 < zipcpi> Yep
23:34 < ldlework> so you're keeping le'e as the 'default anaphoric description' and le'i as the 'default spatial demonstrative' ?
23:34 < zipcpi> I'm not sure we want to tear that down now... maybe if there's enough resistance, but I expect the strongest resistance to be actually from {lo'i}
23:35 < ldlework> just because of existing definitions, or because our new version is bad?
23:35 < zipcpi> Because of existing definitions. There might be people who actually use sets for something
23:35 < ldlework> right
23:35 < ldlework> I was thinking about the implication of lo'e nu
23:36 < gleki> ldlework: "how?, in what way?, when?, where?" <-- yes and tanru dont answer these questions.
23:36 < ldlework> gleki: are you sure about that
23:36 < gleki> yes.
23:36 < ldlework> gleki: mi purci broda
23:36 < gleki> there are of course wrong glosses but that's because of english limitations
23:36 < ldlework> you're saying purci broda, is malglico?!
23:37 < gleki> mi purci broda <-- I past broded.
23:37 < zipcpi> Also {le'e} is a good drop-in replacement for {lebi'unai} without having to learn the less-used KOhA2
23:37 < ldlework> yes, it tells you how I broda'ed
23:37 < gleki> nothing malgli here.
23:37 < zipcpi> More like "pastly-borda'ed"... tanru are inherently vague, but it still means what you want
23:38 < gleki> Examples of tanru in English are "to drip fry" and similar. Those are integral verbs.
23:38 < gleki> "pastly" - not a good gloss actually.
23:38 < zipcpi> Well it's unnatural English
23:38 < zipcpi> I'm just trying to emphasize the tanru-ness
23:38 < gleki> since it hints that seltau can be translated as an aadverb which is a rough approximation.
23:39 < gleki> the correct adverb here would be {mi puku broda}
23:39 < ldlework> The English lexicon contains a few true compound verbs, such as stirfry, kickstart and forcefeed. These are not serial verbs, though, as with many compounds, they may be spelled as two words. Rather the first verb expresses a manner with which the action expressed by the second verb is carried out. The second verb is the only one which may express tense.
23:40 < ldlework> "compound-verb" is a phrasal typology
23:40 < ldlework> "adverbial" is pragmatics
23:40 < ldlework> consituents of a compound verb can modify the main verb, /adverbially/
23:40 < ldlework> especially in "light verbs" in nonce creations
23:40 < ldlework> like "purci broda"
23:43 < gleki> if we are talking about pragmatics then you may use whatever you want. although this pragmatics as out jbocecmu shows often led to misusage.
23:43 < gleki> *as our
23:44 < ldlework> I don't know what you're saying
23:44 < ldlework> tags are definitely the strong mechanism for general adverbial phrases in lojban
23:45 < ldlework> compound verbs can also tell us how something verbed tho
23:46 < ldlework> zipcpi: are you editing?
23:47 < zipcpi> I'm done
23:48 < ldlework> zipcpi: want to join #gadganzu
23:48 < zipcpi> OK
23:49 < zipcpi> I'm there now
23:49 < gocti> gleki: ru'i nai gloso gunka
23:49 < gocti> cipr: +p lo broda be ti cu se mo ta
23:49 < cipr> ([FA {lo <1,3,4,5>:<(¹1,2,3,4,5¹):broda (¹[be {FE ti}] BE'O¹)> KU}] [cu {<2,1,3,4,5>:<se mo> <(¹FE ta¹) VAU>}])
23:51 < gleki> gocti: sa'u mi djica lo nu lu lo broda li'u cu se fanva fu lo genrnaune vau e lonu lu i broda li'u cu se fanva fu lo genrverbe
23:53 < gocti> ba'a fasnu .i lo ca nabmi be mi zo'u mi troci tu'a lo la'a prane dukse
23:54 < gocti> .i troci tu'a mu'a lo nu lo terjoma jorne selbri ku ji'a drani se gloso
23:55 < gleki> cipr: +p mi mo gi'e du ma vau do
23:55 < gleki> oi
23:55 < gocti> ca .irci la jboselbau
23:55 < gocti> .i lo do jufra zo'u na facki tu'a zo do
--- Day changed Sun Jun 07 2015
00:43  * nuzba @mwotton: @pthariensflame @michaelneale @freshtonic Lisp would have to be Esperanto, right? And Haskell Lojban? [http://bit.ly/1Jw5TNX]
00:47  * nuzba @taka_tsug: ロジバン - Wikipedia http://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B8%E3%83%90%E3%83%B3#.E5.A4.96.E9.83.A8.E3.83.AA.E3.83.B3.E3.82.AF [http://bit.ly/1Jw67EV]
01:14 < yeider> h0la
01:15 < gleki> coi
02:17 < gleki> Skype can now be accessed from browser. Good for our voice chats.
02:17 < gleki> "appear.in" now has an Android app. Also nice.
02:25 < ctefaho> uaicoi
02:26 < gleki> coi
02:32 < ctefaho> hey Happy
02:32 < ctefaho> you mo
02:32 < gleki> irci
03:06 < ctefaho> li'a
03:06 < ctefaho> xo'onai
03:17 < ctefaho> ...ok so if someone asks  "uipei" then replying with "ua" would be considered inappropriate, right?
03:18 < gleki> not wrong but strange yeah.
03:18 < gleki> it actually wont be an answer
03:18 < ctefaho> that would be more appropriate for a lone "pei", right?
03:19 < gleki> yeah
03:19 < ctefaho> (At least in the way it is used and now how cll and bpfk defines it...)
03:19 < ctefaho> not how*
03:19 < gleki> {pei} alone just suggests that the listener utter some attitude
03:19 < ctefaho> je'e
03:21 < ctefaho> then {UIpei} asks about the UI, but all 3 of UI, UInai and UIcu'i are valid right?
03:21 < ctefaho> with "UI" basically being "UIja'ai"
03:22 < ctefaho> the lone "UI"*
03:22 < ctefaho> ...to "uipei" I can answer both "ui" and "uija'ai", which are basically the same
03:24 < ctefaho> (But I can add cai/sai/ru'e and even a UI4 to the answer as long as it contains the relevant UI)
03:25 < ctefaho> So does "UIpei" basically ask about NAI+cu'i?
03:25 < ctefaho> of the UI
03:27 < ctefaho> ask specifically about*
03:27 < gleki>  then {UIpei} asks about the UI, but all 3 of UI ... <-- yeah
03:28 < gleki> because they are assumed to be the same attitude just different parts of the same scale
03:29 < gleki> that's what confusing people with {ba'a} scale. {ba'a} is not expectation like {uenai}, neither it's anticipation.
03:29 < ctefaho> but it doesn't really ask specifically about "cai/sai/na'oi/ru'e"? Like in "iepei"
03:29 < mensi> ei mi tugni
03:30 < gleki> ei mi tugni la mensi
03:30 < ctefaho> You can answer iesai but what is relevant to the iepei is the ja'ai/cu'i/nai
03:30 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
03:31 < ctefaho> ...and all of this boils down to my idea of defining "pei'a" as asking about "cai/sai/na'oi/ru'e", but not "cu'i"!
03:32 < gleki> ctefaho: iesai is a fine answer to {iepei}. but since you've created {iena'oipei} then {iena'oi} is expected. anyway, this {iena'oipei}, {ienaipei} etc. just emphasize particlar values of the scale. no need to just agree or disagree with that point on the scale. specify that part of the scale that u feel is appropriate.
03:32 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
03:32 < ctefaho> like "iepei" -> "ie" -> "iepei'a" -> "iesai"
03:32 < mensi> ei mi tugni
03:33 < ctefaho> well na'oi is not the same as ja'ai
03:33 < gleki> en: pei'a
03:33 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
03:33 < ctefaho> if that is what you are saying
03:33 < ctefaho> ienaina'oi
03:33 < gleki> right, iena'oi, ienaina'oi
03:34 < ctefaho> iena'oi as an implicit ja'ai as "ieja'aina'oi"
03:35 < ctefaho> gleki, haven't proposed pei'a yet to jbovlaste, discussing it first instead of after;)
03:35 < gleki> so once again, no {iepei} doesnt expect only {ie}. {iesai} and {ienaicai} are also  apropriate
03:35 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
03:36 < ctefaho> yeah, but the pei is specifically about the NAI'cu'i, right? of course you can answer with the a whole UI-tail
03:36 < ctefaho> "iepei'a" would be "How much do you agree"
03:36 < mensi> ei mi tugni
03:36 < gleki> about NAI+CAI. any combinations of those after {ie} would do
03:37 < ctefaho> pe'i cu'i is very different from the other CAIs
03:37 < gleki> cu'i is just 50% on the scale
03:37 < ctefaho> UIcu'isai
03:37 < ctefaho> how does that work in the scale metaphor huh
03:37 < gleki> well, this may mean that it's 50% sharp
03:38 < gleki> kidding
03:38 < gleki> it just denotes a strong middle attitude
03:38 < gleki> better to use another UI here
03:38 < gleki> en:a'u
03:38 < mensi> a'u = [UI1] attitudinal: interest - disinterest - repulsion.
03:39 < gleki> a'ucu'isai = strong disinterest
03:39 < ctefaho> yes
03:39 < ctefaho> but then the scale isn't exactly 2-dimensional is it
03:39 < gleki> as for {a'ucu'icai} it's critical intensity. practice of speaking fluent Lojban in future will explain what it means.
03:40 < gleki> ctefaho: probably
03:40 < ctefaho> Because .a'ucu'icai isn't exactly "in-between" either .a'uja'ai or .a'unai
03:41 < gleki> well, you can say that {sai} lowers mathematical dispersion of a particular value on {ie} scale.
03:41 < gleki> or {a'u} scale
03:41 < ctefaho> uhm
03:41 < ctefaho> yeah
03:42 < gleki> a'una'oi is 80 - 100% but a'usai is 90-100%
03:42 < gleki> a'ucu'i is 40-60% and a'ucu'isai is 45-55%
03:42 < ctefaho> uhm
03:43 < ctefaho> ienai
03:44 < gleki> not a Gaussian curve of course, since it's bound to 0 - 100 interval
03:44 < ctefaho> Then in what direction is strong neutrality in "ie"? is it closer to agreeing or disagreeing?
03:45 < gleki> closer to 50% without deviations in any side
03:45 < gleki> nai, cu'i and ja'ai are points of attraction and sai/cai specify the intensity of attraction to them
03:46 < ctefaho> well, I really don't think the 2-dimensional metaphor works if one can specify CAIs after the cu'i (and which people seem to do)
03:46 < gleki> one day Curtis will show us charts with Dirichlet distributions showing precise values of {iesai} etc.  vau zo'oru'e
03:46 < ctefaho> hmm well
03:47 < ctefaho> regardless, nai, cu'i and ja'ai are quite different from cai/sai/na'oi/ru'e, right?
03:47 < ctefaho> that's pretty much all we need to agree upon for pei'a to work
03:47 < gleki> yes, as i just said
03:48 < gleki> points on the scale vs. intensity
03:48 < ctefaho> right
03:48 < gleki> of attraction to them
03:49 < ctefaho> sorry if I am a bit thick, sipna has been terrible the last week
03:50 < ctefaho> but ok, seems like pei'a will fit in without conflicting with pei then
03:50 < gleki> zo'o do rotsu
03:51 < ctefaho> I am rotsu where it matters zo'osai
03:52 < ctefaho> sa
03:52 < ctefaho> sa sa sa
03:52 < ctefaho> .u'u
03:56 < ctefaho> Ok: So pei works as it does (with the implication that it asks specifically about ja'ai/nai/cu'i), pei'a asks about cai/sai/na'oi/ru'e, pei'o asks about re'e/ro'a/ro'e/ro'i/ro'o/ro'u
04:00 < ctefaho> Now to see if this idea is useful;)
04:36 < zipcpi> exp: lo memimoi
04:36 < zipcpi> off: lo memimoi
04:36 < mensi> ([lo {me mi MEhU moi} KU] VAU)
04:36 < mensi> ([lo {me mi MEhU moi} KU] VAU)
04:37 < zipcpi> Apparently people have started to use this to mean "something mine"?
04:37 < zipcpi> I'm not sure how it works o.o I guess they are overloading {moi}
04:37 < zipcpi> But it's funny that it already works with the grammar
04:59 < gleki> Looks like Waves either have to be banned or rewritten.
06:23 < gleki> zipcpi: so what would be your solution to datetime in {de'i}? {de'i cy xi pa} without {li} at all?
06:24 < zipcpi> You mean if they decided to destroy LI? I dunno
06:24 < zipcpi> I guess it could work, with {joi} to connect the different parts together
06:25 < zipcpi> exp: de'i ny xi renopamu joi ly xi xa joi dy xi ze
06:25 < mensi> ([de'i {ny BOI <xi (¹re [no pa mu]¹) BOI>} {joi <ly BOI (¹xi [xa BOI]¹)>} {joi <dy BOI (¹xi [ze BOI]¹)>}] VAU)
06:26 < gleki> not very bad
06:26 < zipcpi> Would break if for whatever weird reason you have assigned dy xi ze to something with {goi} though
06:27 < zipcpi> I am still kinda worried about the status of {me'o} though. {joi'i} might be the solution to that though :p
06:29 < gleki> like in {ny joi'i pa}?
06:29 < gleki> en: joi'i
06:29 < mensi> joi'i = [VUhU] mekso string operator (n-ary): formal left-concatenation; X1+X2+X3+..., where Xi is a string/word/text
06:29 < mensi> |>>> Generally noncommutative. The result is a single string written over the alphabet that is the union of each of the
06:29 < mensi> alphabets of the Xi's. "ABC"+"DEF"+"GHI"  = "ABCDEFGHI". See konkatena. |>>> krtisfranks
06:29 < zipcpi> It's a kurtynomvla that's actually useful uesai :p
06:32 < _mukti_> zipcpi: I think your proposal about attitudinal scope is very interesting
06:33 < gleki> i need to use a datestamp proposal that wont raise much rant
06:33 < _mukti_> I'm often frustrated by having to frontload an attitudinal because I want utterance scope
06:33 < zipcpi> Yeah there are still a few "bugs" though; mainly how to handle evidentials/discursives
06:33 < zipcpi> But yeah {i'au}/{ji'au} is quite useful for fixing that little problem
06:35 < gleki> i think that instead of {i'au} we need a cmavo that returns you to {i} level in hierarchy. i think gua\spi has something similar
06:35 < gleki> en: i'au
06:35 < mensi> i'au = [TOIhE] attitudinal scope modifier: marks following attitudinal/UI-cluster as applying to the entire sentence or
06:35 < mensi> statement |>>> Context-free way of attaching attitudinals or other UI-cmavo to entire sentences or statements as an
06:35 < mensi> afterthought. E.g. do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu i'au ui . See ji'au, fu'e, fu'o. Closable with toi'o. |>>>
06:35 < mensi> spheniscine
06:35 < gleki> hm, there could be two solutions: return to level 0 temporarily or return it forever.
06:36 < zipcpi> Well it works with any attitudinal group, and even works in the middle of a sentence, theoretically
06:37 < gleki> the point is that we need it not only for cnima'o
06:37 < gleki> either {xoi} or {soi} also seem to go to level 0.
06:37 < zipcpi> Oh...
06:37 < zipcpi> That does suck
06:37 < zipcpi> Maybe we do need {vau'u} after all
06:37 < gleki> or a {to ... toi} that does it temporarily
06:38 < gleki> i.e. within {to ... toi} borders.
06:38 < zipcpi> TO... TOI doesn't work as it can contain several sentences
06:38 < zipcpi> Thus forcing you to close it in most situations
06:38 < gleki> then fu'e ... fu'o
06:39 < zipcpi> Not sure fu'e/fu'o is meant to be used that way
06:39 < gleki> en: fu'ei
06:39 < mensi> fu'ei = [FUhE] begin within-context quote; terminated by fu'oi. begin within-context quote; terminated by fu'oi. Quoted
06:39 < mensi> text need not be grammatical on its own, but must be grammatical in context with the surrounding text. |>>> see also
06:39 < mensi> fu'oi |>>> tijlan
06:39 < gleki> ouch
06:39 < zipcpi> Never seen that
06:39 < gleki> fu'e'i then
06:39 < zipcpi> lol
06:40 < gleki> no'i i do want a date system solution
06:40 < gleki> what else can be used for it
06:40 < zipcpi> Is it really a no-go for them just not to affect LI... LOhO?
06:40 < zipcpi> I really don't see any advantage to that
06:41 < gleki> actually the problem is larger. how does one say "2 miles+2 km ~= 5 km"?
06:41 < zipcpi> As I've said many times, I see the problem with {.abu za'u re'u cusku} but that can be fixed without messing with LI
06:43 < zipcpi> All these worlds are yours except LI...LOhO. Attempt no landing there :p
06:44 < gleki> exp: li mo'e lo minli be li re te'u  su'i mo'e lo ki'otre be li re cu du ma
06:44 < mensi> ([li {<(¹mo'e [lo {minli <be (²li [re BOI] LOhO²) BEhO>} KU] te'u¹) BOI> <su'i (¹mo'e [lo {ki'otre <be (²li [re BOI] LOhO²) BEhO>} KU] TEhU¹) BOI>} LOhO] [cu {du <ma VAU>}])
06:44 < zipcpi> Should I actually post something in the BPFK list to that effect?
06:44 < zipcpi> Yes... how would messing with LI affect mo'e?
06:44 < gleki> im not sure this {mo'e}+{su'i} actually works
06:44 < zipcpi> Mekso are already crazy enough without breaking character strings
06:45 < gleki> those two intervals cant overlap, so does {mo'e} do all the magic?
06:50 < zipcpi> There I've posted to the BPFK list
06:50 < ctefaho> ta'a If I use pei to ask "uisaipei" does it become a question of whether or not someone is very happy rather asking about ja'ai/nai/cu'i?
06:50 < ctefaho> rather than*
06:51 < zipcpi> I don't even know how to answer this questions; hardly anyone uses attitudinals this way
06:52 < ctefaho> je'e
06:52 < Ilmen> ctefaho: I think it's [ui sai] pei
06:52 < zipcpi> Under my proposed scope resolution though, it'd be [uisai]pei
06:53 < zipcpi> But only by accident really
06:53 < Ilmen> camxes: ui sai pei
06:53 < camxes> (ui [sai pei])
06:53 < Ilmen> this parse tree is misleading
06:54 < ctefaho> lol saipei
06:54 < zipcpi> Yeah the status of UI/NAI/CAI is somewhat unclear right now
06:54 < zipcpi> The parser isn't always right there
06:54 < ctefaho> camxes: uisairo'u
06:54 < camxes> (ui [sai ro'u])
06:54 < ctefaho> camxes: uinaisairo'u
06:54 < camxes> (ui [nai {sai ro'u}])
06:54 < zipcpi> Yeah that'd suck
06:55 < ctefaho> o_O
06:55 < _mukti_> I've noticed xorxes is starting to use {du} for {du'u}
06:55 < ctefaho> sai-type of ro'V?
06:56 < zipcpi> That's a cekitaujau reassignment right?
06:56 < _mukti_> ie
06:56 < Ilmen> mi ji'a ganse
06:56 < Ilmen> coi
06:56 < _mukti_> coi la .ilmen. ui
06:56 < ctefaho> but ok no one uses pei for "is X emotion true"?
06:57 < _mukti_> "true" ?
06:57 < ctefaho> ...where I can't really think of what the answer would be
06:57 < ctefaho> yes/no question
06:57 < _mukti_> I use it for an emotion question, but I wouldn't phrase the question that way...
06:58 < _mukti_> more like, "do you feel this way" ...
06:58 < _mukti_> Or when applied alone, "how do you feel?"
06:58 < ctefaho> yeah, that's the impression I have, just checking
06:59 < _mukti_> I've really gotten attached to {pei} on its own...
06:59 < _mukti_> I'll inject it like "you know?" or "n'est-ce pas?"
07:00 < ctefaho> uasai
07:01 < _mukti_> zo pei cu plixau .i pei
07:02 < ctefaho> ieja'aisairo'e
07:02 < ctefaho> zo'o
07:03 < _mukti_> .u'i
07:04 < ctefaho> but I see what you mean, even exists as a quite common construct in swedish
07:04 < ctefaho> well
07:04 < ctefaho> that is exactly like "you know" when I think about it...
07:07 < zipcpi> The thing is that there really isn't much of a need to disambiguate between "Are you happy?" and "How happy are you?" in common usage. I mean, if you really wanted you can ask them in bridi form. {xu do gleki} vs {do xova'e gleki}
07:07 < zipcpi> But that's separate from the attitudinal system
07:08 < ctefaho> well yeah, this is sure more what xu is about
07:08 < ctefaho> question then is if you can use xu with the attitudinals somehow
07:08 < ctefaho> guess not
07:09 < zipcpi> Nope... it specifically asks whether the sentence is true
07:09 < _mukti_> I see {xu} and {pei} as parallels that refer to truth and feeling
07:20 < ctefaho> What I was thinking of would be using xu for attitudinals and expect jo'a or na'i as an answer
07:24 < zipcpi> I dunno... it might break somethings... {.ia xu} for example
07:25 < zipcpi> {xu} is in UI, but is kindof unique in function
07:25  * ctefaho spontaneously invents xu'ei
07:26 < ctefaho> zo´'o
07:29 < _mukti_> I don't know if others would agree, but I would be tempted to interpret {ia xu} as something like "I'm inclined to believe it, but is it true?"
07:30 < zipcpi> Yeah seems that way
08:06 < gleki> pei works like ro'a i.e. modifies the whole UI(NAI/CAI) construct
08:06 < gleki> NAI/CAI modifify only one word.
08:07 < gleki> I would be tempted to interpret {ia xu} as something like "I'm inclined to believe it, but is it true?" <-- others should agree because its standard behavior
08:57 < gleki> So if anyone wants to implement Pimsleur then the plan is very simple 1. prepare a set of sentences from basic to advanced 2. two of us record them into .wav files 3. http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/ssb22/gradint/
10:20 < pilno> coi
10:22 < Ilmen> coi
10:26 < pilno> la .raiven. cu tcidu ai .i lo xenru nu fikcku cu fanza la .raiven.
10:27 < pilno> could the [lo xenru nu fikcku] mean regret filled scenes in books?
10:29 < Ilmen> {lo nu xenru kei fikcku} or {lo fikcku be lo nu xenru} would be more appropriate
10:30 < Ilmen> lo xenru nu fikcku = the regret-type event-of something-unsepcified being-a-book
10:30 < Ilmen> which is not really what you want, I think :)
10:31 < Ilmen> "the regret bookness" or something
10:33 < zipcpi> be'e
10:36 < zipcpi> On two letter rafsi: I'm just wondering if there are a list of them? And are they meant to act differently from the regular rafsi; perhaps modifying words in predefined ways?
10:38 < zipcpi> For example I assume -bi is for {binxo}, and always changes {brodybi} into {x_1 binxo da poi ke'a broda x_2 x_3 li'o ku'o x_ro} or something
10:39 < gocti> zipcpi: http://piratepad.net/ep/pad/view/ro.I$w9nXS0jeI/latest
10:39 < gocti> though nothing is set in stone
10:40 < zipcpi> je'e
10:41 < zipcpi> .e'u jmina lo relrafsi be zo klani
10:42 < gocti> xu da'i se jalge lo frica be lo me ra'oi nil- moi
10:42 < gocti> y .i li'a go'i
10:42 < gocti> fau'u
10:43 < zipcpi> Well, look at the current -lai words. They are meant to be like the unit words, like cacra, mitre etc.
10:43 < zipcpi> Where x1 is the mass to be measured, and x2 is a number
10:43 < zipcpi> nil- doesn't quite do what we want here
10:44 < zipcpi> What I want is something that would fit into the pi'ai/te'ai/fei'u set. E.g. {pi'ai gunkyla cacra} = "man-hours"
10:45 < gocti> .i va'o ku ma pe ra'oi -lai nabmi .i xu do djica lo nu lo lerfu re mei rafsi ku po'o cu jai galfi fi lo ka'e jai se kanpe
10:46 < zipcpi> mi canai birti .i xu lo ca me ra'oi -lai moi cu jai nabmi
10:47 < gocti> mi si'a na birti .i ri'a bo ra'oi -lai jai tolcafne fai lo nu pilno
10:48 < gocti> .i va'i lo jbopre cu rivbi lo ka casnu lo jai se sarcu be lo nu pilno lo tai valsi
10:49 < zipcpi> It'll still be useful to have a "reserved" form though because I'm worried that a lujvo may be created that doesn't fit that pattern
10:50 < gocti> ra'oi -gau zo'u xa'o fasnu .i ko catlu zo telgau mu'a
10:50 < gocti> .i pe'i .ei catra ri
10:51 < gocti> .i ji'a .ei jdice lo du'u lo simsa be zo spogau cu mo kau .i xu lo pa moi co sumti be lo kravla cu ro roi canci
10:51 < zipcpi> ue lo daspo cu nundumu
10:52 < gocti> mi pu za co'a pilno tai lo nu ri ka'e gasnu
10:52 < ldlework> coi
10:52 < Ilmen> ŭe da zo nundumu pilno ja'e lo nu mi se .invoke zo'o
10:52 < gocti> .u'i
10:52 < gocti> coi
10:55 < zipcpi> Another crazy idea I had... well I wanted to add a whole bunch of cmavo to also affect any selbrisle the same way but that'd be too crazy. Perhaps what we need is a single "magic" cmavo like zei, that will connect a selbrisle to a "two-letter-rafsi"
10:56 < zipcpi> That way you can connect complex selbrisle like an entire nu...kei clause
10:57 < gocti> en: zei'i
10:57 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:57 < gocti> exp: na'e na'e broda
10:57 < mensi> (CU [na'e {na'e broda}] VAU)
10:58 < gocti> ku'i xatka
10:58 < gocti> .i ma'oi bo
10:59 < gocti> .i lu nu broda kei zei'i gasnu zo'u dunli zo nunrodykezgau
10:59 < gocti> vau ca'e
10:59 < zipcpi> ie lo'u zei'i gau li'u ji'a jai curmi
11:00 < zipcpi> .y. jai se curmi
11:00 < gocti> va'o lo nu go'i zo'u .ei drata selma'o
11:00 < gocti> (to do ma stidi toi)
11:00 < zipcpi> ua
11:01 < zipcpi> pe'i va'o ra nitcu lo cnino selma'o
11:03 < gocti> tanru_unit_2 = ... / tanru_unit ZEIhI_clause; ZEIhI_clause = pre_clause ZEIhI any_word post_clause
11:03 < gocti> sa .i
11:03 < gocti> zunle refkursi
11:04 < gocti> tanru_unit_2 = (...) ZEIhI_clause?
11:04 < gocti> li'o
11:05 < zipcpi> ei mi cliva co'o
11:05 < gocti> co'o
12:45 < isd> coi rodo
13:14 < bigcentaur> coi
13:15 < Ilmen> coi la kentauru
13:16 < zahlman> coi la braken
13:17 < durka42> coi ro mo
13:19 < zahlman> irci
13:22 < bigcentaur> .i mi ba'o bajra .i lo tcima cu ze'o melbi
13:27 < bigcentaur> .i lo tcima dukse lo ka glare ku na.enai lo ka lenku ku
13:29  * nuzba @leedsnewposts: Learn Lojban in Leeds? http://bit.ly/1HfXQTE [http://bit.ly/1JxgE2z]
14:03 < tsani> coi
14:03 < Ilmen> coi
14:04 < tsani> coi la menli
14:04 < tsani> .i do mo
14:04 < durka42> coi xakpre
14:04 < tsani> .u'i
14:05 < durka42> si mexypre
14:05 < tsani> .i ca lo prulamjeftu mi troci co xakto se pi'o la .iunitis. i ja'o mi iy. xebni
14:06 < durka42> lo simbi'o ke selkei matra xu
14:06 < tsani> .i xebni mu'i ra'u lo nu iy. jai nandu fai lo ka ce se pilno ci'e la .linukys.
14:06 < tsani> ie
14:07 < bigcentaur> xakto ki'a
14:07 < durka42> sutra sampla
14:07 < tsani> xakto = x1 hacks together x2 from x3
14:07 < bigcentaur> ki'e
14:08 < durka42> ra'oi -xak- jetnu rafsi zo xaksu ku'i
14:08 < tsani> ua
14:08 < durka42> mi'o zbusufukai
14:09 < Ilmen> doi la tsani la cadgu'a pu zbasu lo virtu'ale jbogu'e sepi'o lo tutci pe la re moi nunji'e
14:09 < tsani> ti'e go'i
14:10 < tsani> .i cy cu friti fi mi fe lo ka ce kansa
14:10 < Ilmen> ŭa
14:10 < Ilmen> sa'u jinvi lo du'u ka'e plixau lo nu jbobau ctuca
14:11 < Ilmen> .i lo nu cibycimde cu xamgu lo nu canlu tavla
14:12 < Ilmen> .i ji'a finti lo proga dacti poi lo ka se jarco ke'a cu se fancuka lo ka gismu gi'e se cuxna lo pilno
14:12 < Ilmen> .i mu'a jarco lo nu lo bolci cu cnita lo tanxe kei va'o lo nu cuxna zo cnita
14:22 < tsani> .a'u
14:22 < tsani> .i je'u .au ca da mi kansa .i ku'i tolcadytce ca ze'a ca
14:23 < Ilmen> je'e .i di'ai zukcfu be lo ka zukcfu
14:23 < Ilmen> :)
14:24 < Ilmen> ta'o ŭe nai dai la .xorxes. ca'o jinga fo la nu jansu
14:25 < Ilmen> .i je'u lo nunkei za'o fasnu
14:26 < Ilmen> .i bramau lo masti be li pa .i ditybra tcetcetce
14:28 < durka42> pilno mi lo nu jinga iau uinairu'e
14:46 < ctefaho> .a'enairo'o co'o
14:49 < Ilmen> co'o
16:05 < durka42> en: sujysi'u
16:05 < mensi> sujysi'u [< sumji simxu ≈ Total mutual] = x1 add up to x2. |>>> See also simsumji |>>>
16:05 < mensi> xorxes
16:05 < durka42> jbo: sujysi'u
16:05 < mensi> sujysi'u [< sumji simxu ≈ Sumji simxu*] = x1 simxu le ka x2 sumji ce'u ce'u |>>> sumji simxu; simsumji |>>>
16:05 < mensi> xorxes
16:05 < durka42> these don't seem to match
16:06 < durka42> {li pa jo'u li re jo'u li ci sujysi'u li xa} claims that 1+2 = 2+3 = 6, which is wrong
16:06 < durka42> or am I wrong about the application of {simxu}?
17:14  * nuzba @uitki: PAGE MISE À JOUR :  lojbo sinxa - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/lojbo_sinxa par Guskant [http://bit.ly/1KOGXhW]
19:26 < jbopre> Is it just me, or is la uitki really slow today? vlasisku seems as fast as usual.
19:27 < ldlework> durka42: I think that's correct
19:27 < ldlework> your interpretation
19:28 < ldlework> it also asserts that 1+3 = 6
19:28 < durka42> I talked with xorxes about it in a jbovlaste comment thread
19:28 < durka42> yeah
19:28 < durka42> his solution is to say that {simxu} isn't rigorous/exact
19:28 < durka42> I don't think that's a good answer though
19:28 < durka42> the problem is to define {sutysi'u} you need "reduce" (in the python/lisp sense)
19:28 < durka42> {simxu} is not "reduce"
19:29 < durka42> zo cmacnredusi zo'o
19:29 < ldlework> my favorite simxu is lo mi lanzu cu simxu lo ka prami/da'asnu
19:29 < ldlework> example that is
19:30 < durka42> heh
19:30 < durka42> vlaste: da'asnu
19:30 < vlaste> da'asnu = c1 (mass normally, but 1 individual/jo'u possible) argues/quarrels about topic/subject c2=d3 with opponent x3=d2.
19:30 < durka42> vlaste: da'arta'a
19:30 < vlaste> da'arta'a = t1=d1 quarrels with t2=d2 about issue t3=d3 in language t4.
19:30 < durka42> you want that one
19:30 < durka42> da'asnu is already pre-simxued :)
19:31 < ldlework> da'asnu is strangely defined
19:31 < durka42> yeah I just noticed the opponent way out in x3 wtf
19:31 < ldlework> the opponent is not in the mass
19:32 < durka42> so da'asnu is about two "camps"?
19:32 < durka42> not like a group of people arguing amongst themselves
19:32 < ldlework> da'asnu = c1 (mass) argues/quarrels about topic/subject c2
19:32 < ldlework> pe'i
19:32 < ldlework> en: casnu
19:32 < durka42> yeah that's what I was thinking
19:32 < durka42> da'asnu = da'arta'a simxu :)
19:32 < ldlework> ie
20:59 <@rlpowell> converted tersmu from haskell to JS for gleki using ghcjs, and, like, it actually works?  Was kind of surprised.  :D
21:01  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Numeric selbri - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Numeric_selbri by Durka42 - /* Usage Examples */ typo fix: da => do [http://bit.ly/1eXgjta]
21:03 < zipcpi> "ma xamoi le te minde i xamoi le te minde fa lo nu na catra"
21:03 < zipcpi> I think {lo ka na catra} might be better
21:04 < zipcpi> And I guess my answer to the {memimoi} usage is there
21:41 < korbynde> nanleke no ui gonsu ma'e du sei'antai ni
21:41 < korbynde> .a no ki datso go ue smono no'u me ni
21:41 < korbynde> kartu ba fu de go ru de go ue dakrgakakmada io si gainda .a kirme no gi ka
21:41 < korbynde> .i ta re go ri cu to bi da sudjiioga dagdogu to pa su ru kaidjinko
21:41 < korbynde> mi dotsu ni iu .u djuka ru mi iu ro sigjuda bo bo .au io io xa re ru ji su
21:41 < korbynde> xo mi da ioskraka no uakymina ra ka
21:41 < korbynde> gi daspo zdubaua io ro do ko do da na
21:41 < korbynde> .a djigi ko ko su ma djuui tu ia ba di
21:42 < korbynde> nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu nu
21:42 < korbynde> xa ka ma panto ma di .xibigz. so no ontoni
21:42 < korbynde> xa gi ma so le (io xa gi ma so le) .idas.
21:42 < korbynde> sa ki no mi ie no jenkai ni masyri so na
21:42 < korbynde> .o ii so mai no ko bi djijga ga io io io iu neskaka ka
21:42 < phenny> korbynde: Service not found in https://github.com/nslater/oblique/wiki
21:42 < korbynde> djoui ba da
21:42 < korbynde> ko ci io ui ci djokaka kandendo do to so mo ni ga tcimyci mo ge d
21:42 < korbynde> co fa
21:42 < korbynde> .u ua ci na ci no su gedzi ma la mi ie
21:42 < phenny> korbynde: Sorry, no results for 'ua ci na ci no su gedzi ma la mi ie'.
21:42 < korbynde> tenpo go xo mi ia ta skacli gai ze
21:42 < korbynde> mi ka ra ji tai ji ie .surutamanimainimainin.
21:42 < korbynde> .i ko ri ko smina skodo ci ka uu kai gonzo mo do ro ka
21:42 < korbynde> nandu mu ga sa mai di mai ni mo ni
21:42 < korbynde> me uu mai ni kasma do batsofpaslo ka be uu ka be
21:42 < korbynde> na ri iu mi ri na ri iu uo uu
21:42 < korbynde> .a ga debyti no ga zu nu nu ma ci go
21:43 < korbynde> be da ku uai liklolde pi se pakca kenco ga
21:43 < Spheniscine_> What is that?
21:43 < durka42> ue y coico'o
21:43 < zipcpi> Doesn't seem gramatical
21:43 < durka42> those aren't words...
21:44 < zipcpi> lol
21:45 < zipcpi> I think it's Japanese that's written to look like Lojban o.o
21:45 < durka42> ua
21:45 < zipcpi> But I don't speak Japanese
21:45 < gusvli> coi remna ja zmiku
21:45 < zipcpi> So I might be completely wrong
21:45 < durka42> klacpe la ilmen
21:45 < zipcpi> gusvli: You haven't changed your default name yet :p
21:46 < gusvli> doi zy mi ca co'e
21:46 < durka42> mensi: doi durka42 xu akti
21:46 < mensi> durka42: e'u do cusku di'u lo nei si'unai
21:46 < durka42> mensi: doi Ilmen|menli what do you make of this? zipcpi thinks it's transliterated japanese… http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~aburka/tmp/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-08%20at%2012.45.39%20AM.png
21:46 < mensi> durka42: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.Ilmen|menli.gy. di'a cusku da
21:48 < durka42> mensi is going to butcher that link ca lo nu benji
21:48 < durka42> oh well
21:52  * nuzba @actpu3j: The Complete Lojban Language / John..    値上しました    価格:8336円→13945円    6/7 0:30    http://apr.blauberg.net/pricelist?asin=0966028309 [http://bit.ly/1Mh7Awp]
22:21 < zipcpi> mensi: doi gleki Would it help if I "stole" some phrasebook/example sentences in Chinese and Malay and translated them into Lojban? I'm not fluent enough to explain Lojbanic grammar *in* those languages though
22:21 < mensi> zipcpi: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.gleki.gy. di'a cusku da
22:31 < ctefaho> uaicoi
22:33 < durka42> coi
23:32 < gleki> durka42: have access to vrici?
23:32 < mensi> gleki: cu'u la'o gy.zipcpi.gy.: Would it help if I "stole" some phrasebook/example sentences in Chinese and Malay and
23:32 < mensi> translated them into Lojban? I'm not fluent enough to explain Lojbanic grammar *in* those languages though |
23:32 < mensi> 2015-06-08T05:21:30.255Z
23:32 < gleki> zipcpi: it would help
23:32 < gleki> zipcpi: you may either create a full phrasebook as what i tried with Nizami or just add them into tatoeba
23:33 < gleki> no'i Robin converted la tersmu into Javascript.
23:33 < durka42> yes I have access
23:33 < durka42> so I heard
23:33 < gleki> durka42: it's in /tmp
23:33 < durka42> ua
23:33 < gleki> although i dont know how to use "jbo: " flag in commandline mode
23:35 < gleki> doesnt matter actually
23:39 < ldlework> xu su'o ro kelci la ty ibu sy panonos
23:39 < ldlework> (no idea how to do names correctly apparently)
23:44 < ldlework> le'e kelci cu zdile mutce .i mi ra stidi
23:44 < ldlework> se kelci*
23:45 < gleki> is that even lojban?
23:45 < zipcpi> You can use {li'ai} but I'm not sure how recognizable that is
23:45 < ldlework> what?
23:46 < niftg> za'a simsa lo samplabau co'e
23:46 < ldlework> is what even lojban?
23:46 < zipcpi> {lo}:{la} :: {lu}:{la'au} :: {me'o}:{li'ai}
23:46 < gleki> maybe you wanted {xu su'o do kelci ty ibu panonono}
23:47 < ldlework> I want the namme "TIS 100"
23:47 < ldlework> but the morphology wasn't being friendly
23:47 < ldlework> at least as far as camxes was concerned
23:47 < ldlework> oh I used ro instead of do
23:47 < zipcpi> You could just use the string as a "pronoun", but that might not last past xorxes vlale'u/nacle'u split
23:48 < durka42> {ty ibu panono} works fine until xorxes gets his way
23:48 < zipcpi> sy
23:48 < zipcpi> You forgot the sy :p
23:48 < durka42> whatever
23:48 < durka42> mi nu'o kelci
23:48 < durka42> mo selkei
23:48 < ldlework> http://store.steampowered.com/app/370360/
23:48 < durka42> camxes really needs to give better error messages...
23:49 < ldlework> durka42: yeah I had no idea what to do
23:49 < zipcpi> Incidentally that's another reason not to touch {LI...LOhO}
23:49 < zipcpi> So that we can use {li'ai ry re dy re} = "R2D2"
23:49 < durka42> an assembly language programming… game?
23:49 < durka42> …I'm in!
23:49 < zipcpi> Have you heard of Spacechem? :p
23:50 < ldlework> zipcpi: finti mintu
23:50 < gleki> i also alWays wantyed a CV for {la'oi}
23:50 < zipcpi> ua
23:50 < ldlework> durka42:
23:50 < ldlework> oops
23:50 < durka42> hmm do I have a steam account
23:50 < zipcpi> gleki: Go ahead and CKTJ swap it with {la'i}... though that's still disyllabic
23:51 < durka42> oh hey I do!
23:51 < durka42> now to guess the password
23:51 < gleki> yes, {la'i} is in no way better
23:51 < ldlework> durka42: friend me so I can make sure you don't come up with better solutions than me :)
23:51 < durka42> {lai} then :)
23:51 < durka42> ldlework: ba lo nu mi di'a morji lo lerpoijaspu
23:51 < gleki> i once used {lai}
23:51 < zipcpi> I don't know how {lai} works though. {lai mi dirba xirma} = "My Little Ponies"?
23:52 < zipcpi> Might come in handy to emphasize mass-ness
23:52 < ldlework> It does name a mass of ponies
23:53 < gleki> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_vkiwqOIOIJPqZTiomzd4ApUSEQXhEY6CeyZD_6c-PA/edit#gid=1405262491
23:53 < gleki>  lai Baudeler
23:53 < zipcpi> Oh yes that too
23:53 < zipcpi> lai to emphasize you are referring to the family, not one particular member
23:54 < zipcpi> So yeah still has some use
23:55 < zipcpi> By the way what's the {bu}-letteral for "dash"?
23:55 < zipcpi> Or hyphen
23:56 < gleki> mw.lojban.org/papri/ASCII_table_keys_names
23:57 < durka42> ua
23:58 < gleki> mi pu zekri si lebna fi la uikipediias
23:59 < durka42> ldlework: ta'i ma jmina lo pendo
23:59 < ldlework> ko jimna la'o gy. Muslim Zionist gy.
--- Day changed Mon Jun 08 2015
00:00 < durka42> yyyyyyy
00:01 < durka42> no da jmina batke
00:01 < durka42> ua
00:01 < durka42> uo
00:01 < xeizlif> na'e cumki sebo skami
00:02 < xeizlif> sa
00:02 < xeizlif> na'e cumki kanji   [bad tanru probably]
00:03 < xeizlif> .uinai mi babna
00:03 < durka42> impossible calculator?
00:03 < xeizlif> si badna
00:03 < xeizlif> na'e cumki vebo kanji
00:03 < durka42> what are you trying to do with {bo} lol
00:04 < xeizlif> Now I'm not sure. Disregard, lemme regroup before attacking again :3
00:04 < durka42> I do not think that word means what you think it means :p
00:04 < xeizlif> I'd agree
00:04 < xeizlif> I'm a bit out of practice and I thought I was somehow correct for some reason, but I made a mess and tried to fix it too hastily
00:05 < durka42> {na'e cumki ve kanji} is fine
00:05 < durka42> there's only two selbri, so there's no way you need any {bo}
00:05 < xeizlif> heh yep, looks like I forgot how tanru are grouped
00:05 < xeizlif> and also that it doesn't matter witha  binary tanru
00:05 < xeizlif> yeah
00:06 < durka42> and if you did need one, it would never go between a SE and a selbri
00:06 < durka42> but yeah :)
00:06 < xeizlif> ki'e
00:12 < xeizlif> (I was attempting to say "incomputable!", which more idiomatically in English would be something like the cliche "DOES NOT COMPUTE")
00:13 < xeizlif> (it was in response to the nonsensical idea of a muslim zionist, although I suppose if you really hated yourself you could be a muslim zionist)
00:14 < xeizlif> (oh, wait, unless I missed that Muslims also want the Jews to return to the hill of Zion, but I'm totally derailing everything now)
00:14 < zipcpi> {vu'u bu}? Well I suppose it makes sense; doesn't have to follow the Lojban meaning of {vu'u} exactly
00:15 < durka42> who said vu'ub
00:15 < durka42> u
00:15 < zipcpi> The page of ascii names
00:15 < durka42> oh
00:16 < durka42> polysemous letter unfortunatel
00:16 < durka42> y
00:17 < zipcpi> Yep
00:17 < gleki> i think for other meanings long dash has to be used
00:17 < gleki> actually there are many dashes
00:17 < zipcpi> Yeah
00:17 < zipcpi> And actually typographically a longer dash than the regular hyphen is preferred for mathematical minus
00:18 < zipcpi> Usually the en-dash
00:18 < gleki> oh my. then ascii turns into a mess
00:18 < zipcpi> Yep
00:18 < durka42> .u -
00:18 < phenny> U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS (-)
00:18 < durka42> .oi .u'i
00:18 < zipcpi> Not to mention * being "pi'i bu"
00:18 < durka42> .u *
00:18 < phenny> U+002A ASTERISK (*)
00:18 < zipcpi> It could be {aste bu} now :p
00:18 < durka42> tarci bu zo'o
00:19 < durka42> .u /
00:19 < phenny> U+002F SOLIDUS (/)
00:19 < durka42> wtf
00:19 < zipcpi> Solidus the Raccoon, Destroyer of Worlds
00:19 < gleki> for me * is snime bu http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:snime-1.svg
00:19 < durka42> why fi'ubu and not fe'ibu
00:19 < durka42> a mystery for the ages
00:21 < gleki> because that's what it was suggested. see the talk page. but i already corrected
00:23  * nuzba @uitki: ASCII table keys names - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ASCII_table_keys_names by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1QE0za5]
00:26 < niftg> ta'o lo mumei se jipno fa'u lo xamei se jipno cu zmadu simlu co simsa le tarci fa'u le snime
00:27 < gleki> ie
00:27 < gleki> i ku'i lo nu lo mumei co'e cu se cmene zo tarci na kulnu nutli vau pe'i
00:42 < ctefaho> ^muslim zionist? can we have jewish islamists too?
00:43 < ctefaho> (zo'o)
00:44 < ctefaho> (zo'onist?)
00:58 < zipcpi> "We don't do that in English because it is inconvenient. But Lojban numbers are different; they are read digit-by-digit, so it's actually *harder* to add {bu} to everything." Since when am I teaching la xorxes Lojban? x.x
00:58 < zipcpi> a'onai
01:04 < gleki> detri system is a convention anyway. a new rule
01:04 < gleki> but we dont have anything more concise.
01:04 < gleki> de'i li pa poi se cacra?
02:53 < gleki> LIVLABOT: English sutysisku now displays tolfamyma'o for all famyma'o (alpha version) http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/index.html#sisku/ku
02:55 < gleki> hm, people from Facebook want us an english 2 lojban dictionary
03:27 < Rodericus> coi rodo
03:27 < Rodericus> While rereading “Lojban for beginners” trying to get some more vocabulary and learn ways to say things, while being cautious about the things I know to have changed since it was published, I've just fallen upon something quite confusing:
03:28 < zahlman> coi ry
03:29 < gleki> coi
03:31 < zahlman> Rodericus: well?
03:31 < Rodericus> The days of the week. I went to “la sutsis” to check what is right now in the dictionary as the way to express the days of the week and I found at least three ways to say each one (five for Sunday! ), of which there's always a {lujvo} in -dei, a {fu'ivla} (or is it a {zi'evla}? ) starting with jed- and something else which is another {lujvo} translating
03:31 < Rodericus> the new one of the day name, it seems, but which I don't understand for all of them even finding the parts (etymological translation of the English name only for some days? )
03:32 < zahlman> people haven't decided what to use there.
03:32 < gleki> i think the most common right now is {pavdei, reldei} etc.
03:32 < zahlman> ah, but people disagree on which day is pavdei, and whether to start with nondei
03:32 < gleki> ca lo pavdei mi gunka = On Monday I work.
03:32 < Rodericus> Furthermore, there's always one for.  with a warning about being only duration and that for dates another one is to be used. I don't understand the “duration” meaning.
03:33 < gleki> en: soldei
03:33 < mensi> soldei [< solri djedi ≈ Solar full day] = x1 is Sunday of week x2 on calendar x3. |>>>
03:33 < mensi> phma
03:33 < gleki> where is "duration"?
03:33 < zahlman> I think what's meant is {temci} vs {tcika} or something
03:35 < Rodericus> In the definitions of one of the entries appearing of a result in la sutsis when searching the days in English. One entry always says that about duration.
03:35 < Rodericus> for each day
03:35 < gleki> what did you search for?
03:35 < Rodericus> Monday, Tuesday…
03:36 < Rodericus> It's the words in -dei which hag that warning about duration.
03:36 < gleki> okay, it's for {jednpa}. It means that the first place describes an event.
03:36 < Rodericus> have
03:36 < gleki> compare {ca lonu mi sipna} = when I sleep
03:36 < gleki> {ca lo jednpa} = On Monday
03:37 < gleki> both {nu mi sipna} (Me sleeping) and {jednpa} are events.
03:38 < gleki> hm, now I see that the author of {jednpa} actually made things more interesting. {jednpa} actually describes an event happening on Mpnday, not the whole time interval which Monday represents.
03:41 < Rodericus> hm
03:43 < Rodericus> So the “Duration. For date, use…” warnings in the entries for the -dei words mean they are the names of the days themselves, not to be used to date events? That would contradict the use of {ca lo}… -dei
03:44 < Rodericus> oh, no contradiction, I just got it.
03:48 < Rodericus> So do those definitions correspond to real use? Are those jed- forms used, and used that way? Are they what is called {zi'evla}?  Should I learn the -dei forms (starting with Monday as day one) as the base?
03:48 < Rodericus> Too many questions ― I'm trying to understand everything well. :)
03:49 < gleki> idk, i always used just {pavdei}, {reldei} etc,.
03:50 < zipcpi> Those jed/mas forms are relatively new
03:57 < Rodericus> Thank you.
03:57 < Rodericus> I'm afraid I'm going to find something similar for the months. Let's see…
03:57 < zipcpi> masnpa masnre etc
03:58 < zipcpi> If you don't like syllabic consonants, I myself pronounce it masynpa masynre; and I'm pushing a proposal to convert all syllabic consonants in zi'evla this way
03:58 < zipcpi> There are theoretical zi'evla forms where this may cause ambiguity, like fazdmru, but they don't exist yet
04:00 < zipcpi> (fazdmru would convert into fazdymru, which is a lujvo. But in my opinion this is merely a better reason to ban it altogether; many listeners and speakers can't discriminate between them)
04:02 < Rodericus> It's not that I don't like the or can't pronounce them but that I'm trying to understand/learn how the language is actually used, which is not always easy with my reduced vocabulary and the many reform proposals about what seems to be fundamental things. :)
04:02 < zipcpi> OK lol
04:04 < zipcpi> The problem is that the Lojbanic community can be... indecisive :p. We're gone through several systems for referring to countries as well. Dates is also another hairy spot
04:04 < dutchie> to say nothing of gadri :P
04:05 < zipcpi> Like I have my own date proposal which is really easy to use, but is being threatened by another proposal
04:06 < Rodericus> But isn't there a more or less established use in these things? I hope. :)
04:06 < zipcpi> Well the problem is that dates are inherently messy
04:07 < zipcpi> There are books out there that tell you to use li bi pi'e xa pi'e renopamu ; dd-mm-yyyy
04:07 < zipcpi> But a lot prefer yyyy-mm-dd because of ISO 8601
04:07 < zipcpi> And no one knows how to refer to just the day of the month
04:08 < zipcpi> Here's my proposal: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Proposal:_loi_lerfu_tcita_detri;_the_final_word_on_the_problem_of_dates_and_times%3F Note again, it's relatively new and threatened by another proposal, but it has a lot of support
04:08 < Rodericus> Well, those variations are possible even in widely used “natural” languages. I mean the order I the components of  a date. Some cases can be ambiguous out of context but…
04:09 < zipcpi> My system has the advantage of making it very clear and unambiguous; the system is designed to be very uniquely defined
04:18 < Rodericus> I'll see it… even if trying to focus on actual use to progress in my learning. :)
04:18 < Rodericus> By the way…  I don't find any word in the dictionary to talk about declension/conjugation/inflection in other languages where those concepts are important. Have there been discussions/texts about it in Lojban? Has anything been used for that concept(s)? As someone engaged with Latin and Greek… I'm quite interested in being able to talk about it. :)
04:19 < zipcpi> The problem is that I can't tell you what "actual use" is. The current system is so messy; that's why we need all these proposals :p
04:19 < Rodericus> I guessI guess some long compounds could be made but… if here's another way…
04:19 < Rodericus> there's
04:20 < zipcpi> Compound words are one way to make new words. The other is what is known as zi'evla. But you kinda have to massage them to get them to fit Lojban's strict morphological rules
04:21 < zipcpi> exp: detklensi
04:21 < mensi> (CU [detklensi VAU])
04:21 < zipcpi> Yeah for example adding that {t} there
04:22 < zipcpi> Of course there is a dirty way to import English words into Lojban text; that's {me'oi}. It is a goal though to eventually define them
04:23 < zipcpi> Well, of what little I know about actual use of dates
04:24 < zipcpi> For months, probably the most common was {pavmasti}, {relmasti} etc. Similarly for days of the week, {pavdei} for Monday etc.
04:25 < Rodericus> Well, in fact the Greek (in modern Greek form) for declension/inflection is exactly a nonexistent gismu: klisi. :D But I won't make proposals yet. ;) Just asking if anything has been used that I can't find.
04:25 < zipcpi> For the x1 of detri, like I said, split between yyyy-mm-dd and dd-mm-yyyy, but that usually isn't a trouble to disambiguate, unless talking about early AD/CE years or when trying to elide any number
04:26 < zipcpi> You do want to be careful about gismu
04:28 < Rodericus> About what you say for days and months… I remember seeing also {cmene} being taught for hours, days and months. Is that obsolete?
04:28 < zipcpi> For one thing it's very important that the first four letters aren't taken up by any other gismu, as the last letter is dropped when making lujvo
04:28 < zipcpi> For one thing they're called {cmevla} now :p {cmene} refers to all names, whether Lojbanic or non-Lojbanic
04:29 < zipcpi> Secondly... well I don't really see that often now. What I've seen for years is {lo nanca pe li renopamu}
04:29 < Rodericus> Well, yes, the consonant-ending ones, I mean.
04:30  * zipcpi nods
04:32 < Rodericus> la .daucac., la .padjed., la .pavmast., etc.
04:32 < zipcpi> Yeah don't see those anymore
04:36 < Rodericus> .ui ki'ecai
04:59 < zipcpi> exp: li'ai ry re dy re cu zmiku
04:59 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
04:59 < zipcpi> exp: li'ai ry re dy re
04:59 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "e" found.
05:00 < zipcpi> Huh not implemented
05:27 < gleki> en: li'ai
05:28 < zipcpi> {lo}:{la}, {lu}:{la'au}, {li}:{li'ai}
05:28 < zipcpi> Character-string/number as name
05:28 < zipcpi> We just don't use it that often because a bare character-string currently works as a "pronoun"
05:29 < mensi> li'ai = [LI] unevaluated mekso as name. |>>> Where "la broda brode" is to "la'e lu broda brode" as "li'ai by cy" is to "
05:29 < mensi> la'e me'o by cy". See also li, me'o, la, la'e. |>>> djeikyb
05:29 < zipcpi> Although it must start with lo vlale'u jenai lo nacle'u
05:33 < gleki> i again dont remember what is banned in LI. how to determine if something is a real mekso
05:36 < gleki> s/real/valid/
05:39 < zipcpi> I dunno... that one you have consult the headache that is VUhU/VEI and all that
05:39 < zipcpi> All I know is that character strings work
05:47 < gleki> exp: li ny su'i pa
05:47 < gleki> does that work?
05:47 < mensi> ([li {<ny BOI> <su'i (¹pa BOI¹)>} LOhO] VAU)
05:47 < zipcpi> Yes
05:47 < gleki> well, should that still work?
05:47 < gleki> en:coi
05:47 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
05:47 < zipcpi> It probably would, yes
05:49 < gleki> exp: li cy pi'i pa su'i vei my pi'i ci no
05:49 < mensi> ([li {<cy BOI> <pi'i (¹pa BOI¹)> <su'i (¹vei [my BOI] [pi'i {ci no} BOI]¹) VEhO>} LOhO] VAU)
05:49 < gleki> which would mean 01:30
05:49 < zipcpi> Yeah... T.T
05:49 < gleki> but since precedence doesnt work in lojban it becomes madness
05:50 < gleki> since su'i and pi'i are of equal precedence
05:50 < zipcpi> Lojban doesn't define precedence
05:50 < zipcpi> If we were to write a Lojban programming language though, it would probably define precedence
05:52 < zipcpi> I think they didn't bother to define precedence because 1. some precedence assignments are arbitrary (in fact the precedence rules of standard mathematical convention are more for convenience than any real mathematical "rule"), and 2. It'd be very hard to extend it without defining a whole new bunch of selma'o if precedence was hardcoded
05:53 < zipcpi> There's no law written in the heavens that multiplication must come before addition. But mathematicians do (2 * x) + (3 * y) much more than 2*(x+(3*y))
05:53 < zipcpi> Or I mean the other way around
05:54 < gleki> li cy pi'i pa ce li my pi'i ci no ce li sy pi'i reci
05:54 < zipcpi> ((2*x)+3)*y
05:57 < gleki> but non-polish notation is presumed however
05:57 < zipcpi> I think there is supposed to be a way to make mekso use polish notation?
05:58 < gleki> yes
05:58 < gleki> explicitly change from the default non-polish
05:59 < gleki> exp: li su'i pa boi pa boi
05:59 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,], [gG], [mM], [nN], [rR] or [vV] but "b" found.
06:00 < gleki> exp: li su'i pa boi re boi ci du li xa
06:00 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
06:00 < gleki> gerna: li su'i pa boi re boi ci du li xa
06:00 < mensi> O_0
06:00 < gleki> why so? CLL allows for that https://lojban.github.io/cll/18/6/
06:01 < gleki> since when did it become obligatory
06:01 < gocti> gerna: li su'i pa boi re boi ci du li xa lo'o
06:01 < mensi> (0[{li <su'i (1[{pa boi} {re boi}] [ci BOI])1 KU'E> LO'O} CU {du <(1li [xa BOI] lo'o)1 VAU>}])0
06:02 < gocti> .i lo cipra gerna zo'u si'au vimcu lo javni poi curmi
06:02 < gleki> je'e
06:02 < gleki> exp: li pe'o su'i pa boi re boi ci du li xa
06:02 < mensi> ([li {pe'o su'i <(¹pa boi¹) (¹re boi¹) (¹ci BOI¹)> KUhE} LOhO] [CU {du <li (¹xa BOI¹) LOhO> VAU}])
06:02 < gleki> xu pu ambigu
06:02 < gocti> na djuno
06:03 < zipcpi> exp: li pe'o joi'i ny panoremu
06:03 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
06:03 < gleki> en: joi'i
06:03 < mensi> joi'i = [VUhU] mekso string operator (n-ary): formal left-concatenation; X1+X2+X3+..., where Xi is a string/word/text
06:03 < mensi> |>>> Generally noncommutative. The result is a single string written over the alphabet that is the union of each of the
06:03 < mensi> alphabets of the Xi's. "ABC"+"DEF"+"GHI"  = "ABCDEFGHI". See konkatena. |>>> krtisfranks
06:03 < zipcpi> na slabu zo joi'i i'au li'a
06:04 < zipcpi> exp: li pe'o joi'i nyboi panoremu
06:04 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
06:05 < zipcpi> exp: li pe'o joi'i ny boi panoremu
06:05 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
06:05 < gocti> sa'u na pagbu lo selma'o javni
06:06 < zipcpi> zo joi'i cu valsi jecu se finti la kurti jecu sinxa lo zu'o konkatena
06:06 < zipcpi> cmavo ma'oi vu'u
06:08 < gocti> exp: li su'i pa boi pa
06:08 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
06:10 < gocti> ie doi la gugle lo nu mi ciska lu .xorxes. mex. li'u cu sinxa lo nu mi djica tu'a zo .xerxes. joi zo .mix.
06:11 < gleki> exp: li pa joi'i  pa
06:11 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
06:11 < gleki> xm
06:11 < gleki> exp: li pa vu'u  pa
06:11 < mensi> ([li {<pa BOI> <vu'u (¹pa BOI¹)>} LOhO] VAU)
06:11 < gleki> cizra
06:12 < zipcpi> le gentufa cu li'a na slabu zo joi'i
06:12 < gocti> (to lu na se slabu toi)
06:12 < zipcpi> ua
06:15 < gleki> exp: li pa joi'i  pa
06:15 < mensi> ([li {<pa BOI> <joi'i (¹pa BOI¹)>} LOhO] VAU)
06:45 < gleki> sutysisku should just parse input. and thus any {lonu} entries in the database would become not that important.[3~[3~[3~[3~[3~[3~
06:46 < zipcpi> What's this about {lonu}?
06:46 < gleki> many people couldnt find it in the dictionary which caused a lot of confusion
06:46 < zipcpi> Right
06:47 < gleki> until someone just added this silliness into JVS
06:47 < zipcpi> THen they're gonna seach for memimoi, medomoi, merumoi
06:47 < zipcpi> Actually moi does need redefining
06:47 < zipcpi> Due to this overloaded use
06:47 < gleki> although sometimes compound cmavo are translated as one word in English but that extends to any word combinations so only Tatoeba/Muplis is the true solution
06:48 < zipcpi> Yeah I have defined some compound cmavo at my time
06:48 < zipcpi> za'ure'u, baze'e, puzuvukiku
06:48 < zipcpi> Just to encode common Lojban "idioms". Not in the sense of a commonly-used metaphor, but in the sense of a common construction for a common concept
06:49 < zipcpi> Under CKTJ that last one would be puzuvuke'aku though :p
06:50 < gleki> but you can't add {ve'i cmana}
06:50 < zipcpi> Yep...
06:50 < zipcpi> And I did tell you about the problems with using sumtcita in tanru
06:51 < zipcpi> Ah mabla just merge them with NAhE already zo'o
06:53 < zipcpi> Oh memimoi and medomoi is already defined
06:53 < gleki> those are half-solutions
06:53 < zipcpi> True
06:54 < zipcpi> Though some compound definitions are useful just to give them useful gloss words
06:55 < gleki> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/O1Bn7SVIy4k/discussion
06:56 < zipcpi> Yep I have seen that
06:56 < zipcpi> And I agree, with the caveats with sumtcita
06:57 < gleki> sumtcita is only a minor example
06:57 < gleki> the correct description is "dictionares that allow adding only isolated words are doomed"
07:01 < zipcpi> Right
07:01 < zipcpi> Yeah like I said there is no way to properly add brivlacme either
07:01 < zipcpi> Either actually define them as real brivla, or GT*O
07:02 < zipcpi> Like I want to make {la dontivni} be YouTube
07:02 < gleki> it's because JVS is Lojban2natlan, not vice versa
07:20 < gocti> (to si'au lo nu curmi lo nu vimcu zo pe'o na jai nabmi toi)
07:24 < gleki> im working onan english 2 lojban dictionary. but it's hard. what i have by far: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19faXeZCUuZ_uL6qcpQdMhetTXiKc5ZsOcZkYiAZ_pRw/edit#gid=450843397
07:25 < gleki> if any experts here you'd be welcomed if you could help me
07:25 < gleki> otherwise it will take long time
07:25 < zipcpi> ua
07:26 < zipcpi> creature = {lo danlu} not good enough?
07:26 < Ilmen> lo jmive
07:27 < gleki> what do you mean good? it should automatically take corresponding values from "Verbs" sheet
07:27 < gleki> via formulae
07:27 <@xalbo> .i lo spati cu jmive gi'e ku'i na me'oi creature
07:27 < zipcpi> Nah I was just asking if it's good enough
07:27 <@xalbo> "creature" and {danlu} are pretty darn close, connotations aside
07:28 < zipcpi> Because I thought you would have put it there already
07:28 < Ilmen> je'e
07:28 < gleki> if you dont agree with the current glosses then feel free to send requests for that.
07:28 < zipcpi> I think {danlu} is fine
07:29 < zipcpi> There are connotations, but they're fine as a simple gloss
07:29 <@xalbo> "baked in an oven" is roughly {se toknu}
07:29 < gleki> en: danlu
07:29 < mensi> danlu = x1 is an animal/creature of species x2; x1 is biologically animate. |>>> See also banfi, cinki, cipni, finpe,
07:29 < mensi> jukni, respa, since, mabru, bakni. |>>> officialdata
07:29 < gleki> en-simple: danlu
07:29 < mensi> danlu = x1 is a creature of species x2 |>>> gleki
07:30 <@xalbo> For an English to Lojban dictionary, what I'd want to see is something like an index. I look up a word, and I find a lojban place (or several), and hopefully a dictionary entry for the Lojban word(s) so I can see what they really mean and how they correspond.
07:30 < gleki> en: live
07:30 < mensi> 31 da se tolcri: plivei, cabyfau, jmive, alzaitu, cmatcecindu, ji'efri, livga, manfyta'u, cagdaidi'u, cmeveigau, cmisau,
07:30 < mensi> cmiveigau, co'urji'e, crimpui, divzi, efmere, kanxa'u, liryraixa'u, mivmro, mivru'e, mivyselna'a, morsi, nurxru, praune,
07:30 < mensi> prekoci, runtngasnrproni, seljbemabru, tarbyvi'u, tumspa, vo'au'u, xabju
07:31 < gleki> en: jmive
07:31 < mensi> jmive = x1 lives/is alive by standard x2; x1 is an organism/living thing. |>>> (adjective:) x1 is vital, organic.  See
07:31 < mensi> also lifri, morsi, stuzi, zvati, xabju. |>>> officialdata
07:33 < gleki> okay there was indeed a serious bug with {danlu}. fixed
07:34 < gleki> xalbo: "baked in oven" is already in this dictionary
07:34 <@xalbo> It was showing an error; I assumed that was a lookup failure, so lack of result.
07:35 < gleki> xalbo: my idea is that "baked in oven" will directly translate as {lo se toknu}
07:35 <@xalbo> .i li'a mi srera vau .u'u
07:35 < gleki> jb: toknu
07:35 < mensi> toknu = toknu — x1(entity)  is an oven for heating  x2(entity)
07:35 < mensi> :lo toknu — oven. lo se toknu — baked in an oven.
07:35 < mensi> :ti toknu lo cidja — This is an oven for cooking food.
07:35 < mensi> :tu toknu lo mudri — That is a wood burning stove.
07:35 < mensi> :Related words: nanba
07:36 <@xalbo> .e'u Add {jukpa} as a related word for {toknu}
07:36 < gleki> as for "2L" tab that's what I'm asking. I need formulae to autogenerate this dictionary taking values from all 5 columns
07:37 < gleki> jb:toknu
07:37 < mensi> toknu = toknu — x1(entity)  is an oven for heating  x2(entity)
07:37 < mensi> :lo toknu — oven. lo se toknu — baked in an oven.
07:37 < mensi> :ti toknu lo cidja — This is an oven for cooking food.
07:37 < mensi> :tu toknu lo mudri — That is a wood burning stove.
07:37 < mensi> :Related words: jukpa, nanba
07:37 <@xalbo> .i'e
07:37 <@xalbo> ki'e
09:42 < ldlework> jbo: jukpa
09:42 < mensi> jukpa = x1 bregau x2 lo ka se citka kei ta'i x3 |>>> bregau; citka; cidja; zbasu |>>>
09:42 < mensi> xorxes
09:47 < Ilmen> en: jupyzba
09:47 < mensi> jupyzba [< jukpa zbasu ≈ Cook make] = x1 cooks/prepares x2 (cooked food) from ingredients x3 by recipe/method x4
09:47 < mensi> (process) |>>> Ilmen
09:49 < ldlework> coi Ilmen
09:49 < Ilmen> coi do
09:51 < ldlework> ni'au
09:56 < gleki> after adding 5 columns with "google query" function to La Bangu source performance is terrible
11:14 < ldlework> word for calendar?
11:14 < ldlework> en: calendar
11:14 < mensi> 71 da se tolcri: detcartu, detci'e, detrgregori, masnjau, vede'i, avgusto, bakma'i, bivmasti, celma'i, cibdei, cibmasti,
11:14 < mensi> cinfyma'i, datru, decmbero, derdei, detke'u, detma'i, detna'a, detri, detydei, dindi, djanua, djulio, djunio, duvma'i,
11:14 < mensi> fagdei, februa, felma'i, fipma'i, frebuari, gamyma'i, gregori zei nanca, jaudje, jaurbeima'i, jaurdei, jbedetri, jefydei,
11:14 < mensi> jimdei, kanbyma'i, lanma'i, laxma'i, lurdei, madjio, martio, matsi'uma'i, mlajukma'i, moi'o, mudydei, mumdei, mumymasti,
11:14 < mensi> ninyna'adetri, nondei, pavdei, pavmasti, pavnonmasti, pavrelmasti, pavypavmasti, prilio, rebjukma'i, reldei, relmasti,
11:14 < mensi> soldei, sozymasti, vondei, vonmasti, xavdei, xavmasti, xisyjbedetri, xlima'i, zeldei,
11:14 < mensi> zelmasti
11:15 < ldlework> ua
11:15 < ldlework> detcartu
11:21 < durka42> ve detri
11:21 < durka42> depending on what you meant
11:26 < ldlework> durka42: would you be interested in helping me with an article about causality?
11:27 < ldlework> specifically causal tags
11:27 < ldlework> and scope
11:27 < durka42> I can be a scope consultant :p
11:32 < gleki> durka42: what is the scope of your expertise? :P
11:34 < gocti> xa'a'a'a
11:36  * nuzba @uitki: broda lo se broda - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/broda_lo_se_broda by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1G7DmKE]
11:38 < gleki> anyway it seems that the En2Jbo dictionary finally compiled https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19faXeZCUuZ_uL6qcpQdMhetTXiKc5ZsOcZkYiAZ_pRw/edit#gid=450843397
11:38 < gleki> Currently its only for verbs.
11:38 < gleki> For particles there just no glosses atm.
11:38 < gleki> Also there are no glosses of verbs in "verb" form.
11:38 < gleki> like djuno = to know
11:39 < gleki> and names are also not there atm
11:42 < gleki> feel free to suggest other good English glosses
11:42 < gleki> xalbo: my work is done for the most important part ^
12:44 < Ilmen> jbo: sinxa
12:44 < mensi> sinxa = x1 noi dacti ja fasnu ja morna ja barna ja lerfu ja tcita cu se smuni x2 x3 gi'a krati x2 lo ka se pilno x3 lo
12:44 < mensi> ka benji lo sidbo |>>> dacti; fasnu; morna; barna; lerfu; tcita; smuni; krati; pilno; benji; sidbo |>>>
12:44 < mensi> xorxes
12:45 < Ilmen> At least some people opines that {sinxa} is for conventional symbols, those whose meaning is agreed upon
12:47 < Ilmen> But I really miss a predicate for X is a piece of evidence ~ indication ~ sign of Y
12:47 < ldlework> nibli?
12:47 < durka42> ve jinvi
12:48 < ldlework> "The blood on this glove entails he was at the scene of the crime."
12:48 < Ilmen> I sometimes used nibli for this, but it seems too strong
12:48 < Ilmen> nibli is very mechanical
12:48 < ldlework> Dunno why. Lojban isn't a spell-language that only casts if you utter the ultimate truth.
12:48 < durka42> lo ciblu cu jai ve jinvi lo du'u zekri
12:48 < Ilmen> I thought of {ni'imlu}, but I don't thing it's a very good lujvo
12:48 < Ilmen> *think
12:49 < ldlework> Everything is "seems to be"
12:49 < ldlework> everything.
12:49 < Ilmen> ni'imlu seems to be "X seems to logically entails Y"
12:49 < ldlework> ko'a nibli ko'e va'o the information we have
12:50 < ldlework> 'entails' is just as strong language as 'nessecitates'
12:50 <@xalbo> {nibli} is indeed too strong. The blood is only evidence that the suspect was there; it's more likely in possible worlds where he was there, but there are plenty of possible worlds in which the glove is bloody and he was never there.
12:50 < ldlework> There an infinite number of possible words in every context
12:51 < durka42> I like {jinvi}
12:51 < ldlework> Making everything you say potentially false
12:51 < ldlework> so..
12:51 < Ilmen> I thought of "lakni'i" too
12:51 < durka42> someone will object that jinvi1 exists, and I will say it doesn't matter but {zi'o} it out if you want, and then the objector will further object that they are afraid of {zi'o}
12:51 < ldlework> durka42: how much evidence is sufficient to nibli?
12:51 < durka42> nibli isn't really about evidence
12:51 <@xalbo> There are things that are nearly certain (other than the sort of "but it's always possible not" that you're objecting to) and things that aren't anywhere near certain, at all.
12:52 < ldlework> I'm saying the strength of statements is arbitrary
12:52 < ldlework> And you're making an arbitrary distinction
12:52 < Ilmen> durka42: The predicate I want do need an evidence interpreter, I think
12:52 < ldlework> Great, but please note the arbitrariness
12:52 < Ilmen> well I'm unsure
12:52 < durka42> this is like that joke about the cows in spain
12:52 < ldlework> there is also jijnu
12:53 < durka42> jijnu doesn't have an evidence place, though
12:53 < ldlework> combining it with nibli I mean
12:53 < durka42> though… it kinda should
12:54 < ldlework> mi jijnu lo du'u the blood on the glove nibli his guilt
12:54 < Ilmen> Basically, when you see blood on a wall, it becomes likely that there have been a killing, but the fact "there is blood on the wall" doesn't logically entails "there have been a killing next to the wall"
12:54 < ldlework> oh maybe, just not take spoken lojban as objective reality, and just use nibli
12:54 <@xalbo> ldlework: You're completely misunderstanding {nibli}.
12:55 < ldlework> xalbo: I understand that it means logically formed following arguments in terms of presuppositions and quantified arguments.
12:55 < ldlework> I get it.
12:55 < ldlework> I'm saying "get over it."
12:55 < Ilmen> {nibli} is logical inference, it's a very mechanical thing
12:55 < ldlework> As if there is some other kind of logical inference
12:57 < ldlework> tolna'e isn't bad
12:57 < durka42> in my mind {nibli} is for things like syllogisms
12:57 < ldlework> Yeah that isn't related to using evidence to draw conclusions at all
12:57 <@xalbo> {tolna'e} is promising. "x1 (du'u) is consistent with x2 (du'u)"?
12:57 < durka42> but maybe it can be used for weaker implications with a different (implied?) nibli3
12:58 < durka42> vlaste: tolna'e
12:58 < vlaste> tolna'e = x1 (du'u) confirms/corroborates/verifies x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3; x1 (du'u) is an evidence for x2 (du'u)
12:58 < ldlework> xalbo: x2 being a set of givens and rules for inference?
12:58 < ldlework> I digress :/
12:59 < ldlework> x3 li'a
12:59 <@xalbo> Really, {cu'o} would be very nice, if it weren't in MOI.
13:00 < durka42> na'i zo'o ru'e
13:00 < ldlework> tu' le ciblu gluta cu se cu'o tu'a lo ka zerfu'e
13:01 < durka42> needs a number
13:01 < ldlework> yeah I swear I typed out xo'e
13:01 < durka42> that's the problem
13:01 < durka42> heh
13:02 < ldlework> So if some conclusion is logically entailed, does that mean the conclusion is proved?
13:02 < durka42> za'u cu'o?
13:02 <@xalbo> ldlework: It's proved, given that the antecedents are true (which is often harder to prove in the real world than the conclusion would be).
13:02 < durka42> lo ciblu gluta cu jai se za'u cu'o lo du'u catra zekri => The bloody glove makes it more probable that there was a murder
13:02 < durka42> pei
13:03 < ldlework> xalbo: no kidding
13:03 <@xalbo> But it's good for mathematical facts and things that actually are subject to that sort of proof.
13:03 < ldlework> xalbo: so would you say, outside of a formal context, there is no really proving anything
13:03 < ldlework> That the best you can get is 'entails'?
13:04 < ldlework> Can anything but a proposition in the context of a formal argument be nibli?
13:04 < ldlework> If not, what a waste.
13:04 <@xalbo> Formal contexts exist, especially in a language built out of FOPL. I don't think it's a waste to have a gismu that lets us talk about them.
13:05 <@xalbo> And I pretty much only ever use the word "entails" in formal contexts anyway, so I'm guessing we have a difference in usage right there.
13:05 < ldlework> I think its a waste to so disregard context that you need two words to access what is the same concept
13:06 < ldlework> The same concept that seems different because of the varying contexts, but in the real world all you get is 'entails' not 'proves'
13:06 < ldlework> same maljbo as TA
13:06 <@xalbo> The point is that it's a completely different concept. {nibli} is like {rinka}
13:07 < ldlework> I don't see how that statement says anything of value.
13:08 < ldlework> If you say ta, every jbopre will look at your hands!
13:08 < ldlework> If you say nibli, they will look at your desk!
13:08 <@xalbo> Using {nibli} for evidence or {t[iau]} for statements is the position that's malgli. It's saying "Ignore the actual definitions, this word has a keyword that looks like the English word I want, so other English speakers will understand me, so who cares what it actually means?"
13:08 < ldlework> its absurd, but feel free to live tha way
13:09 < ldlework> Its not magli
13:09 < ldlework> At all
13:09 < ldlework> MANY languages uses spatial demonstratives to refer to units of discourse
13:09 < ldlework> calling discourse demonstratives as magli is the core expression of malbjo
13:10 <@xalbo> We have pronouns *exactly* for discourse. Why in the world would you neglect those, and use a completely different one instead?
13:11 < ldlework> Because humans work in a way where sometimes non-veridical speech, semantic overloading and metaphor are of -more utility- to our listeners than strictly formal descriptions
13:11 < ldlework> Sorry.
13:11 <@xalbo> It's like calling a chair "she" in English, because hey, people will understand what you mean. They will, but they will think you are ignorant. If they explain it, and you continue to do so willfully, they will think you are an idiot.
13:11 < ldlework> Yay, the objective reality just so happens to align with your own disposition!
13:12 < ldlework> I'm so glad I found someone who encapsulates everyone's disposition!
13:12 < ldlework> Except I saw a jbopre using ti and ta today. I congratulated him.
13:12 <@xalbo> Yes, you're very lucky to have met me, or you'd continue to be wrong on the Internet. And I can't let that happen!
13:13 < ldlework> Well at least we are not kidding ourselves
13:13 <@xalbo> ldlework: What was your jbopre using {ti} and {ta} to describe? I think they're wonderful words, they just have a particular meaning.
13:14 < ldlework> xalbo: to refer to my discourse
13:15 <@xalbo> And what makes those a better choice than one of the many dei/do'i/d[aie]'[eu] options out there?
13:16 < ldlework> they don't require him to pick "utterance" vs "argument"
13:16 < ldlework> Or cast it to the meaning
13:17 < ldlework> Referring to units discourse is such an intrinsic operation of speech many don't think that distal and proxial general discourse anaphora are enough
13:17 < ldlework> err many do
13:17 < Ilmen> durka42: Also, the one who think X is an evidence/hint for Y doesn't necessarily opine Y is true
13:17 < ldlework> Even in languages where there are more shades of proximal proforms or determiner phrases, corpus's show users of those languages gnerally ignore the third, or more specific scales
13:18 < Ilmen> but that Y is likely due to X
13:18 <@xalbo> Ilmen: Or worse, that Y is more likely due to X than it is without X, even if Y is still considered unlikely.
13:20 <@xalbo> ldlework: I think I'm going to stop arguing with you now. Your position seems so obviously wrong to me that I'm finding it hard to remain civil, so I should stop instead of yelling.
13:20 < ldlework> I personally have been trying to use koha5 and koha2 more
13:21 < ldlework> xalbo: lol k
13:22 <@xalbo> Using {ti} in place of {di'u} is no more right than using {do} in place of {di'u}. Maybe someone will understand you, but if so, you're lucky.
13:22 < ldlework> Except do and di'u share no semantic space at all
13:22 < ldlework> And deictic demonstratives are in wide-spread use in natural languages
13:22 < ldlework> So it comes down to
13:22 < ldlework> The CLL says jbopre will be confused, so they must actually be.
13:23 < ldlework> Its not a linguistic argument.
13:23 < ldlework> Its a lojban triviality.
13:23 < ldlework> Better make people who utter expressions reflective of their own natural modeling as mabla, specifically glico, even though it has literally nothing at all to do with English whatsoever
13:25 < ldlework> Ilmen: if we're not currently proving some formal thesis, I think I will understand your use of nibli in every other case, fwiw
13:26 <@xalbo> Why stop there? Why not use {klama}? {lo du'u le gluta cu zvati cu klama lo du'u ko'a catra}, the fact that the glove was there goes to his being the murderer.
13:26 <@xalbo> Or use {gidva}, it guides us there.
13:26 < ldlework> Because they don't share any semantics at all
13:26 <@xalbo> Of course they do. You start with the premise and *go* to the conclusion.
13:26 < ldlework> Why not take everthing you disagree with to the illogical extreme as a general stategem for debate?
13:27 < ldlework> Maybe that will gidva you to successful interoperability with others.
13:27 <@xalbo> I'm saying that {gidva} isn't any further from the desired meaning than {nibli} is. They're both completely different things.
13:27 < ldlework> "tolna'e looks ideal"
13:27 < ldlework> nevermind it has a nibli looking x2
13:27 < ldlework> x3*
13:27 < ldlework> But hey!
13:28 < ldlework> KLAMA
13:28 < ldlework> GIDVA
13:28 < ldlework> Totally the same thing! My argument is strong!
13:28 < ldlework> take care :)
13:49 < Ilmen> How about {lo nu lo ciblu cu gacri lo bitmu cu se lakne lo nu re'o ri da se catra
13:49 < Ilmen> }
13:51 <@xalbo> That's not bad.
13:56 < durka42> not bad, but it feels like it's missing something about the causality
13:57 < durka42> like, the sun rising this morning is _also_ part of the conditions where a murder is likely to have occurred
13:57 < durka42> but it isn't evidence
13:57 < durka42> not sure if that distinction is important
13:58 < Ilmen> I don't really know how {lakne} works
13:58 <@xalbo> No, I think the distinction is at least somewhat important, and my problem with it was coming from a different angle. The point of evidence isn't that something is likely given the evidence, it's that it's *more* likely given that than not.
13:58 < Ilmen> I need to read more about probability
13:59 <@xalbo> So yes, given the glove, it's really likely the sun will rise tomorrow. But the glove doesn't make it any more likely.
15:02 < ldlework> ie
15:02 < Ilmen> jbo: tsali
15:02 < mensi> tsali = x1 ckaji x2 gi'e ja'e bo kakne lo ka cupra ja renvi lo carmi bapli .i x1 to'e ruble x2 |>>> ckaji; kakne; cupra;
15:02 < mensi> renvi; carmi; bapli; ruble |>>> xorxes
15:02 < Ilmen> jbo: vlipa
15:02 < mensi> vlipa = x1 kakne lo ka zukte ja akti x2 .i x1 kakne x2 noi ka gasnu |>>> kakne; zukte; akti; tsali; ruble; gasnu |>>>
15:02 < mensi> xorxes
15:03 < ldlework> xalbo: sorry, you refrained and I didn't. I appologize.
15:04 <@xalbo> It's ok. I said I would stop, and then I didn't.
15:04 < Ilmen> hmm "deptsa" seems like a good lujvo for "patient"
15:04 <@xalbo> Anyway, we'll likely revisit this sometime. But not today.
15:05 < ldlework> xalbo: fwiw, I want to formalize le'e around koha 5 or 2 (or both)
15:05 < ldlework> not 6
15:05 < ldlework> which begs the question why I argued at all, and I guess because I'm an ass, so I'm sorry
15:06 < Ilmen> co'o ro do
15:07 <@xalbo> je'e Apology accepted. I apologize for getting emotionally invested, to the detriment of actually trying to come to a mutual understanding.
15:07 <@xalbo> But I have to go now.
16:17 < AndChat|320025> Coi
16:18 < durka42> coi ru'e
16:35 < John_Doe> coi
16:48 < bigcentaur> coi
18:24  * nuzba @uitki: jbonunsla - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/jbonunsla by Pier.abat - /* Logfest 2015/jbonunsla 2015 */ [http://bit.ly/1cHwLw7]
18:59 < AndChat|320025> How would you translate "should"?
22:34 < ctefaho> coi uai
23:51 < gleki> coi
--- Day changed Tue Jun 09 2015
00:18 < gocti> 10
00:18 < gocti> sisi
00:20 < gocti> Mr_Tea: {ei} or {bilga} or {iancu}
00:21 < gleki> en: iancu
00:22 < mensi> iancu = x1 should or ought to do x2 |>>> ahernai
00:22 < gleki> gocti: w'u do jmina lo krasi be lo valsi tarmi
00:22 < gocti> vi'o
00:23 < Mr_Tea> ki'e  gocti
00:49 < zipcpi> exp: mo'e li ny renopamu re'u
00:49 < mensi> ([{<mo'e (¹li [{ny <re no pa mu>} BOI] LOhO¹) TEhU> re'u} KU] VAU)
00:54 < akmnlrse> cni'ino za'a
01:22 < gleki> exp:coi
01:22 < mensi> (coi DOhU)
01:50 < ctefaho> noticed something fun yesterday
01:50 < ctefaho> I seem to be understanding natlangs a bit better after doing a bit of lojban again
01:50 < ctefaho> relative clauses specifically
01:52 < ctefaho> actually, natlang "abstractions" too
01:58 < ctefaho> like, I sort of knew what they did before, but now I understand it intuitively
02:45 < gleki> indeed these backups lead to failing at almost everything
03:00 < ctefaho> gleki: backups?
03:01 < gleki> on vrici
03:03 < ctefaho> je'e
03:10 < ctefaho> /ua
05:45 < gleki> mensi: ko cnino
05:46 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
05:48 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
05:48 < mensi> i na kakne lo ka jai gau cnino fai la'e zoi zoi hu zoi
06:27 < gleki> the first version of English 2 Lojban dictionary mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-04
06:27 < gleki> feel free to  find mistypes and mistakes
06:27 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 141 nicks [3 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 138 normal]
06:28 <@Broca> I think this is more like an English index to a Lojban dictionary.
06:29 <@Broca> For example, "needle of a comb" isn't an English lexical item.
06:43  * nuzba @uitki: La Bangu: Dictionary with Examples - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu:_Dictionary_with_Examples by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1HZ2elZ]
07:47 < gleki> Broca: what would you like to do with it?
07:51 <@Broca> gleki: na'i go'i
08:09  * nuzba @josefkenny: @EnvGen lojban is the ill-advised computational linguistics masters thesis of language [http://bit.ly/1KZiM3v]
09:14 < gleki> so i need a js function that takes input as its argument and returns output as a string. can anyone find it here? https://github.com/lagleki/glekitufa/blob/master/tersmu/all.js
09:26 < ldlework> gleki: what input
09:27 < gleki> ldlework: a lojban text should be the input, the result of the parsing should be the output of a function. this link is tersmu converted by robin to js. im too lazy to find where the output is returned
09:27 < gleki> try running this app.
09:27 < gleki> "$ node all.js"
09:29 < ldlework> I thought you were asking a general javascript question, sorry.
09:34 < Ilmen> za'a lo nunkei pe la nu jansu cu tolcfa .i lo go'i cu ditybra zmadu lo masti be li pa
09:35 < Ilmen> http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=158336
09:35 < Ilmen> ŭe nai la .xorxes. cu jinga
09:35 < gleki> i mi nu'o jimpe lo du'u la nu jansu pe lo jbobau cu mokau
09:36 < Ilmen> sa'u ditybra nu jansu kelci sepi'o lo jbobau
09:36 < gleki> xu da vreji lo citri be lo nu kelci
09:37 < Ilmen> go'i .i ni'a lo cartu cu batke fa lo strelka se tarmi
09:37 < Ilmen> .i ku'i lo barda pagbu be lo nunkei cu nu sivni casnu fa lo ro kelci
09:38 < gleki> wait, i think it's just h$main(a) function there
09:55 < Ilmen> Naours wants the BPFK to vote upon the word definition guidlines proposal
09:55 < Ilmen> *guidelines
09:55 < gleki> i'd vote against it since it's underformalized. has he seen my proposal?
09:56 < Ilmen> Which one?
09:56 < gleki> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/131
09:57 < gleki> actually we need to add that certain brackets can only be used to specify variable types.
09:57 < durka42> I think it needs to cook for a while longer
09:58 < durka42> I especially don't like this "translating a def makes the word immutable forever" provision
09:58 < gleki> why not?
09:58 < Ilmen> Naours' proposal is more about gidelines for writting easy-to-read definitions, avoiding slashes etc
09:58 < gleki> in LMW nobody complains of that and in JVS suddenly there is opposition?
09:59 < durka42> it discourages translation, means mistakes can't be fixed, and it can't work with the "define a lujvo with 1 or 2 places and add more later" model
09:59 < durka42> I didn't know that was the case in LMW
09:59 < durka42> seems bad
09:59 < durka42> oh yeah
09:59 < gleki> durka42: okay, all repos on github are the same.
09:59 < durka42> the proposal that Ilmen sent to the list from Naours was unrelated to this #131
09:59 < durka42> why did you bring it up gleki .u'i
09:59 <@xalbo> gleki: What does the "2." at the begining of each line mean?
10:00 < gleki> xalbo: where?
10:00 < Ilmen> xalbo: "proposed meaning #2", maybe
10:01 < durka42> Ilmen: if you were saying we should vote on Naours' proposal that you translated and sent to the list, I'm in favor
10:01 <@xalbo> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/131 with things like "2.valsi", "2.m1.etym", etc
10:01 < gleki> xalbo: oh okay. pls update the page
10:01 < durka42> I didn't realize gleki had redirected dicsussion as soon as you brought it up, fau'u
10:01 <@xalbo> je'e
10:01 < Ilmen> durka42: je'e
10:02 < Ilmen> I was saying so
10:02 < gleki> applying this proposal wont make JVS much better
10:03 < gleki> half-decisions will lead in future to "this wasn't enough" and then more votes which will become tiresome
10:04 < Ilmen> gleki: Indeed it would be best to improve the JVS system along with issuing style guidelines
10:04 < Ilmen> As of now, I'll have to suggest to put example translations into the notes in the meantime :/
10:05 < Ilmen> Japanese def already have examples in the notes IIRC
10:05 < durka42> you didn't like my "ex: lu co'e co'e co'e li'u dunli zoi gy Show Hay gy" idea?
10:06 < durka42> notes are a fine place too IMO
10:06 < durka42> the examples get show in a weird place in the JVS interface, and they don't make it into the other dictionaries currently
10:07 < Ilmen> Would it be worth to have a specific field for "see also" links?
10:08 < durka42> would probably help when auto-generating a readable dictionary at least
10:08 < gleki> yes. and as my work with La Bangu showed they are superterrible. i wanted to make a grapho showing connections between core wordlist via "see also" links and they were superunderformalized
10:08 < gleki> *graph
10:08 < durka42> although you could just take all {bracketed} words in the notes and treat them as see-also links
10:08 < gleki> connections between word of the core wordlist
10:09 < gleki> durka42: uinai but this doesnt always work
10:10 < durka42> no da ro roi tolspofu
10:11 < durka42> zo'o ro da zo'u va'o lo nu jmina da JVS kei retpei .ei lo sedu'u xukau la .krtis. ba pilno da
10:13 <@xalbo> I think "see also" is worth having as its own thing, distinct from notes.
10:14 <@xalbo> There's really no reason to mention {bajra} and {cadzu} in each other's notes, but they're great for see-also.
10:15 < ldlework> ie
10:16 < gleki> i would add another set of fields for keywords in verb form
10:16 < durka42> good point xalbo
10:16 < gleki> which i hope in several days will appear in my en2jbo dictionary too
10:19 < gleki> en: prije
10:19 < mensi> prije = x1 is wise/sage about matter x2 (abstraction) to observer x3. |>>> See also bebna. |>>>
10:19 < mensi> officialdata
10:20 < gleki> is prije1 a person or an event?
10:21 < ldlework> well an abstraction at least
10:24 < nifkiui> .ua no'e dunli zo bebna
10:26 <@xalbo> I expect that prije1 has probably been mostly used for people.
10:27 <@xalbo> (Where's that corpus search tool again?)
10:37 < ldlework> xalbo: it seems like the same case of djica though
10:37 < ldlework> how can a person be wise?
10:37 < ldlework> are they ckaji wise
10:37 < ldlework> or is something they did or say wise?
10:37 < ldlework> I guess volition makes things more complicated
10:38 < ldlework> but it seems to me the same case as wanting a glass of water
10:38 < ldlework> even though, I sumti raise all the time
10:40 < gleki> {ai mi djica lo kabri} - Hey, you just raised the cup! - Your health!
10:41 < gleki> (remove {ai}))
10:41 <@xalbo> I can see the argument that prije1 is like fenki1.
10:42 <@xalbo> We definitely agree that an action can be wise (under circumstances, etc). I'd say that a person is wise if they reliably or typically execute actions that are wise. That's what I'd say in English, at least,
10:43 < gleki> en: fenki
10:43 < mensi> fenki = x1 (action/event) is crazy/insane/mad/frantic/in a frenzy (one sense) by standard x2. |>>> See also bebna, racli,
10:43 < mensi> xajmi. |>>> officialdata
10:44 <@xalbo> Reading the text description of {prije}, though, it really seems like the x1 is an agent, and x2 is what you're looking for, the thing they did that was the right thing to do.
10:46  * nuzba @teqwve: @skyem123     Em... Lojban then? It must be amazing too. [http://bit.ly/1FP41ca]
10:48 < ldlework> xalbo: I assume that is the external consideration of why the x1 is wise
10:48 < ldlework> "picking up milk" was wise "since the SO plans to bake tonight"
10:49 < Ilmen> the abstraction is prije2
10:49 < ldlework> I'm saying if x2 is the thing that is wise
10:49 < ldlework> you should have an x3 then
10:49 < Ilmen> jbo: prije
10:49 < mensi> prije = x1 zabna x2 noi ka drani lo ka pajni lo du'u ma kau jetnu ja drani .i x1 zukte ja tarti x2 noi racli .i x1 to'e
10:49 < mensi> bebna x2 |>>> zabna; drani; pajni; jetnu; zukte; tarti; racli; bebna; mencre |>>>
10:49 < mensi> xorxes
10:50 < gleki> i lo te prije cu mo ma'i la xorxes i la'a kelvo zo'o
10:51 <@xalbo> kelvo: x1 is Kevin by naming standard x2.
10:53 <@xalbo> One thing I'll say (and this may be a strike against {fenki} as it exists) is that {prije} really should have a place for the agent. My hitting you could be wise for me, but unwise for you, but {lo nu mi do darxi cu prije} doesn't really give us a way to say that.
10:53 < Ilmen> jbo: fenki
10:53 < mensi> fenki = x1 to'e racli x2 .i x1 kalsa lo ka zukte x2 .i lo nu x1 cinmo x2 cu vlile |>>> racli; kalsa; zukte; cinmo;
10:53 < mensi> vlile; bebna |>>> xorxes
10:53 <@xalbo> That is, it doesn't distinguish "I was wise to hit you" vs "You were wise to be hit by me."
10:53 <@xalbo> (Ok, that's a really bizarre example. I hope you can understand what I'm getting at.)
10:53 < gleki> jai/fai?
10:54 < nifkiui> ta'o ti'e su'a lo velcki pe la xorxes zo'u lo terbri pe lo manri cu se vimcu
10:54 < durka42> xalbo: you mean like a seva'u place
10:55 < durka42> nifkiui: so'i lo terbri pe lo manri cu jai na'e sarcu iepei
10:55 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
10:55 < gleki> nifkiui: la xorxes pu vimcu lo drata ji'a sumti
10:56 < gleki> jbo: ciste
10:56 < mensi> ciste = x1 stura x2 gi'e ja'e bo ckaji x3 |>>> stura; ckaji |>>> xorxes
10:56 < gleki> frica lo catni ve ciksi
10:56 < durka42> en:ciste
10:56 < mensi> ciste = x1 (mass) is a system interrelated by structure x2 among components x3 (set) displaying x4 (ka).
10:56 < durka42> ue
10:56 < durka42> xlali pe'i
10:56 <@xalbo> durka42: Only a little. Maybe I, in my wisdom, performed an action that benefited you. It might be something like a fi'o pajni place, but the more I think about it, the more I think prije1 is the agent.
10:56 < durka42> jbo:xruti
10:56 < mensi> xruti = x1 di'a ckaji x2 noi ke'a basti x3 noi x1 co'u ckaji ke'a
10:57 < gleki> is it too late for me to replace {volve} with {volta} or something else?
10:57 < durka42> la'anai
10:57 <@xalbo> I definitely agree that the English definition allows both readings, but I find the agent/action reading *far* more natural (for the English), and a totally meaningful and useful meaning.
10:57 < durka42> {volta} should mean "battery" though zo'o ru'e
10:58 < gleki> {volve} will be confusing for speakers of portuguese
10:58  * xalbo wonders what {tesla} would mean.
10:58 < gleki> en: tesla
10:58 < mensi> klanrtesla = g1 is g2 tesla(s) of magnetic field B (default is 1) by standard g3.
10:58 < gleki> en: tesla
10:58 < mensi> klanrtesla = g1 is g2 tesla(s) of magnetic field B (default is 1) by standard g3.
10:58 < gleki> wth
10:58 < gleki> ma finti
10:59 < gleki> en: klanrtesla
10:59 < mensi> klanrtesla = g1 is g2 tesla(s) of magnetic field B (default is 1) by standard g3. |>>> Cf. maksi. |>>>
10:59 < mensi> totus
10:59 < gleki> o'u
11:00 <@xalbo> tesla: They called x1 mad. Mad! And all because x1 dared to dream! To dream of creating x2 (superweapon) to rule over x3 (default: the world)
11:01 < durka42> .u'i
11:08 < b_jonas> hehe
13:17 < ctefaho> so I have this idea going on
13:17 < ctefaho> if one could teach a very young child some of the more "basic" attitudinals
13:18 < ctefaho> just by somehow making them associate it with the emotion
13:19 < ctefaho> like, not having to explain it, but just associating for example "ui" with happiness
13:20 < ldlework> I honestly think attudinals not expressed as vocalizations are very strange
13:20 < ldlework> IE, the same kind of thing is "huh" "hmm" "ow" "hey" "ehhh" "mmm"
13:21 < ldlework> Or basically any japanese vocalizations
13:21 < ldlework> like from anime
13:21 < ldlework> literally laughing through your u'i is just not natural.
13:21 < ldlework> IE, they seem way more applicable to text, like emoticons
13:21 < ctefaho> well I think laugther is more like ki'ai .a'a'a'a'a'a'a
13:22 < ldlework> right, no one laughs like that
13:22 < ldlework> laughter is spontaneous and self-communicative
13:22 < demize> Also xa'a ;)
13:23 < demize> Errhm, that came out wrong
13:23 < ldlework> Even xa'a isn't pheonetically representitive of laughter
13:23 < ctefaho> well I am never even going to try to laugh through my .u'i
13:23 < ctefaho> if anything I would use ki'ai
13:23 < demize> ldlework: It could be. People laugh rather differently.
13:24 < ldlework> demize: right that's my point
13:24 < ldlework> That some people happen to laugh like lojban's pheonetic laughter is inconsequential
13:24 < demize> And bu'a'a has a rather more specific usecase.
13:24 < ctefaho> if I really wanted to laugh "grmamatically"
13:24 < demize> Heh
13:24 < ldlework> indeed
13:24 < demize> "Please stop that, your 'laughter' is ungrammatical."
13:25 < ctefaho> I have experimented with "ki'ai .'a'a'a" but then the morphology breaks instead;)
13:25 < ldlework> I feel like we should acknowledge that finding something funny and its lingusitic expression is something entirely different than laughter.
13:25 < ldlework> And trying to encode things like laughter is a conflation of goals and methods.
13:25 < rbryan> As a noobie. What's the fastest way to learn a passable amount of lojban?
13:26 < ldlework> rbryan: a lesson from me
13:26  * ctefaho will try "ki'ai .'a'a'a" in voicechat sometime
13:26 < rbryan> ldlework, how does that work?
13:26 < ldlework> I should write up my lesson as an ideal transcription
13:26 < ctefaho> to confuse anyone at the least;)
13:26 < ldlework> And just give that to people.
13:26 < ctefaho> anyone/everyone
13:27 < demize> ldlework: It's not something you should generally do, in my mind it's more for things like sound effects in eg comics
13:27 < ldlework> demize: I agree.
13:27 < ldlework> .i u'i blah blah blah, just lets your listener know you find it comical
13:27 < ldlework> you don't have to actually laugh
13:28 < demize> indeed.
13:28 < demize> Unlike 'lol' which is sort of a lie if you don't laugh.
13:28 < ldlework> I disagree
13:28 < ldlework> lol is literally u'i and not xa'a'a'a'a
13:28 < ldlework> which is what hahahaha is
13:28 < rbryan> Is there a lojban mumble server?
13:29 < demize> ldlework: 'lol' is 'laughing out loud', and if you're not laughing it's a lie.
13:29 < rbryan> mumble/voip
13:29 < ctefaho> rbryan: yes
13:29 < ldlework> demize: I'm talking in terms of pragmatics.
13:29 < ldlework> The evolved semantic, not the prescribed one.
13:29 < ctefaho> zbaga.ax.It
13:29 < ctefaho> on mumble
13:29 < ctefaho> only me on there right now though
13:30 < rbryan> I may try to get that set up later. I've always wanted to give mumble a try.
13:32 < ldlework> rbryan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjSTUK3hFI
13:32 < ldlework> come back and ask any questions you have after watching that
13:32 < rbryan> ldlework, will do. It may be a bit. I get off work at five.
13:33 < rbryan> Probably best not to be on the tubes at work.
13:33 < ldlework> ie
13:33 < sifu__> hi
13:33 < ctefaho> yo
13:34 < BaalTondral> im a friend of selpahi
13:34 < BaalTondral> im curious about lojban
13:34 < ctefaho> selpahi is not around unfortunately
13:34 < BaalTondral> i know. he told me
13:34 < ctefaho> ah
13:34 < ctefaho> well, welcome here then;)
13:35 < BaalTondral> thx :)
13:36 < ctefaho> I assume you haven't studied lojban very much then?
13:36 < ctefaho> if any
13:39 < BaalTondral> yeah, not at all. i only read about it a bit.
13:40 < BaalTondral> there's that two-part beginner course video on selpahis youtube channel
13:40 < BaalTondral> that seemed like a good intro
13:41 < BaalTondral> but it's very long though
13:41 < ctefaho> hmm
13:41 < ldlework> BaalTondral: which one?
13:42 < ctefaho> wow over 2 hours
13:42 < ctefaho> over 2.5 hours*
13:42 < ctefaho> ldlework: https://www.youtube.com/user/shanikuzai/videos
13:43 < ldlework> which video?
13:43 < ctefaho> Let's learn Lojban Together 1 & "
13:43 < ctefaho> 2
13:43 < ctefaho> I assume he is talking about
13:43 < ctefaho> haven't seen them myself
13:43 < ldlework> oh god those
13:43 < ldlework> the irrelevant rambling
13:44 < ldlework> my video was made in direct response to those
13:44 < ldlework> hence the very sterile character of mine
13:47 < ctefaho> BaalTondral, anything in particular you wonder about?:)
13:53 < postmo> coi
13:55 < justeno> is the ! replaced in lojban?
13:57 < ldlework> justeno: there are no punctuation marks in lojban
13:57 < BaalTondral> ldlework: what do you mean by irrelevant rampling? ^^
13:58 < ldlework> BaalTondral: those videos just have a lot of pauses, tangents, rambling and so on
13:58 < ldlework> They don't seem focused. They seem completely impromptu.
13:58 < BaalTondral> ctefaho: no. not yet.
13:58 < ldlework> Which is fine, maybe you want a more laid back lecture.
13:58 < ldlework> I couldn't bare them at all, so once I knew more about lojban I made my video for people like me who just want the facts.
13:59 < ldlework> Lindar's videos are even worse :3
13:59 < ctefaho> ldlework: maybe you should link your video;)
13:59 < ldlework> I did
14:00 < ctefaho> huh
14:00 < ldlework> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjSTUK3hFI
14:00 < BaalTondral> hm depends. I also rather like quick good intros without much blabla
14:00 < ctefaho> well that was just before BaalTondral joined:p
14:00 < ldlework> BaalTondral: my video should be good then
14:00 < ldlework> ctefaho: oh it was for another newbie just before him :P
14:01 < ctefaho> .u'i
14:01 < ldlework> strange all the new speakers
14:01 < ldlework> very strange
14:01 < ldlework> the influx has been substantial
14:01 < ldlework> I wonder what's going on
14:01 < BaalTondral> but people who explain in a fun way with interesting talks a good too
14:01 < ctefaho> well we got la selpa'i to blame for this one;)
14:01 < ldlework> BaalTondral: I recorded mine like an academic video
14:01 < ctefaho> zo'o*
14:01 < ldlework> Like something you'd see in school
14:01 < afurrow> hmmm I'm not a new speaker yet, but I'm hanging around because Duolingo added Esperanto and it's boring and makes me want to try to learn lojban again
14:01 < ldlework> ei cliva co'o
14:01 < ldlework> take care of them!
14:01 < ldlework> (the noobs I mean)
14:02 < BaalTondral> hehe
14:03 < BaalTondral> before I looked it about I thought lojban has a huge worldwide community. but then I saw that's it really tiny. which is really, really strange
14:03 < BaalTondral> don't understand. should be far more popular
14:03 < BaalTondral> at least amongst all people who deal with language
14:03 < BaalTondral> and logic
14:03 < ctefaho> I guess people just don't know or hear about it much
14:04 < afurrow> BaalTondral, try to learn to use it and then decide if the popularity makes sense ;)
14:04 < BaalTondral> linguists, programmers, philosophers, mathematicians...
14:04 < ctefaho> hey afurrow now you are unfair:p
14:04 < BaalTondral> afurrow: yes I'll see haha
14:04 < afurrow> ....is there an attitudinal for slightly sarcastic? or whatever I was using ;) for
14:04 < BaalTondral> 23:01 < ldlework> BaalTondral: I recorded mine like an academic video
14:04  * afurrow feels using emoticons in here is unclean somehow
14:04 < BaalTondral> ah that sounds good
14:05 < BaalTondral> hahaha
14:05 < ctefaho> zo'o, probably
14:05 < BaalTondral> i see. people don't like overhead and "unnecessarity" here
14:05  * afurrow looks up zo'o
14:05 < ctefaho> well using emoticons when talking lojban would be "unclean";)
14:05 < ctefaho> in lojban*
14:05 < BaalTondral> ah
14:06 < ctefaho> but this is far from a lojban only channel
14:06 < ctefaho> that's #jbosnu
14:10 < ctefaho> afurrow: but yeah, zo'o is what you want, to indicate you are unserious
14:10 < ctefaho> works fantastic on irc
14:11 < Mateon1> Nice, so jbo has a built in /s tag :P
14:12 < Mateon1> How would I make a [ch] sound? As in, switCH
14:12 <@xalbo> ⟨tc⟩, as in {tcidu} ("cheedoo")
14:12 < ctefaho> ah great xalbo is here
14:12 <@xalbo> A wild xalbo appears!
14:12 < ctefaho> then I can leave you in safe hands for a bit
14:12 < ctefaho> co'oru'e
14:13 < ctefaho> .u'i
14:13 <@xalbo> co'o la nicte zei fanmo
14:13 < Mateon1> Also, is there any list on how , modifies sounds?
14:13 <@xalbo> All it does is separate syllables, ideally it doesn't modify any of the actual sounds.
14:14 < Mateon1> Hm... The Polish wiki used a comma in a name transliteration, saying that the comma modifies the j sound a bit
14:14 < afurrow> ohhh that makes sense
14:14 < Mateon1> Lemme look it up again
14:14 < afurrow> assuming polish is like russian
14:15 < afurrow> in russian having the j and a following vowel in different syllables is different
14:15 < afurrow> from having them in the same syllable
14:15 < afurrow> also I guess putting a , between a consonant and a following j would be like putting a hard sign there in russian
14:16 < afurrow> in other words, Mateon1, your question should be rephrased as "how do syllable breaks modify the sounds of Polish letters"
14:18 < Mateon1> Heh, possibly. I opened up the English wiki page for lojban, and interestingly to me, j can sound both as ʒ and as ʐ. In Polish they are 2 different sounds, ź and ż, respectively. Anyways, I'll continue looking for the page that I was talking about
14:18  * afurrow adds ju'ocu'i to everything she said above
14:19 <@xalbo> It sounds roughly right. I will mention that , doesn't tend to see much use anyway.
14:32 < Mateon1> Damnit, I can't find it, I swear I saw it somewhere. Searched the Polish lojban Wikibooks and Wikipedia, I think I'll look on the lojban.org wiki
14:33 < ctefaho> Mateon1: I actually learned to pronounce cześć properly trough lojban;)
14:34 < ctefaho> (half-pole here who speaks 4 words of polish...)
14:35 < Mateon1> Nice, I would like to know how to make the Polish ć sound in Lojban, as well.
14:36 < dRbiG> huh, Polish
14:36 < dutchie> coi
14:37 < dRbiG> does lojban even have something like ć?
14:37 < ctefaho> what is it in ipa?
14:37 < ctefaho> eh lemme check
14:38 < ctefaho> this sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_affricate ?
14:38 < Mateon1> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C4%87 Well, it's pretty scary looking at the IPA
14:39 < Mateon1> ctefaho: Yup, that's it
14:39 < dRbiG> i find the phonetic classification 'nice principles, i still don't hear the differences very often'
14:39 < ctefaho> t͡
14:39 < ctefaho> lol not even irc can display that properly
14:39 < dRbiG> (but then i suck)
14:39 < ctefaho> well I think it is "tc"
14:40 < ctefaho> well
14:40 < ctefaho> the closes approximation*
14:40 < dRbiG> in english i guess closes would be ch with soft end?
14:40 < Mateon1> So.. Lojban CAN change the pronounciation of letters based on nearby letters?
14:41 < ctefaho> or is that even "tx"
14:41 < ctefaho> not that "tx" is allowed
14:41 < demize> Mateon1: ii, uu
14:41 <@xalbo> Not really (well, only i and u at the begining of diphthongs)
14:41 <@xalbo> en: patxu
14:41 < mensi> patxu = x1 is a pot/kettle/urn/tub/sink, a deep container for contents x2, of material/properties x3. |>>> (cf. tansi,
14:41 < mensi> palne for depth; baktu, botpi for open/lidded) |>>> officialdata
14:41 < ctefaho> oh right
14:42 <@xalbo> ⟨tx⟩ is allowed, though not initially.
14:42 < dRbiG> ctefaho: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cieszyn there's listen, and nowadays ci = ć
14:42 < ctefaho> oh
14:42 < ctefaho> ok cause that was what I tried
14:42 < ctefaho> and camxes gave me the finger
14:42 < ctefaho> well someone has stealen my headphone
14:42 < ctefaho> can't actually listen to anything right now:(
14:43 < demize> s/tea/to/; s/ne/nes/
14:43 < Mateon1> Damn, the Wikipedia audio player is loud
14:44 < ctefaho> if I didn't show it here is decent summary of the phonology https://lojban.github.io/cll/3/2/
14:44 < ctefaho> but you probably already found it or something like it
14:45  * ctefaho didn't know we had t͡ɕ in swedish
14:45 < Mateon1> The Polish wikibooks page on jbo has a (relatively basic) pronounciation guide
14:46 < ctefaho> ah ok
14:46 < Mateon1> I haven't found the page you linked, though, before. IPA isn't very helpful to me. Also, I still can't say [x] and [h] differently
14:47 < dRbiG> at least t͡ɕ render properly ;)
14:47 < ctefaho> chleb has x in beginning
14:47 < dutchie> i find that they are quite similar for me
14:47 < dRbiG> ctefaho: x = ch/h in polish, for me at least
14:48 < dutchie> but probably still distinguishable
14:48 < ctefaho> hmm but polish doesn't have [h]?!
14:48 < Mateon1> Quite possible
14:48 < ctefaho> english "high" vs. chleb  then?
14:48 < ctefaho> first h in high that is
14:49 < Mateon1> Umm, I pronounce the h exactly the same...
14:49 < dRbiG> ch/h in polish
14:49 < dRbiG> i *believe* we historically had a distincton
14:49 < dRbiG> but now it's the same thing
14:49 < ctefaho> those words are [haɪ̯] vs [xlɛp], if that helps
14:50 < Mateon1> Huh? The b in chleb isn't a hard b?
14:50 < Mateon1> Doesn't really matter, but I didn't know about that :P
14:50  * ctefaho just goes by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_velar_fricative vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_glottal_fricative
14:50 < dRbiG> ctefaho: i find lot of these distinctions very theoretic, at best diffrenet when pronounced with a lot of care
14:51 < ctefaho> maybe it depends a lot on dialect as well?
14:51 < dRbiG> yeah, but not for Polish
14:51 < Mateon1> Are there any jbo words that differ when pronounced with an incorrect h?
14:51 < durka42> well {.a'o} and {.a xo} are quite different
14:52 < ctefaho> hmm this is where mumble would be great
14:52 < Mateon1> I can get on, but I can't talk
14:52 < ctefaho> I learned some of the tricker ones only through it...
14:52 < ctefaho> man selpahi had to spent like an hour to explain "." to me
14:52 <@xalbo> ({.i'u} and {.i xu} for two things that could realistically appear in the same context, for instance at the beginning of a sentence)
14:53 < Mateon1> I understand . is just a pause, and to make sure you don't prolong any previous sounds, right?
14:53 < ctefaho> (or lol more like 3)
14:53 < durka42> Mateon1: yes
14:53 < ctefaho> well
14:53 < ctefaho> it can be either a pause or a glottal stop
14:53 <@xalbo> That's one valid pronunciation.
14:53 < durka42> a glottal stop is the shortest possible pause
14:55 < ctefaho> ...and was at least for me quite hard to grasp
14:55 <@xalbo> clsn used to tell the story about having two classmates named "Anne" in his circle of acquaintance, and having learned to pronounce their names /ʔæn/ and /æn/ (that is, with and without a leading glottal stop) to distinguish them.
14:55 < dRbiG> mhm, and i've interpreted ' as a very short h in polish, e.g. co'o ro do = coho ro do
14:56 < dRbiG> as in 'ok but easier than caring about pausing in words'
14:57 < ctefaho> Basically, a glottal stop occurs just before or after a syllable, and using "a" as an example is the difference between (Ah! and "aaaAAA")
14:57 < ctefaho> if that makes ANY sense
14:57 < dRbiG> mhm, that would be szoho ro do actually :/
14:57 < durka42> ctefaho: makes some sense to me
14:58 < ctefaho> selpahi had a great audio-recording image showing it
14:58 < ctefaho> it was then that I finally grasped it actually
14:58 < ctefaho> in a "normal" a the a-sound rises from nothing up to the "full" sound, in volume
14:58 < ctefaho> with a glottal stop it goes from nothing to "full" instantly
14:59 < ctefaho> can't explain it better than that
15:00 <@xalbo> That's a pretty good explanation, I think.
15:01 <@xalbo> I know of things in English that have a glottal stop in them ("uh-oh", or "bottle" with the right comical Cockney accent), but I don't know of any minimal pairs.
15:01 < dRbiG> mhm, i understand it differently, like 'scottish' in english and 'sco'(t)ish' in scotish with a glottal stop
15:01 < ctefaho> I don't know of any vowels not starting with a glottal stop though
15:01 <@xalbo> Yeah, that's another example.
15:01 < ctefaho> in english or swedish
15:02 < durka42> in lojban neither :p
15:02 <@xalbo> I'd say most vowels don't start with a glottal stop in English. Plenty of pauses, but few stops.
15:02 < dRbiG> xalbo: like bo'(t)lle?
15:02 < durka42> in english you can run words together
15:02 < dRbiG> (that would make sense to me)
15:02 <@xalbo> dRbiG: Yes.
15:02 < durka42> "you're all fired! I'm going to can all of you!"
15:03 < durka42> there's no pause between "canall"
15:03 < durka42> or in the middle of "you're-all"
15:03 < ldlework> goingto
15:03 < ldlework> oh
15:03 < ldlework> I see
15:03 < ctefaho> ooohhh that's a good example
15:03 < ldlework> I just ignore glottal stops because no machines are listening in and humans seem to infer them perfectly.
15:04 < durka42> naturally, if you did that in (spoken) lojban than we wouldn't have our nice happy self-segregating morphology :)
15:04 < ldlework> Someone think of the samcifnu!
15:05 <@xalbo> ldlework: I'm sensing a pattern. "I ignore any rules I don't like, because I count on my audience to understand me anyway."
15:06 < ldlework> xalbo: I already said I'm personally trying to ramp up on KOhA2
15:06 < durka42> well, it's easy to leave out the pauses in writing (assuming you are using spaces, li'a) because the rule for where they go is simple and unambiguous
15:06 < durka42> but in formal writing I'd put them in
15:06  * ctefaho is proud to have pestered selpa'i for about 3 hours before I finally grasped it
15:07 < ldlework> xalbo: but yes, the underlying mechanism that allows language to exist is because our audience has context on their side.
15:07 < ctefaho> if anything he is a patient teacher;o
15:07 < Mateon1> I've been linked a better dictionary than jbovlaste.lojban.org, but I didn't bookmark it. Does anybody know what could it be? I believe it was on the lojban.org site, as either a subdomain or a subdirectory (learning towards the latter)
15:07 < durka42> vlasisku.lojban.org
15:07 <@xalbo> My personal orthography style puts them in, because I think it's useful for pedagogical purposes if nothing else.
15:07 < ldlework> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/index.html#sisku/ki%27ain
15:07 <@xalbo> (And as a habit to myself, to remember where they're needed.)
15:08 < ctefaho> I think I always write mandatory pauses
15:08 < ctefaho> my hands will die 5 years before the rest of me but I still think it might be worth it
15:08 < ldlework> I'm glad that others have the fortitude to care about things that don't really have consequences substantial enough for me to care
15:08 < ldlework> xalbo: you're a better person than I am.
15:08 < Mateon1> ldlework: I was looking for this, thank you. Going to bookmark both this and vlasisku
15:09 < ldlework> Maybe I make up for my lack of pedalogical orthographies by introducing people to the language in the first place
15:09 < ctefaho> Mateon1: vlasisku hasn't been updated in a while for some reason
15:09 < ctefaho> so if you want the latest word on the words, jbovlaste is where word is
15:10 < durka42> yeah
15:10 < durka42> the one ldlework linked should be updated more frequently
15:10 < durka42> auto-updates for vlasisku is still on the todo list
15:10 < Mateon1> Alright, good to know :)
15:36 < ruste> ldlework, question.
15:36 < ruste> Just started the video.
15:36 < Mateon1> I have a question regarding repeated letters and their pronounciation? Should you visibly double the sound in a word like uu or ii, making a clear distinction that they're two separate letters (making almost a stop) or is it fine if you prolongate the sound?
15:36 < ruste> Can a bridi have more than five sumti?
15:38 < dutchie> Mateon1: uu and ii have their own sound, which i'd transliterate as "yee" and "woo" in english
15:39 < dutchie> the "y" and "w" let the listener know that they are doubled
15:39 < Mateon1> ruste: I think so, I haven't seen any in practice yet, though. Also there exist only 5 place tags/markers, fa, fe, fi, fo, fu, though...
15:40 < Mateon1> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, please
15:40 < ruste> Makes sense.
15:41 < durka42> and other than those two there are no doubled letters
15:41 < Mateon1> Looking up in the dictionary, there also exist fai and fi'a. I don't know their usage, though
15:41 < durka42> yes, a selbri can have more than five sumti
15:41 < durka42> it's rare though
15:41 < durka42> who can remember such a place structure? :p
15:42 < ctefaho> Mateon1: i and u at the end of ai/ei/oi/au are like this too
15:44 < ctefaho> well they can be pronounced both ways
15:44 < ctefaho> i think
15:44 < ctefaho> I will probably be corrected any second now if I am wrong:)
15:45 < durka42> they are just diphthongs
15:45 < durka42> I can only give english analogs for how to pronounce them though :/
15:45 < durka42> ai - eye, ei - bay, oi - boy, au - cow
15:45 < ctefaho> but both [aw] and [au] are permitted right?
15:45 < ctefaho> for {au}
15:46 < durka42> sorry I'm not sure the difference there
15:46 < dutchie> [aw] = english awe, i think
15:46 < durka42> back in a minute
15:46 < dutchie> e.g. horse, if you don't have a rhotic accent
15:48 < dutchie> though i am probably even more likely to be wrong than ctefaho and durka42
15:48 < ctefaho> well iirc [aw] and [au] are both different, and even [aʊ] works or if that was just a proposal
15:48 < Mateon1> ctefaho: I'd think so, but don't trust me about lojban yet :P
15:48 < ctefaho> would have loved to have selpa'i here right now
15:48 < Mateon1> https://translate.google.com/#pl/en/ai.%20ej.%20oj.%20au. -> speaker on input, does this sound about right?
15:48 < ctefaho> but he...is not
15:48 < ctefaho> wherever he is
15:48 < ctefaho> uinai
15:50 < Mateon1> So, how do the attitudonal words work? The definitions include a meaning and the opposite meaning, sometimes even 3 meanings, separated by dashes. How do I signify which one I mean?
15:50 < ctefaho> If you use just the bare attitudinal, for example "ui", it is the "positive" meaning
15:51 < ctefaho> which here is Happy
15:51 < ctefaho> "uinai" means Unhappy
15:51 < ctefaho> the "negative" or "opposite" meaning
15:51 < ctefaho> hmm
15:51 < ctefaho> uicu'i isn't really well defined
15:51 < Mateon1> huh? So the nai implies negative meaning?
15:52 < ctefaho> yep
15:52 < ctefaho> and cu'i the "neutral" meaning
15:52 < ctefaho> let´s take "ie" as an example instead
15:53 < ctefaho> ie - Agreement, ienai - Disagreement, iecu'i "Neutrality"
15:53 < ctefaho> Neutrality as in, you neither Agree nor Disagree
15:53 < Mateon1> There isn't a iecu'i definition, and ie only covers agreement/disagreement, but I guess I get it.
15:53 < ctefaho> no iecu'i definition? where are you looking?
15:54 < Mateon1> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/iecu'i ;
15:54 < Mateon1> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/index.html#sisku/iecu'i
15:54 < ctefaho> ah well it is not defined there
15:55 < ctefaho> uhm why isn't iecu'i in the bpfk section either?!
15:56 < ctefaho> but ok, yeah, that's it
15:56 < ctefaho> Also, a bare "ie" is exactly the same as "ieja'ai"
15:56 < ctefaho> "ja'ai" is an affirmer but "ie" always mean "ieja'ai"
15:57 < Mateon1> Huh, now I realize I'm not quite sure not to pronounce ie, it it like 'yeah' without the 'dangling' [no better word] sound
15:58 < ctefaho> ie like ie zo'o
15:58 < ctefaho> "yeah" is similar to "ie" yes
15:58 < ctefaho> with an unvocalized "j"
15:58 < ctefaho> "yes" works too
15:58 < ctefaho> just remove the s and pehaps tweak your e a bit
15:59 < Mateon1> Oh! Is the dangling sound in "yeah" a lojbanic y?
15:59 < ctefaho> uhm
15:59 < durka42> sorry I'm back now
15:59 < ctefaho> that depends 100% on how you pronounce "yeah"
15:59 < ctefaho> good durka42;) I need to go sipna now
15:59 < durka42> "bleh"
15:59 < durka42> "bread"
16:00 < Mateon1> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yeah http://static.sfdict.com/staticrep/dictaudio/Y00/Y0018600.mp3 ?
16:00 < Mateon1> [iey] ?
16:01 < durka42> well that's a diphthong of some kind
16:01 < durka42> the {e} in {ie} is the same sound as "bread" or the first syllable of "ready"
16:01 < durka42> "yellow" = {ie lo}
16:03 < Mateon1> Interesting since I pronounce "yellow" as iello- [brief dangling 'uh' sound]
16:03 < durka42> well okay it's like "yellow" if the last vowel were more pure
16:04 < ctefaho> co'o uai
16:05 < durka42> co'o di'ai
16:06 < Mateon1> Oh god, the uai definition is crazy, a lot of alteration, haha
16:06 < demize> Mateon1: You were Polish?
16:07 < Mateon1> Yes, I am Polish
16:07 < demize> There seems to be no schwa sounds in Polish, so not surprising if it's hard to get.
16:08 < demize> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_central_vowel>, Lojbanic {y})
16:08 < durka42> well, the {uai} definition was written by krtisfranks, that's what he does
16:09 < Mateon1> Well, this isn't what I imagined it was, then...
16:09 < demize> the last sound in 'yeah' can certainly be a schwa though.
16:10 < demize> But as said it varies a lot.
16:12 < demize> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa
16:12 < demize> Mateon1: For example, the last a in America es a schwa
16:12 < demize> s/es/is/
16:13 < Mateon1> demize: I pronounce it with a clear / pure a sound...
16:13 < Mateon1> I can't find a word for [mildly] funny. As in, I say something that I find funny, not enough to cause laughter, but the same emotion
16:14 < durka42> .u'i ru'e
16:14 < demize> Mateon1: It is a pure a in Swedish too, but not in English.
16:16 < demize> IPA for the Polish word is /aˈmɛrɨka/ according to wiktionary, and colloquially as /amɛˈrɨka/
16:16 < demize> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Polish> is a start for looking up IPA notation)
16:17 < Mateon1> Uhm, what's the difference? ...
16:17 < demize> the '
16:17 < demize> Which signifies the primary stress
16:17 < Mateon1> As in, the accented syllabe?
16:18 < demize> Sure
16:19 < Mateon1> In Polish, the accent barely matters. I often misplace the accent on some words in polish, this doesn't cause any problem
16:19 < demize> For reference, /əˈmɛɹɪkə/ is the IPA for the English pronunciation of America.
16:19 < Mateon1> Except maybe at school
16:20 < durka42> I'm 100% sure that I stress the second syllable in America
16:20 < durka42> and 90% sure I've never heard anyone stress the first syllable
16:21 < durka42> is the ' supposed to point at the syllable before it or after it?
16:21 < Mateon1> I accent the 3rd, a-me-RI-ca
16:21 < demize> Before
16:22 < durka42> hmm
16:23 < durka42> wait no
16:23 < Mateon1> But as I said, I often misplace accent. The Polish word ma-te-ma-ty-ka, I accent the ty, but I think I should accent either the te or the ma
16:23 < Mateon1> (second ma, third syllabe)
16:23 < durka42> on dictionary.com it shows /əˈmɛr ɪ kə/ == [uh-mer-i-kuh]
16:23 < durka42> with the *mer* bolded for stress
16:23 < demize> Sure?
16:24 < demize> durka42: Oh, I misread you
16:24 < demize> The ' goes before the syllable.
16:24 < durka42> je'e
16:24  * durka42 needs to learn how to read IPA
16:25 < demize> It would be very very weird if the leading A was stressed, yeah.
16:25 < ldlework> a-MER-(r)i-ca
16:26 < Mateon1> I don't get how the R belongs to the second syllabe
16:26 < ldlework> honestly, when I say it, there are at least two R's or the R just lasts between the two
16:27 < ldlework> that's why I did (r)
16:27 < ldlework> ah mare ri ca
16:27 < ldlework> with less "air" and "err" in that "mare"
16:27 < ldlework> and more "err"*
16:27 < Mateon1> If anything, I'd say a-me[r]-ri-ca where [r] is a voiceless r to make the e sound right
16:28 < ldlework> I don't know what voicless r means
16:28 < ldlework> but the R doesn't get rigid until the rica, so maybe that's what you mean
16:28 < Mateon1> It's something I named right now, don't know the proper naming/definition
16:28 < Mateon1> Or I guess reverse-definition
16:29 < ldlework> Mateon1: pronounce "a mare rica"
16:29 < ldlework> e
16:29 < ldlework> as in a horse
16:30 < Mateon1> Similar, but I pronounce it more like ah meh ri ca
16:30 < Mateon1>  I guess the h is voiceless as well in this case
16:31 < ldlework> Mateon1: https://clyp.it/mj4mog00
16:31 < ldlework> I pronounce it more as "uh"
16:31 < durka42> co'o ro do uai
16:31 < ldlework> co'o
16:31 < ldlework> uh mare reh ca
16:33 < Mateon1> ldlework: https://translate.google.com/#pl/en/amehrihca - speaker
16:34 < ldlework> it sounds like "A Mary Kah"
16:36 < Mateon1> I can't make the polish synthesizer pronounce an uh properly
16:36 < Mateon1> I'm doing dashes and hacks all over the place, haha
16:37 < ldlework> hehe
16:38 < Mateon1> https://translate.google.com/#en/pl/a!meh.ri'cah oh god...
16:38 < Mateon1> Anyways, sounds about right
16:41 < ldlework> Am I supposed to click the one on the left or the one on the right
16:42 < Mateon1> The one on the input
16:42 < Mateon1> The timing is wrong
16:42 < ldlework> you talk with large pauses in the middle of your america?
16:42 < Mateon1> But rest about right
16:42 < ldlework> lol
16:42 < ldlework> why not just record it
16:42 < Mateon1> I can't
16:42 < Mateon1> It's nearly 2 AM at night
16:42 < ldlework> I believe in you
16:43 < Mateon1> Also, don't have a working mic
16:43 < Mateon1> Oh, wait, I lied
16:43 < ldlework> I still believe in you
16:43 < Mateon1> My laptop has one
16:43 < Mateon1> But still, I can't really talk right now as my parents are sleeping the next room
16:43 < ldlework> one america will wake them?!
16:43 < ldlework> heh just kidding
17:05 < Mateon1> ldlework: Finally got some sound recording working I think.
17:05 < Mateon1> ldlework: https://clyp.it/oou0pkrw ?
17:06 < Mateon1> I can't get audacity to work so sorry for the background noise, couldn't filter it out
17:08 < ldlework> Mateon1: nice
17:09 < ldlework> Mateon1: give me your most american "a MUR Reh kah"
17:09 < ldlework> yours is beautiful btw
17:09 < ldlework> stupid midwestern diction
17:10 < ldlework> so boring
17:10 < ldlework> (american midwest)
17:11 < Mateon1> Yay, got Audacity to work, but I didn't capture enough noise and it makes me sound kinda robotic
17:11 < ldlework> hehe
17:11 < ldlework> Mateon1: the other recording was fine, for a whisper
17:48 < voltz> Coi ro do
18:03 < durka42> coi voltz
18:03 < voltz> .I do mo
18:05 < durka42> mi bilma
18:06 < durka42> bilma la .manonukliiosys. uinai
18:07 < voltz> Lo bilma ku malselfu'a do
18:08 < durka42> go'i
18:09 < demize> do dukse cinba xu
18:11 < durka42> la'a
18:11 < durka42> mi puzi lo masti be li ci co'a cinba da
18:11 < durka42> ku'i ri na ca bilma
18:12 < voltz> (I'm sorry, I'm still slow at this)
18:13 < demize> .u'i ru'e
18:13 < durka42> I can wait :)
18:13 < durka42> or help
18:15 < voltz> In a little confused as to what you're on about.  Kissing?
18:16 < demize> Mono is often called the "kissing disease"
18:17 < voltz> Ohhhh that makes so much sense now..  I didn't even think about that..
18:17 < demize> Due to the fact that in most cases it can only be transmitted direct contact with saliva.
18:17 < durka42> ie
18:18 < durka42> cinba ja kansa lo ka pinxe fi makau
18:18 < durka42> ja => gi'a *
18:20 < voltz> Yeah
18:22 < durka42> .u'i je'u mi lo pampe'o ge cinba gi kansa lo ka pinxe fi makau
18:42 < demize> {kansa lo ka pinxe fi makau}.. "being together with the property of being a drinker from something"?
18:44 < durka42> oi I screwed that up didn't I
18:44 < durka42> let me try again .u'i
18:45 < durka42> it's not my fault, I'm sick! :p
18:45 < demize> Heh, I was just confused whether I was parsing it incorrectly or if you meant something else. ;)
18:45 < durka42> .u'i je'u mi ge cinba lo pampe'o gi kansa ri lo ka pinxe fi makau
18:46 < durka42> wait
18:46 < durka42> actually I had it right the first time too
18:46 < durka42> I filled both x1 and x2 before the {ge}, so the {lo ka…} is x3
18:47 < durka42> which is what I meant
18:48 < demize> Oh, yes, I read it as {lo mi pampe'o}... I'll blame it on being tired.
18:48 < demize> Sorry about that.
18:50 < durka42> ko na xenru
18:51 < demize> .ei .aunai mi ba sipna
18:51 < durka42> mi ji'a
18:51 < durka42> co'o
18:52 < demize> co'o
20:18 < afurrow> u'i besto
20:19 < voltz> Besto makes me crie
20:22 < ldlework> coi
20:24 < ldlework> doi voltz ko na klaku tu'a zo besto poi finti fi lo ka xajmi
22:51 < zipcpi> lol I tinker with English about as much as I do Lojban, but English has no BPFK for me to jai fanza :p
22:51 < zipcpi> Otherwise I'd be proposing new cmavo: andor, exor, ifof (pronouncable variant of iff)
22:53 < zipcpi> andor as one word to replace the common {and/or}. The latter has caused confusion on Tatoeba; the guy thought I was literally meaning "either "and" or "or" is acceptable here"
22:54 < Regex> that is quite a mind fuck
22:54 < zipcpi> lol Perhaps :p
22:55 < zipcpi> I don't intend for them to replace the common English words though. Just give the additional clarity when it is necessary.
22:59 < zipcpi> I used "iff" a lot when teaching mathematics to some online friends; they had to ask me what it means X3
23:01 < zipcpi> I might even try to push an entire spelilng reform proposal too, but I think that has even less chance to succeed :p
23:03 < zipcpi> za'a mi ja'a bauspo ckaji
23:06 < hndcchdd> hi
23:06 < hndcchdd> hola
23:07 < hndcchdd> i don't speak lojban
23:07 < hndcchdd> just english and spanish
23:07 < zipcpi> Spivak pronouns too; I don't associate myself with the political movements commonly associated with gender-neutral pronouns; but I *hate* "he/she" for aesthetic reasons. "Singular they" probably isn't so bad though, even though it is a potential source of numeric confusion
23:08 < zipcpi> fi'i (Welcome)
23:08 < hndcchdd> hi
23:08 < hndcchdd> why?
23:08 < zipcpi> I was just talking about all the changes I'd do to English if I could
23:08 < hndcchdd> how many languages do you speak?
23:09 < zipcpi> English mostly. Some Mandarin Chinese, Cantonese, and Malay; though I'm not as fluent in them as I once was. Can read and write Lojban given time
23:09 < zipcpi> Won't call myself fluent in Lojban yet
23:10 < zipcpi> Still too many words to look up
23:10 < hndcchdd> Are you from china?
23:10 < zipcpi> I'm from Malaysia
23:11 < hndcchdd> I speak Spanish and English, Spanish is my native language
23:11 < hndcchdd> I'm latinamerican
23:11 < zipcpi> je'e (understood/ I see)
23:11 < hndcchdd> I wanna learn Mandarin
23:12 < zipcpi> ni3 hao3
23:12 < gleki> ni'au
23:13 < hndcchdd> i don't speak it yet
23:13 < gleki> xenxau zo'o
23:13 < hndcchdd> ok
23:13 < hndcchdd> Hola
23:13 < zipcpi> coi
23:13 < hndcchdd> no les entiendo
23:14 < zipcpi> Selamat sejahtera
23:14 < gleki> to u'i la niftyg pu cusku lu ai mi zasni sipna li'u toi
23:14 < hndcchdd> what is Selamat sejahtera?
23:14 < gleki> i o'u na vitno sipna
23:15 < hndcchdd> in which language is that?
23:15 < zipcpi> Malay greeting... time agnostic; but not often used; usually the time-sensitive one is
23:15 < gleki> selamat = thanks?
23:16 < hndcchdd> Is mandarin difficult?
23:16 < zipcpi> Selamat I think is a generic well-wish
23:16 < zipcpi> A mutation of "salam"
23:17 < zipcpi> They also have two variants of goodbye/co'o
23:17 < hndcchdd> can you read the chinese characters?
23:17 < zipcpi> I can read them
23:18 < zipcpi> Gleki: here: http://www.digitaldialects.com/Malay/Phrases.htm
23:18 < gleki> anji: ko tcidu lo jungo
23:18 < mensi> 你吧 讀 者 華
23:19 < hndcchdd> it is difficult to learn the chinese writing system?
23:19 < zipcpi> Selamat tinggal ~ co'o di'ai se cliva; Selamat jalan ~ co'o di'ai cliva; can also be co'o di'ai litru
23:20  * gleki in three months after that zipcpi presented a Lojban/Malay phrasebook
23:20 < zipcpi> It can be; you have to practice writing the characters a lot.
23:21 < hndcchdd> just writing?
23:21 < zipcpi> A common exercise in Chinese schools is just writing the characters over and over again
23:22 < zipcpi> Because the form is very important
23:22 < hndcchdd> my god
23:24 < hndcchdd> how did you learned mandarin?
23:24 < zipcpi> I went to a Chinese school
23:24 < zipcpi> For about four years
23:24 < hndcchdd> what about the average person
23:25 < zipcpi> {co'o di'ai stali} for Selamat tinggal rather
23:25 < hndcchdd> i know a Word in malay
23:26 < hndcchdd> Orang
23:26 < zipcpi> I can't tell you what it's like to learn Mandarin as a second language
23:26 < zipcpi> "person/human"
23:26 < hndcchdd> Like A clockwork orange
23:26 < zipcpi> lol
23:26 < hndcchdd> or Orangutan
23:27 < zipcpi> Orangutan comes from the idiomatic phrase "orang hutan" = "man of the jungle"
23:27 < hndcchdd> i knew it was something like that
23:28 < hndcchdd> is malay a cool language?
23:28 < zipcpi> It has its own beauty
23:29 < hndcchdd> it is influential?
23:29 < zipcpi> Not as much as English or Mandarin probably. But learn Malay, and you can understand Indonesian as well, and vice versa
23:30 < hndcchdd> is the writing system of malay arabic?
23:31 < zipcpi> It used to be, but they reformed it into Latin
23:31 < zipcpi> Which I was using
23:31 < hndcchdd> ah
23:31 < hndcchdd> why did you learned cantonese?
23:32 < zipcpi> I've taught myself to decode some Arabic characters, but I'm not exactly reliable at it
23:32 < zipcpi> Cantonese; just from what little exposure I have from my relatives
23:32 < hndcchdd> oh
23:33 < zipcpi> I'm not exactly fluent at it; just enough to hold a conversation with street vendors
23:33 < hndcchdd> Is Cantonese influential?
23:33 < zipcpi> It is common here in Malaysia
23:34 < zipcpi> Cantonese is also the official language of Hong Kong
23:34 < hndcchdd> i know and Mister Chang lives there
23:37 < hndcchdd> what's the influence of mandarin?
23:37 < zipcpi> gleki: Actually now I think of it there are actually two phrasebooks possible. One is from natlang to "natural" Lojban; in that case both "Selamat tinggal" and "Selamat jalan" would be rammed into {co'o}. Another is to use Lojban to illuminate the subtle differences in natlang constructions
23:40 < hndcchdd> what's the influence of mandarin in the world?
23:40 < zipcpi> China is *very* populous; so its the second-language of choice for people looking to expand their audience, especially for business purposes
23:40 < hndcchdd> but
23:41 < hndcchdd> can replace english?
23:41 < zipcpi> I don't know if it can. My crystal ball is broken :p
23:41 < hndcchdd> at least in asia
23:42 < zipcpi> English speakers are also a very wide audience
23:43 < hndcchdd> which languages would you like to learn zipcpi?
23:44 < zipcpi> I don't know yet. Perhaps I should just focus on regaining Chinese and Malay vocab
23:45 < hndcchdd> what about french?
23:45 < zipcpi> I remember some scattered words of other languages like French and German :p
23:45 < zipcpi> And Spanish
23:46 < zipcpi> Can't hold any conversation in them though
23:46 < hndcchdd> what brings to lojban?
23:46 < hndcchdd> are u a linguist?
23:47 < zipcpi> Only an amateur one; I find languages interesting; but I'm trained in computer science
23:47 < hndcchdd> ah
23:47 < hndcchdd> where do u live?
23:47 < zipcpi> Malaysia
23:48 < hndcchdd> cool
23:49 < hndcchdd> would u teach lojban to your kids?
23:52 < zipcpi> Maybe, if there's enough interest :p Won't speak it to them exclusively though like that guy who tried to do that with Klingon
23:53 < hndcchdd> but i mean
23:53 < hndcchdd> lojban
23:53 < hndcchdd> was created to think different
23:54 < zipcpi> I don't believe in extreme Sapir-Whorfism, but I think it has some interesting value. For example, like how "if" is encoded using the logical form ~P V Q
23:55 < zipcpi> And how predicate logic is quite similar to object-oriented programming
23:56 < hndcchdd> Esperanto
23:57 < zipcpi> I don't know Esperanto. A couple others do though
23:57 < zipcpi> *others here
--- Day changed Wed Jun 10 2015
00:00 < hndcchdd> why lojban?
00:01 < zipcpi> Because its grammar is unique, and thinking about how to render things in Lojban often forces you to think of what you *really* mean to say
00:02 < hndcchdd> really?
00:02 < zipcpi> Lojban words often have very specific and literal meanings
00:03 < zipcpi> Take for example, the English word "see"
00:03 < zipcpi> In the dictionary it is split into three main definitions
00:03 < zipcpi> "perceive with the eyes; discern visually." -> {viska}
00:04 < zipcpi> "discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand." -> {jimpe}
00:04 < zipcpi> "meet (someone one knows) socially or by chance." -> {penmi}
00:04 < gleki> mi parolas esperanton
00:05 < zipcpi> The second and third senses grew out of metaphoric senses of the English word "see", but in Lojban it is encouraged to use the right word for the right job
00:06 < hndcchdd> what about poetry?
00:06 < zipcpi> Poetry is still possible
00:06 < zipcpi> There is a word in Lojban explicitly used to mark a word as having a metaphoric sense, {pe'a}. One can assume that a poem is wrapped in it
00:07 < zipcpi> It's also possible to make poetic logical connections even without being explicitly metaphorical
00:07 < zipcpi> For example, I translated part of "Do you hear the people sing"
00:09 < zipcpi> "If the beating of your heart matches the beating of the drums, there is a life about tol start when tomorrow comes" -> {ganai lo do risna cu simsa loi damri lo rilti gi baku cfari fa lo cnino nu lifri}
00:09 < zipcpi> {risna} still refers to a literal heart
00:11 < hndcchdd> is there any literature in this lojban language?
00:11 < zipcpi> There are translations of "Alice in Wonderland", and "Where the Wild things Are"
00:11 < zipcpi> And some others I probably forgot
00:11 < hndcchdd> how can u translate it?
00:12 < zipcpi> I'm not the one who translated those
00:12 < hndcchdd> but
00:12 < hndcchdd> i mean the meaning
00:13 < zipcpi> Meaning of what?
00:13 < hndcchdd> if the lnaguages are so different
00:13 < hndcchdd> languages
00:13 < zipcpi> Lojban has its own ways of adding "flavor" to words. For example the attitudinals
00:15 < zipcpi> They are essentially modular interjections. e.g. {ui} is a generic exclamation of happiness
00:15 < zipcpi> But they can also be modified
00:16 < zipcpi> {uisai} is stronger happiness
00:16 < zipcpi> {uiru'e} is weaker
00:16 < zipcpi> And you can even attach them to specific words to indicate how you feel about a particular object or situation.
00:17 < zipcpi> Indeed, some use of attitudinals would be extremely difficult to translate into standard English; without a bunch of non-standard-isms such as emoticons or scare-quotes
00:19 < hndcchdd> i am not a computer guy
00:19 < zipcpi> You don't need to be one to understand what I just said
00:23 < hndcchdd> ok
00:26 < hndcchdd> i gotta go
00:26 < zipcpi> See ya
00:26 < zipcpi> co'o
00:26 < hndcchdd> i never gonna see you again
00:26 < hndcchdd> but it was fun
00:28 < zipcpi> Well, good luck
00:32  * zipcpi shrugs
00:36 < zipcpi> xu mi du'eva'e terpa jai mukti
00:37 < zipcpi> jai seltepka'e
00:39 < zipcpi> su'a lo'e remna du'eva'e lazni lo ka jimpe lo jbobau i'au zo'oru'e
01:19 < gleki> exp: li ny pa cu mo
01:19 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
01:19 < gleki> exp: li ny cu mo
01:19 < mensi> ([li {ny BOI} LOhO] [cu {mo VAU}])
01:19 < gleki> exp: li ny xi pa cu mo
01:19 < mensi> ([li {ny BOI <xi (¹pa BOI¹)>} LOhO] [cu {mo VAU}])
01:19 < gleki> okay then
01:19 < gleki> it's all a convention anyway
01:25 < gleki> CC updated to include this {de'i li cy xi pa}
01:27  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Gleki - /* Lesson 6. Time, space, situation */ [http://bit.ly/1Grdb3h]
01:30 < ctefaho> ki'ai cerni
01:30 < gleki> ki'ai
01:31 < ctefaho> .u'isaidai
01:32 < niftg> cmoni krixa
01:34 < Ilmen|2> coi
01:35 < ctefaho> coi la .ilmen.
01:37 < gleki> exp: li cy bu pa
01:37 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
01:37 < gleki> exp: li cy re pa bu
01:37 < mensi> ([{li <cy BOI> LOhO} {re BOI} {pa bu} BOI] VAU)
01:37 < gleki> exp: li cy re pa bu za'u re'u mo
01:37 < mensi> ([{li <cy BOI> LOhO} {re BOI} {pa bu} BOI] [CU {<za'u re'u> mo} VAU])
01:37 < gleki> xm
01:44 < gleki> ma xamgu zmadu
02:04 < ctefaho> ok, so I am trying to understand how it makes sense to have .a'u and .a'unai on the same scale, it feels a bit weird
02:05 < ctefaho> /having Interest and Disgust as opposites of each other
02:05 < Ilmen> .u'i
02:06 < Ilmen> en: rigni
02:06 < mensi> rigni = x1 is repugnant to/causes disgust to x2 under conditions x3. |>>> See also djica, nelci, trina, vamtu, xebni,
02:06 < mensi> pluka. |>>> officialdata
02:07 < Ilmen> en: trina
02:07 < mensi> trina = x1 attracts/appeals to/lures x2 (person/event) with property/quality x3 (ka). |>>> Also: x1 is alluring to x2.
02:07 < mensi> See also djica, nelci, rigni, xlura, maksi. |>>> officialdata
02:07 < ctefaho> well that would makem more sense, but the bpfk section describes .a'u as cinri
02:07 < gleki> what is better, {de'i li cy xi pa} or {de'i li cy pabu}?
02:07 < ctefaho> /se cinri
02:08 < gleki> en: a'u
02:08 < mensi> a'u = [UI1] attitudinal: interest - disinterest - repulsion. |>>> See also cinri, selcni. |>>>
02:08 < Ilmen> Yes, {.a'u} is from cinri
02:08 < mensi> officialdata
02:08 < gleki> where is disgust here?
02:08 < Ilmen> jbo: cinri
02:08 < gleki> en: iu
02:08 < mensi> cinri = x1 ralte lo ka se jundi ja se kucli x2 |>>> ralte; jundi; kucli; manci; zdile |>>>
02:08 < mensi> xorxes
02:08 < mensi> iu = [UI1] attitudinal: love - no love lost - hatred. |>>> See also prami. |>>> officialdata
02:08 < gleki> en: disgust
02:08 < mensi> 3 da se tolcri: rigni, selrigni, oi'o
02:11 < ctefaho> well gleki I was looking at the bpfk section
02:12 < gleki> link?
02:12 < gleki> jb: a'u
02:12 < mensi> a'u = a'u [interjection] — Hmm... I wonder ... (interest), a'u cu'i — Ho-hum (disinterest), a'u nai — Eww! Yuck!
02:12 < mensi> (repulsion)
02:12 < mensi> :a'u ro jbopre cu stati prenu — Interesting, all Lojbanists are smart people.
02:12 < mensi> :a'u ma krinu — Hm, what is the reason?
02:12 < mensi> :a'u cu'i do ne ka'ai lo nanla cu se zdani — It's none of my business that you live with a boy.
02:12 < mensi> :a'u nai panci fa lo kalci — Yuck, that smells like shit!
02:12 < ctefaho> ".a.'unai - Used to express repulsion / aversion / disgust / distaste / repugnance." vs. ".a'u - Used to express interest / curiosity / concern / preoccupation. "
02:12 < mensi> :Related words: lo se cinri
02:12 < ctefaho> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Realis_Attitudinals#cmavo:_.a.27u_.28UI1.29
02:13 < gleki> i would use {iunairo'o} or something for that
02:14 < gleki> as for {rigni} those are .. idk why they are there. they not always represdent the underlying brivla
02:17 < ctefaho> it feels like the "repulsion/aversion (of interest)" makes sense for .a'unai, but the disgust part feels like...someone just crammed them in there
02:18 < ctefaho> but yeah even iunai is closer to "disgust"...
02:19 < gleki> that's why i wouldn't add BPFK definitions to jbovlaste. they need a lot of work.
02:20 < gleki> although, one may just rely on examples.
02:20 < ctefaho> well even the .a'u examples feel inconsistent
02:20 < ctefaho> {.a'u ma ba'o se lifri do } vs {.a'u nai ta panci simsa lo kalci }
02:21 < gleki> xm
02:21 < gleki> true
02:22  * ctefaho is writing a "first words a newborn lojbanist would learn" which is why this is bothering me:p
02:24 < dutchie> are there any parents bringing up children speaking lojban yet?
02:24 < ctefaho> newborn/baby
02:24 < ctefaho> dutchie, now we are asking the real questions
02:25 < ctefaho> would be extremely interesting to learn how any such attempt is going
02:25 < dutchie> ie
02:27 < Ilmen> dutchie: there are the two children of Robin Lee Powell
02:27 < gleki> Only Robin and Alaric Snell-Pym made attempts.
02:27 < Ilmen> and I think there is at least one other
02:28 < gleki> btw, what is the lojban for "argh"?
02:28 < gleki> .w argh
02:28 < phenny> argh — interjection: 1. (onomatopoeia) Expressing annoyance, dismay, embarrassment or frustration
02:32 < ctefaho> .oi zo'o
02:46  * ctefaho tried to eplain ".oidai" to his brother
02:46  * ctefaho failed
02:47 < Ilmen> fanza/nalfaudri/burna/steba
02:59 < niftg> do'a zo .oi roda banzu banzu
04:08 < zipcpi> za'a le gentufa no'u la zantufa jene la .guskant. ka'e drani sruma tu'a zo pe'o
04:09 < zipcpi> lu li joi'i ry re dy re li'u cu gendra ma'i zy
04:11 < zipcpi> ku'i mi za'o senpi tu'a lo nu pilno zo joi'i va'o
04:21 < gleki> la mex ku pe la guskant cu banzu frica
04:24 < niftg> ta'o la mensi cu se zdani mapoi kibyse'u skami vau .a'uru'e
04:28 < niftg> ju'ocu'i bartu la jbogu'e
04:29 < gleki> la[3~e mensi cu xabju la vrici
04:29 < gleki> sa
04:30 < gleki> i la mensi cu xabju la vrici
04:31 < zipcpi> xu lo smacu cu gunta nerkla lo do lercu'aca'a i'au zo'o
04:33 < niftg> .ua la vrici cu nenri le me la jbogu'e
04:34 < niftg> .i si'a lo mlatu ku ji'a ka'e jersi nerkla lo lercu'aca'a tezu'e lo nu kavbu le bi'unai smacu
04:36 < zipcpi> u'i
05:05 < zipcpi> So yeah, if I made those phrasebooks it might be worth having two fields for Lojban: a "natural translation", and an... "amplified translation"? "illuminative translation"?
05:06 < zipcpi> "natural translation" would be more helpful for those who speak those languages trying to learn Lojban, but the amplified version would be helpful for Lojbanists trying to learn about those languages, or who are looking to pepper their speech
05:07 < zipcpi> Might also include explanation of idioms
05:09  * nuzba @Sir0Boundless: I liked a @YouTube video http://youtu.be/sLeJaaMew64?a MA ZERFÙ'E ~ nùrma nu càtra ~ A Lojban Crime-Solving Story [PILOT] [http://bit.ly/1cLswj8]
05:09  * nuzba @Sir0Boundless: I added a video to a @YouTube playlist http://youtu.be/sLeJaaMew64?a MA ZERFÙ'E ~ nùrma nu càtra ~ A Lojban Crime-Solving Story [PILOT] [http://bit.ly/1cLsxDy]
05:09 < zipcpi> mo
05:17 < gleki> i'e
05:25 < ctefaho> hmm, I am wondering how zo taske relates to zo xagji, is taske considered a form of xagji?
05:25 < gleki> looks like
05:26 < gleki> although lojbab might say once again that xagji:taske::citka:pinxe
05:26 < gleki> since he e.g. said that {cifnu} is not necessarily an infant
05:26 < zipcpi> wat
05:27 < ctefaho> well, if xagji is fixed by citka and taske by pinxe..
05:27 < zipcpi> Is he, like, the only one who thinks that sticking with the "helpless" definition is helpful? :p
05:28 < ctefaho> well, maybe one should focus more on the actual desire than how to fix it
05:28 < gleki> en: cifnu
05:28 < mensi> cifnu = x1 is an infant/baby [helpless through youth/incomplete development] of species x2. |>>> Also infantile.  See
05:28 < mensi> also makcu, verba. |>>> officialdata
05:28 < gleki> if three times the def. repeats "infant, helpless,infantile" then what else can one think? but he said cifnu is not limited to them
05:29 < ctefaho> that's a weird definition
05:29 < zipcpi> lo skami poi cifnu vau ki'a zo'oru'e
05:29  * ctefaho sticks with thinking of it is baby
05:29 < ctefaho> as*
05:30 < gleki> so i only had to propose changing that def. and i added
05:30 < gleki> en: altrici
05:30 < mensi> altrici = x1 is altricial, requires nourishment, a baby, infant |>>> organism soon after hatching or being born at such
05:30 < mensi> stage of development when it is incapable of moving around on its own. See also prekoci, verba, makcu |>>>
05:30 < mensi> gleki
05:30 < ctefaho> or we think of cifnu as baby
05:30 < zipcpi> lo'e cifnu be lo remna cu altrici
05:31 < ctefaho> problem solved xo'o
05:31 < zipcpi> Well that's what we're trying to do, so that it makes sense to talk about lo xirma poi cifnu
05:31 < gleki> lo cifnu be lo remna be'o poi ze'i jmive cu altrici
05:31 < ctefaho> considering what words cifnu was created from
05:32 < ctefaho> "Infant" is what it should mean
05:32 < ctefaho> something else is just metaphorical
05:32 < gleki> .w infant
05:32 < phenny> infant — noun: 1. A very young human being, from birth to somewhere between six months and two years of age, needing almost constant care and/or attention, 2. (law) A minor — verb: 1. (obsolete) To bear or bring forth (a child); to produce, in general
05:32 < zipcpi> Because including helplessness/altricity into the definition only makes it impossible to talk about "babies" in general
05:32 < ctefaho> .w infantile
05:32 < phenny> infantile — adjective: 1. Pertaining to infants, 2. Childish; immature
05:33 < ctefaho> but being an actual infant but being like an infant is kinda different...
05:33 < zipcpi> As I've sometimes pointed out, it's like taxonomists trying to make "bug" mean "Hemiptera"
05:34 < ctefaho> and being like an*
05:34  * ctefaho sticks with cifnu in his First Words se finti
05:35 < zipcpi> Making it impossible to refer to an unidentified "bug" that you don't even know whether it is an insect or a spider
05:35 < gleki> so now it doesnt matter since nobody supported my understanding of cifnu as "altricial"
05:36 < ctefaho> well altrici still seems more specific somehow
05:36 < zipcpi> I say according to the original definition, you are right, gleki, but the original definition is unhelpful
05:37 < zipcpi> Because then it impossible to speak of very young living things in general
05:37 < Ilmen> exp: .altriki
05:37 < mensi> (CU [altriki VAU])
05:38 < zipcpi> And that deserves a gismu better than "altricity" does
05:38 < ctefaho> let's just agree altrici means something more specific and we can all be happy iepei
05:38 < mensi> ei mi tugni
05:39 < Ilmen> ci'otce is also an option for "very young"
05:40  * ctefaho co'e other stuffs co'o
05:40 < Ilmen> co'o co'e
05:40 < Ilmen> .i .ai mi co'e si'a
05:40 < zipcpi> Yeah but why render yet another gismu to the trashheap of tirxu/jukni?
05:41 < Ilmen> jbo: cifnu
05:41 < mensi> cifnu = x1 mutce lo ka citno kei gi'e cmima x2 noi jutsi |>>> mutce; citno; cmima; jutsi; verba; makcu |>>>
05:41 < mensi> xorxes
05:41 < zipcpi> And we probably not gonna use ci'otceda'u or ci'otceji'e
05:42 < Ilmen> Sure, those are tosmabru
05:42 < zipcpi> Oops
05:42 < Ilmen> so we aren't gonna use them :)
05:42 < zipcpi> u'i
05:44 < Ilmen> As for me I'll rely on the current jbo-definition and usage; I'll only complain if I notice polysemous usage
05:44 < Ilmen> :p
05:44 < zipcpi> Yeah the jbo-definition seems fine lol
05:45 < zipcpi> Burn the gi'uste and the ma'oste
05:46 < zipcpi> Though I still don't know what {do'a} means :p
05:46 < Ilmen> I don't care much about the gismu/lujvo/zi'evla distinction
05:46 < Ilmen> {.altriki} is probably a fine word for altricity
05:46 < demize> jbo: do'a
05:46 < mensi> do'a = [UI3] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri mutce ja traji fi le ka zmadu |>>> mutce; traji |>>>
05:46 < mensi> xorxes
05:47 < zipcpi> la gleki already defined it as {altrici}
05:47 < zipcpi> With {prekoci} as the antonym
05:49 < zipcpi> Yes, {do'a} is defined in terms of {le ka zmadu}, but it doesn't say {zmadu makau makau}
05:50 < Ilmen> en: do'a
05:50 < mensi> do'a = [UI3] discursive: generously - parsimoniously. |>>> See also dunda. |>>> officialdata
05:51 < gleki> jbo: cifnu
05:51 < mensi> cifnu = x1 mutce lo ka citno kei gi'e cmima x2 noi jutsi |>>> mutce; citno; cmima; jutsi; verba; makcu |>>>
05:51 < mensi> xorxes
05:51 < Ilmen> At least I assume it' not synonyous with ba'u
05:51 < Ilmen> maybe "sei barda cusku"  ju'o nai sai
05:51 < zipcpi> 2. free from meanness or smallness of mind or character; magnanimous.
05:51 < zipcpi> I think that's the best definition for our purposes
05:52 < zipcpi> So I think it's something regarding {lo ka xendo je na'e satci}
05:53 < niftg> pe'adai me'oi parsimoniousy
05:54 < demize> zipcpi: That sounds much better, yes.
05:54 < zipcpi> When we say "Speaking generously,", that's what we typically mean; we've chosen words to be more sensitive to others' feelings, even if it may not be exactly correct.
05:54 < gleki> jb: do'a
05:54 < mensi> do'a = do'a [interjection] — generously, broadly construed, do'a nai — at least (parsimoniously)
05:54 < mensi> :do'a mi do ka'e ctuca lo se jmina — I could teach you some additional things.
05:54 < mensi> :do'a nai do no da zekri lebna — At least you didn't steal anything.
05:54 < mensi> :a'o mi te dunda lo kargu karce a ke do'a nai lo karce poi na spofu — Hopefully, I'll be given an expensive car or at
05:54 < mensi> least one that isn't broken.
05:54 < mensi> :Related words: dunda
05:55 < gleki> zo dunda uanai
05:56 < zipcpi> It's a malglixlu etymology, like {pe'i} :p
05:58 < gleki> how is do'a related to dunda?
05:58 < zipcpi> Like I said, malglixlu etymology
05:58 < demize> "generous" as in "giving people things"
05:59 < zipcpi> When it's better related to {xendo} than {dunda}
05:59 < zipcpi> Just like {pe'i} is better related to {jinvi} than {pensi}
06:00 < gleki> where is etymology here? dunda doesnt sound like do'a
06:00 < zipcpi> Some cmavo are "shifted"
06:00 < zipcpi> As there isn't exactly a lot of space :p
06:01 < gleki> en: du'a
06:01 < mensi> du'a = [FAhA1] location tense relation/direction; east of. |>>> officialdata
06:02 < gleki> zo du'a zvati du'a zo do'a
06:02 < gleki> i sa'e va'o lo vlaste zo du'a zvati du'a zo do'a
06:03 < zipcpi> zo do'a cu cnima'o gi'e sinxa lo du'u le vlaselcu'a cu ckaji lo ka xendo je no'e satci
06:04 < niftg> ji'a ki'u la'eda'u su'o cmavo ka'e pu se krasi lo malglixlu si'au valsi
06:04 < zipcpi> lu do'anai li'u cnima'o gi'e sinxa lo du'u le vlaselcu'a cu ckaji lo ka satci je no'e xendo
06:04 < zipcpi> pei
06:05 < gleki> jbo: do'a
06:05 < mensi> do'a = [UI3] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri mutce ja traji fi le ka zmadu |>>> mutce; traji |>>>
06:05 < mensi> xorxes
06:05 < gleki> zo xendo na srana pe'i
06:05 < gleki> i ku'i simsa zo ba'u e zo su'a
06:05 < zipcpi> It's the best and most useful interpretation of the English discursive "Generously speaking..."
06:06 < zipcpi> pe'i
06:06 < gleki> en: do'a
06:06 < demize> (I have never heard anyone used that, to be honest.)
06:06 < mensi> do'a = [UI3] discursive: generously - parsimoniously. |>>> See also dunda. |>>> officialdata
06:06 < gleki> en: ra'u
06:06 < mensi> ra'u = [UI3] discursive: chiefly - equally - incidentally. |>>> See also ralju, vajni. |>>>
06:06 < mensi> officialdata
06:08 < niftg> mi so'oroi pilno zo do'a
06:08 < zipcpi> doi niftyg pe'ipei le mi velcki cu plixau je satci
06:09 < gleki> verbs are now included although they are prefixed with "to " http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-04 This will be fixed in future
06:09 < niftg> mi no'e ju'onmo tu'a zo xendo
06:09 < zipcpi> zo ju'onmo na se jbovlaste .i xu co'e zo birti
06:10 < niftg> .ie .i zasni zbasu valsi
06:10 < zipcpi> mi na jimpe tu'a le ponbau velcki
06:11 < niftg> .ai zasni fanva
06:11 < niftg> ja:do'a
06:11 < mensi> do'a = [UI3] 広義 （ do'a 広義 - do'anai 狭義）
06:12 < niftg> .uinai tordu velckijufra
06:12 < zipcpi> si'a le glibau velcki ku ji'a tordu
06:13 < zipcpi> po'o zo'oi generously
06:13 < niftg> .i'a .i zo'oi 広義 zilfanva fo lu ganra smuni li'u pe'aru'e
06:14 < zipcpi> xyyyy'y
06:14 < niftg> lo ponbau velcki zo'u lo jmina notci cu banzu bralai
06:15 < zipcpi> lo ka ganra pe'a cu ka no'e satci i'au pe'i
06:15 < niftg> pe'iru'e lo ka satci na srana
06:16 < niftg> curmi du'e nu smuni vau pei
06:17 < niftg> ku'i .ua lu do'anai li'u je'a ba'a srana lo ka satci
06:18 < zipcpi> ie .iku'i mi na krilacri tu'a le na'e glibau velcki .i na satci fanva ri'a lo nu le glibau velcki cu mabla lo ka tordu
06:19 < niftg> ka'e
06:21  * nuzba @bripre: za'a la zantufa_0.1 cu co'a gubni .i ma'a ko'oi zanfri tu'a zy .i zoi zoi #lojban http://guskant.github.io/gerna_cipra/zantufa-0.1.html zoi [http://bit.ly/1FIOBqE]
06:21 < niftg> ta'o ba'anai lo clani zmadu velcki bebau lo glico cu se zvafa'i bu'u la xuncku .i ku'i la'a na banzu
06:21 < zipcpi> ganai da'i da djica lo cnima'o poi sinxa lo du'u na'e satci kei po'o, gi da ka'e pilno lu sa'enai li'u
06:22 < gleki> loglan: generous
06:22 < mensi> 2 da se tolcri: donflo, rarclu
06:22 < zipcpi> pe'i zo'e pe lo ka xendo cu zmadu plixau
06:23 < gleki> laadan: generous
06:23 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
06:23 < gleki> laadan: broadly
06:23 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
06:23 < zipcpi> Does laadan even group "attitudinals" with "discursives"?
06:24 < gleki> idk
06:24 < gleki> so broadly construed is like moving from klesi1 to klesi2
06:25 < zipcpi> I don't think we need a "broadly" discursive. That's {sa'enai}
06:26 < gleki> maybe
06:26 < gleki> i can remove{do'a} from my dict. btw :P
06:26 < zipcpi> lol
06:26 < zipcpi> What is it currently defined as?
06:27 < gleki> havent you seen
06:27 < gleki> jb: do'a
06:27 < mensi> do'a = do'a [interjection] — generously, broadly construed, do'a nai — at least (parsimoniously)
06:27 < mensi> :do'a mi do ka'e ctuca lo se jmina — I could teach you some additional things.
06:27 < mensi> :do'a nai do no da zekri lebna — At least you didn't steal anything.
06:27 < mensi> :a'o mi te dunda lo kargu karce a ke do'a nai lo karce poi na spofu — Hopefully, I'll be given an expensive car or at
06:27 < mensi> least one that isn't broken.
06:27 < mensi> :Related words: dunda
06:28 < gleki> *at least* i can remove {dunda}
06:28 < zipcpi> I've not read through your entire La Bangu dictionary... I probably need a flashcard system :p
06:29 < gleki> if you find errors there immediately report ... pleeease ...
06:29 < zipcpi> vi'o
06:30 < gleki> but as for flashcard im not sure whether we need them. remember what? dictionary entries?
06:30 < gleki> or examples?
06:30 < gleki> anyway it's in public domain so, do cuxna
06:31 < zipcpi> So I think do'a is more useful as {sa'enai} + {xendo ze'ei ui}
06:32 < zipcpi> Not so much need them; I'm not exactly fond of rote memorization either. But just to browse through them semi-randomly
06:32 < zipcpi> Cause my vocab is still weak
06:33 < niftg> za'a zo do'a zo'u su'o mupli jufra cu simsa zo'ei zo ba'u .ije su'o co'e cu co'e lu sa'enai li'u
06:36 < zipcpi> CyLyLy ji'a pilno zoizoi broadly construed zoi joi zoizoi narrowly construed zoi
06:36 < zipcpi> exp: zoi gy energy gy
06:36 < mensi> ([zoi gy gy] VAU)
06:36 < zipcpi> I'm glad they fixed that
06:37 < zipcpi> Pretty dumb. We normally put pauses in zoi quotes anyway.
06:39 < zipcpi> zo pa'e ji'a nitcu lo ka se cikre i'au pe'i
06:40 < niftg> mi pu smadi lodu'u tanoi mupli jufra jene zo do'a cu sekrasi bypyfyky kei noi la'a na fatci
06:41 < gleki> .w at least
06:41 < phenny> Couldn't get any definitions for at least.
06:41 < gleki> .w at_least
06:41 < phenny> Couldn't get any definitions for at_least.
06:41 < gleki> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/at_least
06:41 < gleki> In any event; anyway.
06:45 < zipcpi> xu zo cipnrmo'a xamgu valsi tu'a zo'oi <moa> .i lo cipnmo'a mo'ava'e cipni ni'i lo du'u na ka'e vofli i'au zo'o
06:46 < gleki> en:cpik
06:46 < mensi> 2 da se tolcri: cpikakadu, cpikuku
06:46 < niftg> la'a lo zipcpi ji'a cu go'i
06:46 < zipcpi> u'i
06:46 < niftg> do'a lo zipcpi ka'e vofli lo djacu
06:47 < zipcpi> ie
06:50 < niftg> zoi gy at least gy jai cfipu gi'a jai tcica vauvaula'a
06:55 < gleki> .i lo xendo jbopre cu cusku fi lo se ctuca fe lu do'a mi do ka'e ctuca lo se jmina li'u noi lo glico xe fanva cu du zoi gy. I could teach you some additional things .gy .i lo cusku cu me'oi generous (to mi lazni toi) ni'o dei lu do'a nai li'u srana .i plixau mutce .i mi so'i roi pilno .i mu'a lu do'a nai do no da zerle'a li'u .i panra zoi gy. At least you didn't steal anything .gy .i se jmina ke mupli jufra 
06:55 < gleki> fa lu .a'o mi te dunda lo kargu karce ja do'a nai lo karce poi na spofu .i panra zoi gy. Hopefully, I'll be given an expensive car or at least one that isn't broken .gy
06:56 < gleki> i di'u se cusku na'e bo mi
06:56 < niftg> zmitci xu
06:56 < gleki> pa lo jbopre pu cusku fi mi fe do'i
06:57 < zipcpi> ma dukti lo me'oi discursive po'u zoizoi at least zoi
06:58 < zipcpi> Idioms
06:58 < zipcpi> 6.
06:58 < zipcpi> at least,
06:58 < zipcpi> at the lowest estimate or figure:
06:58 < zipcpi> The repairs will cost at least $100.
06:58 < zipcpi> at any rate; in any case:
06:59 < zipcpi> You didn't get a good grade, but at least you passed the course.
06:59 < zipcpi> Also, at the least.
06:59 < zipcpi> pe'i ma'a djica le remoi smuni
07:01 < zipcpi> xu mi nitcu ciknygau pe'a lo mriste
07:01 < niftg> .ua do'i ne pa lo jbopre cu krasi le mupli jufra ne lo jb zei vlaste
07:01 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-04 - now verbs are sorted correctly. prefix "to" is made small
07:02 < gleki> "cost at least" is the first meaning of "at least"
07:02 < gleki> niftg: jetnu
07:02 < zipcpi> Yeah, but that's not we want for a discursive
07:02 < gleki> there are two meanings
07:02 < zipcpi> Yep
07:02 < gleki> {su'e} and "anyway"
07:04 < zipcpi> {su'o} is "at least" (or "some" when alone)
07:04 < zipcpi> As a number
07:04 < gleki> oops, yes
07:04 < zipcpi> We need the discursive
07:04 < zipcpi> And I don't know what the opposite should be
07:05 < zipcpi> {ri'e}?
07:06 < zipcpi> mu'a lu <ri'e do no da zerle'a> li'u
07:06 < zipcpi> mi na birti lo du'u banzu lo ka smudra i'au ku'i
07:07 < zipcpi> Hi Durka. We're talking about what should be done with "do'a" and the English discursive "at least", as in "at least you didn't steal anything"
07:07 < durka42> coi
07:07 < durka42> en: do'a
07:07 < mensi> do'a = [UI3] discursive: generously - parsimoniously. |>>> See also dunda. |>>> officialdata
07:08 < zipcpi> I just put in new jbobau definitions of do'a/do'anai
07:08 < durka42> mi pu jinvi lo du'u zo do'a srana loi valsi
07:08 < durka42> jbo: do'a
07:08 < zipcpi> But that might trample over some past usage
07:09 < durka42> mi na mulno jimpe .i zo satci zo xendo na duktysi'u
07:09 < durka42> si dukti
07:10 < mensi> do'a = [UI3] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri mutce ja traji fi le ka zmadu |>>> mutce; traji |>>>
07:10 < mensi> xorxes
07:10 < durka42> ma se cusku BPFK sei mi ca catlu
07:10 < zipcpi> Yes, but we're talking about how these attitudinal pairs are meant to be used
07:10 < zipcpi> do'a means you're sacrificing lo ka satci for lo ka xendo
07:10 < zipcpi> do'anai means the other way around
07:11 < zipcpi> They aren't necessarily opposites, but that's what the discursives mean, pe'i
07:11 < durka42> that's not really what "parsimonious" means
07:11 < durka42> parsimonious means stingy
07:11 < durka42> i.e. few words
07:11 < durka42> right?
07:11 < zipcpi> That's to'u
07:12 < durka42> oh you're right
07:12 < durka42> did you look at these BPFK examples?
07:12 < durka42> .i .y. do'a milxe plika'e
07:12 < durka42> Broadly construed, it's, uh, slightly useful.
07:12 < durka42> i ku'i so'e skami pilno cu milxe do'anai ke glico se bangu
07:12 < durka42> But most computer users know a little English.
07:12 < durka42> I think those match your definition actually
07:23 < zipcpi> I don't see how "broadly" and "narrowly" construed is different from {sa'enai}/{sa'e}
07:23 < durka42> it kinda seems like do'a _and_ do'anai imply sa'enai
07:23 < durka42> but they are specifying the "direction" of sa'enai-ness
07:25 < niftg> .uaru'e lo ponbau ke jmina notci pe zo do'a cu vasru lo ka'e xe fanva be zoi gy at most gy ka'ai zo'ei zoi gy at least gy
07:27 < niftg> pei lu do'a cu'i li'u zo'o ru'e
07:27 < ctefaho> is la krtisfranks here on irc?
07:28 < gleki> facebook, email is where u can reach him
07:28 < ctefaho> well I don't have him on facebook...
07:29 < niftg> xu na'ena'o tu'itsku
07:29 < ctefaho> he just proposed uau and I would like to discuss some similar ideas with him
07:30 < gleki> exp; uau
07:30 < gleki> exp: uau
07:30 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [oO] or [yY] but "a" found.
07:30 < gleki> exp: zo uau
07:30 < mensi> ([zo uau] VAU)
07:30 < durka42> he does twitter too
07:30 < durka42> but not IRC
07:31 < durka42> @lai_krtisfranks
07:33 < ctefaho> guess I need to register on twitter then
07:33 < durka42> or you can use the annoying JVS interface for commenting
07:33 < ctefaho> I kinda want to speak with him directly
07:42 < niftg> no'i .a'u si'o ma'i da lo ka satci na sarcu tu'a lu do'anai li'u
07:43 < durka42> si'au lo ka na satci cu sarcu
07:44 < niftg> ja'o simsa zo ba'u jo'u lu ba'unai li'u semau zo sa'e .a lu ba'ucu'i li'u
07:45 < gleki> au da cmavo ma'oi zo gi'e sitna lo mulno cnima'o noi lu uinai li'u mupli
07:46 < niftg> mi cnikansa
07:48 < niftg> cnima'o porsi sitna
07:58 < ctefaho> .u'isai
07:58 < ctefaho> my first and only twitter post
07:59 < ctefaho> "Checking out this new Twitter thingy"
08:00 < ctefaho> when twitter still was new
08:18 < Mateon1> Huh? what's u'isai? It's not in the dictionary
08:18 < ctefaho> .u'i + sai
08:19 < ctefaho> sai is "Strong (intensity)"
08:19 < ctefaho> ergo, strong-amusement
08:19 < Mateon1> Ah, alright.
08:20 < ctefaho> {.u'icai} would be similar to "LOL!!!"
08:20 < ctefaho> cai being "extreme" intensity
08:20 < Mateon1> Looking at the CAI group of words in the dictionary, I see that sai is moderate intensity. cai is strong.
08:21 < ctefaho> ah, that is outdated
08:21 < ctefaho> sai is strong and cai is extreme
08:21 < ctefaho> ru'e is weak
08:21 < ctefaho> and just a "UI" is moderate intensity (which can be expressed explicitly with "na'oi", but is not required)
08:23 < Mateon1> If I said .ie to your ru'e message, would it (weakly) imply that it matches the dictionary I mention?
08:23 < quintus> Is there a process by which "experimental cmavo" like {na'oi} are integrated into the "official" list? How does the experimental process work?
08:24 < ctefaho> quintus: Well if you mean adopted by the BPFK then that is up to them. You are free to use experimential cmavo if you want to though
08:24 <@xalbo> zipcpi: durka42: I had thought of {do'a} being related to {ba'u}. That is, you'd have a scale of ba'u - do'a - sa'e - do'a nai - ba'u nai. Or something like that.
08:24 < ctefaho> Mateon1: you mean if you said "ieru'e"/"ie ru'e"??
08:25 < Mateon1> No, just ".ie". Agreeing to your "ru'e" message
08:25 < ctefaho> uhm
08:26 < ctefaho> your "ie" will only be weak if you yourself say "ieru'e", it doesn't "get" my ru'e if that is what you are asking??
08:27 < quintus> ctefaho: If let's say the BPFK adopted an experimental cmavo, would that cmavo change its form? Would it be assigned to one of the unassigned cmavo? http://mw.lojban.org/papri/unassigned_cmavo
08:28 < Mateon1> No, I mean, if I agreed to "ru'e is weak", wanting to say that indeed it is defined as that in my dictionary, would it be correct/understood?
08:29 < quintus> My only experience/understanding of the experimental system is that all the ones I've seen are of the form XX'XX, and that vlasisku says "experimental" sometimes when I look words up.
08:29 < quintus> s/words/cmavo
08:30 <@xalbo> quintus: BPFK can pretty much do what it wants, as far as that's concerned. It probably depends on how much use the existing (experimental) form has seen, and how well it fits.
08:30 < ctefaho> quintus: No, it keeps its form. There is nothing "wrong" with the experimential cmavo form. In fact "ja'ai" which is similar to my "na'oi" has been adopted and it has stayed exactly the same
08:31 < ctefaho> + what xalbo says
08:32 < ctefaho> Mateon1: ah ok
08:32 < ctefaho> yes, "ru'e" is weak-intensity
08:32 < demize> BPFK are our BDFL, except that the members aren't necessarily for life.
08:32 < ctefaho> na'oi is medium (the "default" intensity), sai is strong, cai is extreme
08:33 < ctefaho> nai is "opposite" and cu'i is "in-between"
08:33 < ctefaho> and you can put ru'e/etc after nai or cu'i
08:34 < demize> "medium" makes it sound a lot like cu'i
08:34 < ctefaho> "uinaicai" - "Extreme Unhappiness!"
08:34 < ctefaho> demize: well moderate then
08:34 < quintus> ctefaho: .a'u and I wasn't trying to imply that there's anything "wrong" with the experimental form, just that it screams EXPERIMENTAL by its XX'XX form. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the policy of "reserving" the XX'XX for experimental cmavo.
08:34 < ctefaho> well, it is more that new cmavo (that weren't included in the language from the beginning) should have that form
08:35 < quintus> aha, that's much clearer
08:35 < quintus> .ua I should say
08:35 < ctefaho> you also don't need to put a "." before ua :)
08:35 < ctefaho> even though some/most documentation does that
08:36 < zipcpi> xalbo: Why do you need a scale? You have {ru'e}
08:36 < ctefaho> none of the iV and uV actually need a "." in front of them
08:37 < ctefaho> ai/ei/oi/au do however
08:37 < zipcpi> And I caught myself using "general you" again :p
08:37 < ctefaho> .ai/.ei/.oi/.au do however*
08:38 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Completely different sort of thing. I mean for things like {tu mitre li ci ba'u} (He's 3 meters tall, but I'm exaggerating), {tu mitre li re do'a} (He's two meters tall, if I'm being generous), etc.
08:38 < ctefaho> but you also don't really have to write out the dots in most cases, but as a beginner I think it is a good idea to always write them out when required
08:38 < ctefaho> you always have to put them there in actual speech, anyway
08:39 < zipcpi> That's {xendo je no'e satci}, I believne
08:39 < ctefaho> but I have to go co'o now
08:39 < ctefaho> and do some co'e
08:39 < ctefaho> so coinai ;)
08:39 <@xalbo> doi
08:40 < zipcpi> I mean think if you're describing something considered bad instead of good
08:40 < zipcpi> The scales would flip
08:41 < zipcpi> English "generously" is a metaphor
08:41 < zipcpi> Being generous with one's words being compared to being generous with your wealth
08:41 < Mateon1> Depends on the implied standard, is it subjective to the speaker? It is subjective to majority?
08:41 < zipcpi> It's inherently subjective; it *is* a discursive/cnima'o after all
08:42 < zipcpi> ... and I flipped between "general one" and "general you"... ouch X3
08:43 < Mateon1> Yes, but if it's subjective but based on majority's opinion, it probably wouldn't flip meaning
08:43 < zipcpi> No I meant if we were going to make it a weaker {ba'u}
08:45 <@xalbo> BPFK has {do'a} as "broadly construed"
08:45 <@xalbo> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Discursives#Proposed_Definition_of_do.27a
08:45 < zipcpi> I know
08:45 < zipcpi> At least I know now
08:45 < zipcpi> But I don't know how useful that is
08:46 < Mateon1> Ugh, I still can't pronounce x and ' differently. I need some spoken jbo for reference, maybe
08:46 < zipcpi> For x try saying kssss without moving your mouth from the initial position
08:46 < quintus> What is your first language, Mateon1?
08:46 < zipcpi> It should definitely sound rougher than '
08:46 < Mateon1> Polish
08:46 < zipcpi> Oh
08:46 < Mateon1> No diffirentiation between h and x
08:46 < zipcpi> Then it's ' you need help learning
08:46 < zipcpi> Hmm... try breathing with your mouth
08:47 < zipcpi>  /h/ should be roughly the sound of your exhaling
08:47 < Mateon1> So... Pronounce ' as voiceless h?
08:47 < quintus> h is already voiceless
08:49 < quintus> Mateon1: You have /x/ in Polish, so that's probably the one you're familiar with. Have you ever seen a horror film?
08:50 < Mateon1> Nope
08:50 < zipcpi> This is /h/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_glottal_fricative
08:51 < quintus> Sometimes the antagonist will get on the phone and breathe heavily into the phone, maybe for intimidation purposes?
08:51 < zipcpi> This is /x/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_velar_fricative
08:51 < Mateon1> I know and have been linked this, but I can't produce a different sound for the h-es
08:51 < quintus> As I remember it, that's an exaggerated form of /h/ or lojban '
08:52 < zipcpi>  /x/ should feel "rougher" on your throat than /h/
08:52 < quintus> Let me check if the CLL has any recommendations for alternative pronunciations for x or ' that could help
08:52 < Mateon1> (I don't think so)
08:52 < quintus> It doesn't :-(
08:53 < zipcpi> I dunno... there are some materials that give /θ/ as an alternate allophone for ['], but it's so different that people would tend to misunderstand you
08:54 < Mateon1> Example word with this IPA? I don't know this off the top of my head
08:54 < Rodericus> Mateon1: [h] (Lojban {'}) is the sound you make when you through air onto your glasses to clean them.
08:54 < zipcpi> English [th]in
08:54 < Rodericus> throw*
08:54 < quintus> Three = /θri/ where r is the upside-down r
08:55 < Mateon1> zipcpi: Sounds like a mix of f and s to me
08:55 < zipcpi> Yeah I'm not sure you want to use that either
08:55 < quintus> For people trying to help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_phonology#Consonants
08:55 < zipcpi> Yeah it doesn't have θ
08:56 < quintus> I think your best bet is to try to get a handle on /h/
08:57 < zipcpi> {pa'a} "similar to..." vs {paxa} "sixteen"
08:58 < quintus> Mateon1: how would you describe the difference between '[h]ak' and '[ch]ichot'?
08:58 < Rodericus> Mateon1: Or when you consciously breath in two movements, that is first taking air into your body, then expelling it ― [h] is the sound you make in the second part, when you expel the air.
08:58 < Mateon1> quintus: As no voiced difference - just a 'feel' difference
08:58 < quintus> Okay, do you feel that one is "further back" than the other? If so, which?
08:59 < niftg> ta'o zo'oi ç ka'e plixau fi tu'a zo .i'i mu'a
08:59 < niftg> sa'ai la'oi
09:00 < Mateon1> chichot is further back, but because of the following letter - herbata i chemia are the same, though.
09:00 < Mateon1> s/i/and/
09:00 < quintus> okay, see if you can go any further back
09:00 < Ilmen> coi
09:00 < zipcpi> .y. zo'oi ç simsa me'o cy
09:01 < Ilmen> lo pau bu lerfu cu se jarco
09:01 < zipcpi> mi na menseika'e
09:02 < quintus> You can think of /h/ as further back, some would say "in the throat", than both '[h]ak' and '[ch]ichot'.
09:03 < Ilmen> _ /h/ is made at the glottis, so it's not made with the tongue
09:04 < quintus> I was trying to get at that colloquially with "in the throat"
09:04 < niftg> sei me'oi ascii mi pu tavla fi lo mosra zunsna pe mu'a zo'oi ich noi dotyvla
09:05 < Ilmen> ti'e la'oi [ç] dunli la'oi [x] ma'i lo jbobau
09:05 < niftg> .ue
09:06 < zipcpi> http://vocaroo.com/i/s0mfQXq6GMvc [pa'a paxa]
09:06 < niftg> ze'epu krici lodu'u la'oi [x] po'o co'e xybu
09:06 < gleki> ti'e da pilno la'oi ç ne seba'i la'oi '
09:06 < quintus> zipcpi: +1, that's nice and clear
09:08  * nuzba @ro_bot_: ロジバン トワ ジンコウゲンゴノヒトツ ノコトデス [http://bit.ly/1TbrPkw]
09:09 < niftg> za'a mabla zmimi'i tu'itsku di'i
09:09 < Ilmen> cizra fa lo nu ponbau ciska se pi'o lo ckatakana po'o
09:10 < ctefaho> (ta'a Is "ue'i" an ok experimential cmavo or does it break some rule I may have missed?"
09:10 < ctefaho> )
09:10 < niftg> lo go'i cu se zukte fi lo nu gau simlu lo ka na'e remna
09:10 < Mateon1> zipcpi: So, is elongating enough if I can't double the sound?
09:10 < Ilmen> ctefaho: {ue'i} is fine
09:10 < ctefaho> .o'u
09:10 < zipcpi> The main problem would be how you pronounce ' alone. If it's too close to [x], you might be misunderstood
09:11 < zipcpi> It just naturally takes me longer to say [x]
09:11 < ctefaho> "xekri" vs "'ekri" wouldn't go that well
09:12 < zipcpi> The latter isn't the word. I used [pa'a] and [paxa] to demonstrate a minimal pair
09:12  * ctefaho out again
09:12 < zipcpi> Even though the latter is technically two words, but Lojban considers them minimal pairs
09:12 < zipcpi> *isn't a word
09:13 < zipcpi> I mean I could use [cladaxi] vs [clada'i], but I'm not sure what a lujvo made of {clani darxi} should mean :p
09:16 < zipcpi> http://vocaroo.com/i/s1daftfrIWFH Faster version
09:17 < Mateon1> I might be able to do sound recordings in half an hour, maybe less or more
09:18 < gleki> clada'i sepi'o lo cladaxi
09:18 < zipcpi> u'i
09:19 < Ilmen> {cu kRIxa}/{cukRI'a}
09:24 < gleki> if anyone has time this is a draft of a new course that can be adapted for Lojban. It starts from basic sentences to more advanced http://www.memrise.com/course/682021/simple-faroese-grammar-and-speech/
09:25 < zipcpi> Faroese?
09:25 < gleki> who cares
09:29 < niftg> banfu'a'o
09:30 < zipcpi> Ah yes... I remember now... Malay is a bit complex in that it has several first-person and second-person pronouns, each for a different social context
09:30 < zipcpi> I still trip up on those now and then
09:36 < niftg> .ue lo si'o so'ida valsi lo mi zei sumka'i  ja do zei sumka'i tezu'e lo vrici ke jicka tcini cu slabu mi
09:36 < zipcpi> je'e mi xa'o djuno lo du'u lo ponbau cu simsa
09:36 < zipcpi> .y.
09:37 < zipcpi> sa'ai je'e .i mi le'ai
09:37 < gleki> en: tsubame
09:37 < mensi> tsubame = x1 is a swallow of species x2 |>>> See also cipni |>>> gleki
10:08 < zipcpi> Hmm... yeah I think we might need a new discursive for "at least... / even..."
10:08 < zipcpi> Not sure if they are opposites though?
10:09 < zipcpi> At least Alice is still alive. / Even Alice is still alive.
10:09 < zipcpi> Yeah I think they might be...
10:10 < durka42> po'o?
10:10 < demize> "At least" means that it's likely that Alice is one of the few people alive, "Even" implies that a lot of people might still be alive, and it's unlikely that Alice would still be alive
10:10 < demize> Err, I phrased that weirdly.
10:10 < zipcpi> Doesn't quite have the right sense
10:11 < zipcpi> 2. if nothing else (used to add a positive comment about a generally negative situation).
10:11 < zipcpi> "the options aren't complete, but at least they're a start"
10:11 < zipcpi> 3.
10:11 < zipcpi> anyway (used to modify something just stated).
10:11 < zipcpi> "they seldom complained—officially at least"
10:12 < zipcpi> Even:
10:12 < zipcpi> used to emphasize something surprising or extreme.
10:12 < zipcpi> "they have never even heard of the US"
10:12 < zipcpi> synonyms:	surprisingly, unexpectedly, paradoxically
10:12 < zipcpi> "even the best hitters missed the ball"
10:12 < zipcpi> used in comparisons for emphasis.
10:12 < zipcpi> "he knows even less about it than I do"
10:12 < zipcpi> synonyms:	still, yet, more, all the more
10:12 < zipcpi> "it got even colder"
10:13 < Ilmen> "xoi spaji zmadu", maybe
10:14 < gleki> Even Alice is still alive. <-- fa ji'a ue la alis cu jmive
10:14 < zipcpi> Hm I should learn to attach attitudinals to FA
10:14 < gleki> i think {ji'a} part is omitted in English explanations. but it's important imo
10:15 < Ilmen> ĭe
10:16 < gleki> At least Alice is still alive. <-- o'uru'e la alsi ca'o jmive
10:17 < Ilmen> za'o
10:17 < zipcpi> za'o jmive .i za'o jmive
10:18 < zipcpi> Yeah I think za'o/xa'o should be framed in terms of "expectation"; the "natural end/beginning" is a bit confusing
10:21 < zipcpi> Anyway I just brought up the "at least/even" thing because it was brought up as an alternate explanation for {do'a/do'anai}
10:22 < zipcpi> Someone even edited {do'anai} to add "even" as a gloss word it seems
10:23 < niftg> zo ra'u cu plixau xu fi lo nu jmina se lidne zo ji'a
10:24 < zipcpi> ju'ocu'i
10:28 < niftg> la'anai se'o nu pilno lu do'anai li'u tu'a zo'oi even
10:29 < zipcpi> "they have never even heard of the US" -> {xai noroi ue se jungau fi lo mergu'e}
10:29 < zipcpi> Or {xai ba'e noroi ue se jungau fi lo mergu'e}
10:29 <@xalbo> What is {xai} again?
10:30 < zipcpi> Generic "they". Used to copy more than one aformentioned item
10:30 < durka42> xai ~~ rau noi za'upamei
10:30 < durka42> ra*
10:30 < niftg> .ue ca'a pagbu la'oi gloss fa zo'oi even
10:30 < durka42> vlaste: even
10:30 < vlaste> 46 results: vanci, do'anai, za'umai, landegmei, bangevu'e, xutla, co'u, ju'aku'i, bavlamvanci, sukmu'u…
10:31 <@xalbo> Why would you even want that? Is there singular version?
10:31 < zipcpi> {ra}?
10:32 <@xalbo> {ra} isn't necessarily singular.
10:32 < niftg> mi tavla fi la'oi gloss pe lu do'anai li'u puzi
10:32 < zipcpi> I know it isn't
10:32 < zipcpi> But {ra} is *supposed* to copy one sumti
10:33 < zipcpi> la .alis. cu vitke la .bob. .i xai kelci lo skami
10:33 < zipcpi> I don't know about the status of {ra}/{ru} anymore though
10:34 < zipcpi> Copying one and only one previous sumti while remaining ambiguous seems rather... strict
10:34 < zipcpi> Often what you wish to refer to isn't actually a sumti at all
10:34 < zipcpi> But a place you left out as implied {zo'e}
10:35 <@xalbo> Then you include it again as a {zo'e} (implicit or explicit)
10:35 <@xalbo> The point of {ra} is "that thing I just mentioned, but am too lazy to mention again"
10:35 < zipcpi> Then it would have no connection to the previous {zo'e}
10:36 < zipcpi> Eh, {ra} is too vague for any purpose beyond a generic "he/she/it" anyway
10:36 < zipcpi> We need anaphoric gadri or {bi'unai} or {di'u/de'u/da'u} to be clearer
10:37 <@xalbo> {ra} and {ru} see very little use, for those reasons. But there are times when some clarity can be sacrificed to context and brevity. If {ra} and {ru} weren't monosyllabic, they'd be really pointless.
10:38 < zipcpi> Yes, I still use {ra}, but only to back-refer to something that's really obvious in context... sometimes I even just leave it out
10:39 < niftg> .i sei za'o tavla be fi dyny zo'oi even ne dyny na fadni me zo'oi even vaula'a
10:39 < zipcpi> Cause if it's so obvious, even an implied {zo'e} would do
10:40 <@xalbo> dyny. mo
10:40 < zipcpi> lu do'a nai li'u la'a
10:41 <@xalbo> je'e
10:41 < niftg> .ie doi zycy
10:48 < zipcpi> Anyway {xai} is supposed to be {ra goi ko'a joi ra po'u na me ko'a}... sa'enai
10:49 < zipcpi> pe'i
10:49 < zipcpi> .y. poi na me ko'a
10:50 < zipcpi> I'm actually not sure how needed it is though, given what I said about it being difficult to remember what "aforementioned" thing is actually a sumti and what isn't
10:51 < zipcpi> Still though, {ra} seems wrong in {la .alis. cu vitke la .bob. .i xai kelci lo skami}
10:52 < zipcpi> It's also a useful "dirty" translation for "they" in out-of-context places like Tatoeba.
10:53 < zipcpi> Not exactly correct Lojban, but often the best can be done in limited contexts
10:53 < zipcpi> Since there is nothing to back-refer to
10:58 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/xo'e'o'e Really? o.o
10:59 <@xalbo> ue
11:02 < zipcpi> si'au la kurti co'a djuno tu'a lo namcu lerfu se stidi pe la .xorxes.
11:08 < gleki> they = le za'umei
11:09 < gleki> as for {xai} it's workaround trying to fix two other workarounds, namely, ra and ru.
11:09 < gleki> as for {xai} it's a workaround trying to fix two other workarounds, namely, ra and ru.
11:09 < zipcpi> Yeah I can believe that
11:09 < zipcpi> I hate ra and ru
11:09 < zipcpi> ba'uru'e
11:10 < zipcpi> Like I said, even when I do use them they can usually be just dropped
11:10 < zipcpi> Since they are only useful when the context is so obvious
11:11 < gleki> backcounting is a workaorund itself. except {ri} probably
11:11 < zipcpi> ri has only one referent, and is often useful
11:13 < zipcpi> But yeah in attempting to avoid "gendered" pronouns, all Lojban did was just... roll everything together. {ra/ko'a} could be a man, a woman, an animal, a thing, a place, an idea, a fact, an event... anything
11:14 < zipcpi> All but useless unless assigned
11:14 < niftg> zo ra cu plixau mi va'o lo nu pilno ri ka'ai noi zei jufpau
11:14 < niftg> sa'ai lo noi zei jufpau
11:14 < gleki> ma mupli
11:15 < niftg> lu ranoi nanmu li'u mu'a
11:17 < gleki> mi pilno lu le nanmu li'u sa'u i ku'i la tatoiebas so'iroi pilno lo simsa be lo me do moi
11:17 < niftg> lu le bi'unai nanmu li'u mu'a ji'a cu slabu mi
11:18 < gleki> oh no, Curtis touched bo'V space.
11:18 < zipcpi> mi na nelci lo ka pilno zo noi ja zo poi tu'a lo pamei brivla
11:18 < mensi> lo nu nelci zo'u ba'e mi nelci i ie mi nelci
11:18 < gleki> niftg: lu lo mi'u nanmu li'u jetnu plixau zmadu
11:19 < zipcpi> mi na nelci lo'e du'emei ke nalselfa'o brirebla
11:19 < mensi> ji'a mi mutce nelci i ie
11:21 < niftg> .ua .i mi fi zo mi'u cu facki jimpe be lo za'umoi
11:22 < zipcpi> gleki: What is bo'V space "reserved" for?
11:22 < gleki> zo bi'u srana zo'oi wa e zo'oi ga vu'o poi ponjo i ku'i zo mi'u srana lo anfora i ku'i mi na certu tu'a lo ponbau
11:23 < gleki> zipcpi: not sure but i supposed bo'V were true brodV
11:23 < gleki> since brodV are the only cmavo in gismu shape.
11:24 <@xalbo> zipcpi: bo'V is the last set of five unassigned cmavo. So it would be a horrible shame to break up that set, instead of finding a meaning that needs a set of five.
11:24 < zipcpi> Ah...
11:25 <@xalbo> I think there's also one remaining set of [iau], again, best not used separately.
11:25 < zipcpi> Ugh... I don't know what to do about iVV and uVV
11:25 < gleki> leave them to Curtis zo'o
11:26 < zipcpi> lol
11:26 < zipcpi> I've already "booked" {iau} as potential monosyllabification of {i'au}
11:26 < zipcpi> But that kinda breaks pattern
11:26 < gleki> Do you know that: in La Alta dialect of Lojban {zo'o} is written as {zoo}.
11:27 < zipcpi> ctefa'o also had some ideas for new attitudinals
11:28 < niftg> zo'oi wa zo'u cafne zilfanva fo zo zo'u vau ta'o ba'anai
11:28 <@xalbo> Really, it seems odd for anything in [aeiou']+ to not be in UI1.
11:29 < zipcpi> I understand that
11:29 < zipcpi> But there is no more monosyllabic space T.T
11:30 < zipcpi> And {i'au} was originally meant to be used for attitudinals. But there is talk about resurrecting the "super-famyma'o" idea so that it can also be used with {xoi} and {soi}
11:33  * ctefaho also happens to have proposal for 3 new UI cmavo
11:33 <@xalbo> Aren't those free modifiers anyway?
11:33 < ctefaho> (coi)
11:34 < ctefaho> oh look zipcpi spilled the beans already:p
11:34  * xalbo makes his saving throw against yelling that {soi} already has a meaning.
11:34 < ctefaho> I was thinking of using some of the VVV cause they fit right in with uai and uau
11:35 < ctefaho> but I heard people scream murder if you use that set so I ´-ified them;o
11:35 < ctefaho> '-ified*
11:36 <@xalbo> {uau} sounds a *lot* like {.u'e}
11:36 < zipcpi> I'm inclined to agree
11:36 < ctefaho> uau screams of glico as well ;o
11:36 < ctefaho> is it based on anything other than "wow"?
11:38 < zipcpi> Chinese "wa"? :p
11:38 < ctefaho> (I assume only english and related language use that sound for "amazement")
11:40 < ctefaho> how can there not be a gismu for amazement
11:40 < gleki> u'e
11:41 <@xalbo> Again, {manci} is close
11:41  * ctefaho goes back to other important stuff co'o
11:41 < gleki> jbo: u'e
11:41 < mensi> u'e = [UI1] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri se manci le cusku |>>> manci |>>> xorxes
13:32 < Ilmen> coi
13:46 < ctefaho> coi la .ilmen.
13:47 < Ilmen> coi la ctefa'o .i vi zo'u ctekra
13:48 <@xalbo> .i mi masno .o'a nai lo nu jimpe doi xajmi
14:09 < durka42> xo'e'o'e
14:09 < durka42> are you fucking serious
14:09 < Ilmen> doi dai ma
14:10 < durka42> ko smadi
14:11 <@xalbo> I am serious, and stop calling me fucking. Hmm, that doesn't work as well as the Shirley version.
14:12 < durka42> maybe "Yes I am, please go away and by the way don't call me Serious"?
14:12 <@xalbo> I'm not serious! I'm not serious!
14:15 <@xalbo> I have mixed feelings about {xo'e'o'e}. zu'u co'e li'a cai .i zu'u nai at least he's not taking a cmavo anyone would ever want for anything else (cf. {bo'e}).
14:17 < Ilmen> selma'o XOhEhOhE
14:17 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:18 < Ilmen> za'a la .krtis. di'a cupra
14:22 < la_kristan> coi rodo
14:22 < Ilmen> coi
14:23 < la_kristan> .ui mi gleki
14:23 <@xalbo> .i mi troci lo nu klamburi ra'oi .tis. ne zo .krtis. zo tisna ne lu lo cmavo canlu cu tisna li'u .i ku'i fliba .oi
14:24 <@xalbo> ui dai doi gleki be ma
14:24 < Ilmen> kurfa tisna
14:24 < Ilmen> gau la .kurtis.
14:25 <@xalbo> .i'e
14:26 < la_kristan> .i mi gleki lenu mi cilre...
14:26 < la_kristan> .y
14:26  * la_kristan pensi
14:27 < la_kristan> mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a
14:27 < Ilmen> zo do'o ji'a pei
14:27 < la_kristan> sorry, I couldn't figure out how to put that in the sentence...
14:28 < la_kristan> but I tried the best I could, at least.
14:28 <@xalbo> cilre fi zo mi jo'u zo mi'o jo'u zo'e li'o
14:28 < Ilmen> "I've learnt about {mi} and {mi'o}" = mi (pu) cilre fi zo mi jo'u zo mi'o
14:29 <@xalbo> lo banli menli cu simxu lo ka pensi simsa
14:30 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:30 < la_kristan> but at any rate I'm very happy to have learned such sn awesome group of words.
14:30 <@xalbo> .i zu'u nai zo'ei mi'o ji'a go'i
14:31 <@xalbo> They're quite nice, yes :)
14:31 < la_kristan> Ilmen , are you on Wesley Wilson's Lojban forum?
14:31 < Ilmen> la_kristan: The distinction mi'o/mi'a exists also in many natural languages
14:31 < Ilmen> la_kristan: Yes I am
14:31 < la_kristan> I joined last night, but I forgot the url!
14:32 < Ilmen> http://lojban.freeforums.net/rss/public
14:32 < la_kristan> and it's not in my browser history cuz I'm on a different device.
14:34 < la_kristan> Ilmen ; ki'e
14:39 < la_kristan> what is the result of a negative answer to a negative question?
14:40 < la_kristan> assuming one can ask negative questions
14:41 < dutchie> {xunai do klama} {gi'e} means that you do indeed go iirc
14:42 < dutchie> (and vice versa)
14:42 < Ilmen> { xu do na klama } -- is it the case that you do not go?
14:42 < Ilmen> {go'i} -- yes, it's the case.
14:43 < Ilmen> {ja'a go'i}, yes I do go.
14:43 < Ilmen> erm, "no, I do go"
14:43 < la_kristan> what if I say na go'i?
14:44 < la_kristan> does that mean anything?
14:44 < durka421> {na} is "sticky"
14:44 < Ilmen> {go'i} has some weird rules, in that if the previous bridi already contains "na", adding "na" to go'i has no effect
14:44 < durka421> so {na go'i} means the same as {go'i} when the previous bridi has a {na} already
14:44 < Ilmen> Only ja'a can erase the previous-bridi's na
14:45 < durka42> of course {ja'a} works the same way, but we normally don't say the explicit {ja'a}
14:45 < la_kristan> oh! interesting.
14:49 < la_kristan> what is "status" in my profile settings on the forum?
14:49 < la_kristan> Ilmen , or anyone else who knows...
14:51 < Ilmen> It seems it's a short message to be displayed in the profile
14:52 < Ilmen> probably something like Skype's status message
14:52 < la_kristan> I never used Skype, so I'm not familiar with that.
14:52 < Ilmen> You can write a status message in your profile
14:53 < Ilmen> la_kristan: basically a line of text that goes along with your nick and that you can change anytime
14:53 < la_kristan> Like, "I am a big fat moron" or something.
14:53 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:54 < Ilmen> Maybe for saying things like "I'm not there for two weeks, for reason X"
14:54 < Ilmen> at least I imagine it can be useful for that sort of thing
14:57 < la_kristan> "sorry my lojban is so malspero..." (Esperanto is more likely to influence my language usage at this point than is English, haha)
14:58 < Ilmen> .i'e
14:59 < la_kristan> you approve?
15:00 < Ilmen> Esperanto may be a better starting point, as it already tries to avoid things like idiomatic expressions
15:00 < la_kristan> well, yes, I suppose.
15:00 < Ilmen> So yes, I approve :)
15:01 < la_kristan> But at least in lojban we don't have 15-page debates about non-gendered pronouns!
15:02 < la_kristan> :-)
15:02 < la_kristan> like, every week...
15:02 <@xalbo> Nope, our 15-page debates are about needing doctors and hunting unicorns.
15:02 < la_kristan> hmm, interesting.
15:03 < la_kristan> I never do either of those things...
15:06 <@xalbo> "The students needed a doctor after eating the bear goo, so they surrounded the building and wore funny hats."
15:17 < la_kristan> power flicker.
15:17 < la_kristan> what were you saying about bear goo?
15:22 <@xalbo> There was a question about the limits of what can be {lo cribe}. If you take a bear and smash it into goo, does the bear-goo still {cribe}? Can you say "there was a horrible accident, and there was bear all over the road?"
15:22 <@xalbo> I don't know, things were a little weird there.
15:23 <@xalbo> (Also related to the general move to {lo djacu} from {loi djacu}, and the concept of what is a mass.)
15:23 <@xalbo> .u'u mi ca cliva bilga .i co'o
15:24 < Ilmen> co'o
15:24 < Ilmen> .i mi sipna .ai
15:24 < durka42> lo nu bergu casnu ja'a sipnyse'e
15:30 < Mateon1> .coi
15:30 < Mateon1> I have a few questions
15:30 < Mateon1> I'll ask one-by-one: How would I say "away" (in the sense of AFK, I'm not on my computer, but I am relatively nearby)?
15:34 < Mateon1> 2: How would I use a selbri as a sumti to describe an object? if I wanted to use: mi zvada'o ; and wanted x2 to be skami
15:40 < durka42> mi zvada'o lo skami
15:42 < Mateon1> Hm, alright, and is that correct/understood to my first question?
15:42 < Mateon1> I'd think this implies I'm actually far away from the computer
15:45 < durka42> yes
15:45 < durka42> it does
15:45 < durka42> but that's how you fill x2
15:46 < durka42> often {jundi} is used for this purpose
15:46 < durka42> so like {mi ca na jundi}
15:59 < la_kristan> so, "mi ca na jundi" means afk?
16:00 < la_kristan> I want to know too :-)
16:00 < durka42> people usually say {de'a jundi} when they go AFK
16:00 < la_kristan> vlaste: jundi
16:00 < vlaste> jundi = x1 is attentive towards/attends/tends/pays attention to object/affair x2.
16:01 < la_kristan> vlaste: de'a
16:01 < vlaste> de'a = event contour for a temporary halt and ensuing pause in a process.
16:01 < la_kristan> pause in paying attention
16:01 < durka42> and then {di'a jundi} when they come back
16:01 < durka42> de'a — think "denpa"
16:02 < la_kristan> guess that'd be more accurate in my case anyway, since afk usually means stuffing my phone in my pocket...
16:02 < durka42> heh
16:03 < durka42> you really fonxa .irci?
16:03 < durka42> I've done it before, but even with swype my typing is pretty slow
16:03 < la_kristan> yeah, I'm really slow.
16:04 < Mateon1> I think it's easier to set up a phone hotspot and use a laptop for IRC in that case, I hate typing on a phone.
16:05 < la_kristan> what does it mean when there are letters in a definition other than x (for sumti places)?
16:05 < Mateon1> I just tried to unpack slovacukt and the GoldenDict executable got quarantined by Avast...
16:06 < la_kristan> letters other than x in a definition, I should say...
16:06 < Mateon1> la_kristan: I assume it means it's a lujvo, and specifies the argument to be a specific root word argument
16:07 < durka42> yeah it's a hacky shorthand to say which veljvo the lujvo place came from
16:07 < la_kristan> vlaste: xismalsi
16:07 < vlaste> xismalsi = x1=m1=xr1 is a Christian (Catholic/Protestant/Anglican/etc.) church at location/serving area x3=m3
16:07 < Mateon1> huh? So what's x2?
16:07 < la_kristan> where's x2??
16:08 < Mateon1> Oh, I see
16:08 < Mateon1> x3 is x2 because an x-root word
16:08 < Mateon1> Uhm... No... That isn't the case..
16:10 < la_kristan> so, the x1 is the first place of both xriso and malsi, and x3 is the x3 of malsi...
16:10 < la_kristan> but x2...
16:10 < la_kristan> how's that work?
16:11 < la_kristan> .uanai
16:12 < Mateon1> malsi doesn't seem to have x3...
16:12 < la_kristan> a typo, maybe?
16:12 < durka42> it's saying that x1 of xismalsi comes from malsi1 and xriso1
16:12 < la_kristan> vlaste: malsi
16:12 < vlaste> malsi = x1 is a temple/church/sanctuary/synagogue/shrine of religion x2 at location/serving area x3.
16:12 < durka42> that must be a typo
16:12 < durka42> it should say x2=m3
16:13 < durka42> I'll go fix it :p
16:13 < la_kristan> you can't have typos in Lojban! It's too touchy for that!
16:13 < durka42> mensi: ko ningau
16:14 < Mateon1> Oh, I'm blind regarding malsi_3
16:14 < durka42> well some say we shouldn't use this shorthand at all, and the definition isn't the place to put the sumti etymologies
16:14 < durka42> and I'm inclined to agree
16:14 < durka42> mensi: ko na masno
16:14 < durka42> .u'i
16:14 < durka42> la mensi cu masno iepei
16:14 < durka42> hmmmm
16:15 < durka42> ja'o mensi is not working
16:16 < la_kristan> like, if I type a u or o instead of i (a quite common occurrence when using a touchscreen), and thus have fo or fu instead of fi...
16:16 < la_kristan> it changes the meaning of my sentence!
16:17 < la_kristan> or, if there aren't enough places, it makes it ungrammatical!
16:19 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
16:19 < mensi> i na kakne lo ka jai gau cnino fai la'e zoi zoi en-simple zoi
16:20 < durka42> en:xismalsi
16:20 < mensi> xismalsi [< xriso malsi ≈ Christian temple] = x1=m1=xr1 is a Christian (Catholic/Protestant/Anglican/etc.) church at
16:20 < mensi> location/serving area x2=m3
16:42 < la_kristan> vlaste: klama
16:42 < vlaste> klama = x1 comes/goes to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5.
16:44 < la_kristan> as in "I went from Esperantujo to Lojbanistan via a rabbit trail by means of the Internet!"
16:44 < la_kristan> .u'i
16:49 < la_kristan> how to translate "Esperantujo" and "rabbit trail"?
17:02 < PrincessBecca> spranto gugde
17:03 < PrincessBecca> or
17:03 < PrincessBecca> spero gugde
17:03 < PrincessBecca> dunno about rabbit trail
17:08 < la_kristan> PrincessBecca : I'm Christa627, by the way :-)
17:10 < la_kristan> maybe I should say "via the internet, by means of a cell phone?
17:18 < la_kristan> vlaste: xismalsi
17:18 < vlaste> xismalsi = x1=m1=xr1 is a Christian (Catholic/Protestant/Anglican/etc.) church at location/serving area x3=m3
17:18 < la_kristan> still the same.
17:19 < la_kristan> but I think I've got my questions answered for now.
17:20 < la_kristan> about negative questions, and non-x letters.
17:26 < la_kristan> gtg
17:26 < la_kristan> co'o rodo
19:16 < bigcentaur> so i'm still playing around with tenses
19:17 < durka42> ko kelci
19:18 < bigcentaur> if i say {pugi mi bajra gi mi cadzu}, that's "before i run, i walk"
19:19 < bigcentaur> what's the interpretation of {roroi gi mi klama gi do klama}?
19:19 < durka42> ie
19:20 < durka42> hmm
19:20 < durka42> jbo: roi
19:20 < mensi> roi = [ROI] galfi lo'e namcu lo'e tcita be fi le du'u le se cusku cu rapli le namcu ze'a le se tcita |>>> rapli |>>>
19:20 < mensi> xorxes
19:20 < bigcentaur> camxes parses the sentence as being grammatical
19:20 < durka42> yeah I guess it is grammatical
19:20 < bigcentaur> hahaha
19:21 < durka42> I guess I would say it must be the same as {roroi lo nu mi klama ku do klama}
19:21 < durka42> but I'm not sure
19:21 < bigcentaur> i like the begrudging admission
19:22 < bigcentaur> so roroi can take an event like that?
19:22 < bigcentaur> roroi lo nu ___ ku <BRIDI>
19:22 < durka42> yes
19:22 < durka42> the event takes place n times. When tagging a sumti, the sumti specifies the interval in which the repetitions occur.
19:23 < bigcentaur> so what's the interpretation of {roroi lo nu mi klama ku do klama} ?
19:25 < bigcentaur> is it "every time i go, you go?"
19:26 < durka42> that'd be {ca ro nu mi klama ku do klama}
19:26 < durka42> but I don't think it is equivalent
19:26 < durka42> I think it's something more like "while I go, you go every time"
19:28 < bigcentaur> wouldn't that be {ca lo nu mi klama ku do roroi klama}?
19:28 < durka42> the BPFK says {roroi lo nu mi klama ku do klama} expands to {ca ro da poi cabna lo nu mi klama ku'o do klama}
19:28 < durka42> so maybe it is the same as {ca ro nu…}
19:28 < bigcentaur> i am unfamiliar with bpfk!
19:29 < durka42> with the BPFK as a concept, or with their explanation of ROI? :)
19:29 < bigcentaur> never heard of bpfk
19:30 < durka42> stands for {baupla fuzykamni}
19:30 < durka42> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK
19:31 < bigcentaur> sounds official
19:32 < durka42> to the extent that "official" means anything :p
19:32 < bigcentaur> hahaha
19:34  * nuzba @bgcarlisle: "The Once and Future King" in #Lojban:        lo pu je ba nolraitru    lo ba'o je pu'o nolraitru    lo paroi je ba nolraitru [http://bit.ly/1FK7LfK]
19:36 < durka42> stupid polysemous "once"
19:36 < durka42> :)
19:50 < bigcentaur> .i nau lidvilti'a .ui
19:50 < durka42> ii pei
19:51 < bigcentaur> nai
19:53 < bigcentaur> lo sance be lo nu lidvilti'a cu se kufra mi
19:55 < durka42> ua
21:06 < zipcpi> What's a good way to render "so-called"; no sarcastic intent (or at least, no focus on it), just calling it by what others call it without indicating belief in the description? {i'acu'i}?
21:07 < zipcpi> Er, {iacu'i}
21:24 < zipcpi> I think my interpretation of {do'a} as {xendo je no'e satci} would make {do'anai} a bit more like English "Honestly...", in the sense of "I'm calling it like I see it, but it is likely to offend someone"
21:26 < zipcpi> "Frankly..." might be better
21:27 < zipcpi> I've seen {sei stace}, so that might be another "hole"
21:32 < durka42> not every use of {sei} is an invitation to make up another cmavo! :D
21:32 < zipcpi> lol
21:32 < durka42> compositional language is compositional
21:32 < durka42> good job getting curtis to give up {bo'e}, btw
21:32 < zipcpi> lol
21:32 < durka42> though now he'll probably try extra hard to think of some obscure crap to use up the whole bo'V series
21:33 < zipcpi> :p
21:35 < zipcpi> Not so much coming up with new cmavo as reinterpreting one. Again, because of the mabla ma'oste descriptions T.T
21:36 < zipcpi> Ask 10 Lojbanists what [some obscure cmavo] means, get 15 different answers
21:38 < zipcpi> Of course it doesn't necessarily even have to be obscure. Try {lo} for example :p
21:41 < zipcpi> And I think I finally figured out what sets might be intended to be used for. "intersections" and "unions". But do we even have words for those?
21:41 < durka42> in mekso, yes
21:41 < durka42> I think
21:41 < durka42> vlaste: jo'e
21:41 < vlaste> jo'e = non-logical connective: union of sets.
21:41 < durka42> vlaste: ku'a
21:41 < vlaste> ku'a = non-logical connective: intersection of sets.
21:42 < zipcpi> Ah, interesting
21:42 < durka42> they are JOI
21:42 < zipcpi> We do still have {lu'i} though
21:42 < durka42> so not mekso, I guess
21:42 < durka42> vlaste: lu'i
21:42 < vlaste> lu'i = the set with members; converts another description type to a set of the members.
21:42 < durka42> camxes: -f ro me lu'i lo pendo be do ku'a lu'i lo pendo be mi cu jbopre
21:42 < camxes> ([{ro <me (¹lu'i [lo {pendo <be (²do [ku'a {lu'i <lo (³pendo [be mi]³)>}]²)>}]¹)>} cu] jbopre)
21:42 < durka42> whoops
21:43 < zipcpi> Most conversational uses of "unions" and "intersections" tend to be {je} or {ja} tanru instead, I believe
21:43 < durka42> uh how do you terminate that stuff again
21:43 < durka42> vlaste: lu'i (famyma'o)
21:43 < vlaste> lu'i (terminator) = lu'u
21:43 < durka42> right
21:43 < durka42> camxes: -f ro me lu'i lo pendo be do lu'u ku'a lu'i lo pendo be mi cu jbopre
21:43 < camxes> ([{ro <me (¹lu'i [lo {pendo <be do>}] lu'u¹) (¹ku'a [lu'i {lo <pendo (²be mi²)>}]¹)>} cu] jbopre)
21:43 < durka42> xu smudra
21:44 < zipcpi> I think so
21:44 < durka42> well, {je} and {ja} are similar sure
21:44 < durka42> ko'a ku'a ko'e == lo me ko'a je me ko'e
21:44 < durka42> probably
21:45 < durka42> anyway bedtime
21:45 < zipcpi> co'o di'ai sipna
21:46 < zipcpi> I actually wonder if di'ai is better in COI2 instead :p
21:46 < zipcpi> With whatever in it being the blessing rather than the addressee
21:47 < zipcpi> There's always doi
21:48 < zipcpi> {di'ai panpi doi .abra'am.} -> "Peace be to you, Abraham"?
21:49 < durka42> too late, di'ai is one of the three most popular experimental cmavo
21:49 < zipcpi> Yeah
21:50 < durka42> you can make dai'i :p
21:50 < zipcpi> lol
21:50 < zipcpi> It's just I've seen prescriptions having to move {panpi} to the bridi
21:50 < zipcpi> Which is a bit ugly
21:50 < durka42> selbri are better than cmavo anyway
21:50 < durka42> co'o
23:04  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Subordinators - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Subordinators by Cirko - jmina lo kaptegori sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyeeTH]
23:05 < zipcpi> Awr the non-veridicality thing is still there :p
23:07  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK gismu Section: Complete vs. Incomplete Specifications - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_gismu_Section:_Complete_vs._Incomplete_Specifications by Cirko - jmina lo kaptegori sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyeulm]
23:07  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK gismu Section: Parenthetical Remarks in Brivla Definitions - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_gismu_Section:_Parenthetical_Remarks_in_Brivla_Definitions by Cirko - jmina lo kaptegori sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyexh5]
23:09  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK gismu Section: Problems With ka - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_gismu_Section:_Problems_With_ka by Cirko - jmina lo kaptegori sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyeP7N]
23:13  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Aristotelean Abstractors - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Aristotelean_Abstractors by Cirko - jmina lo kaptegori sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyeXUX]
23:15 < gleki> zo kaptegori i'enai i zo klesi
23:16 < gocti> zo klesi simlu lo ka za'u zei selsmu
23:16 < gocti> (to ie zo kaptegori fegli toi)
23:18  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Dictionary Preface - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Dictionary_Preface by Cirko - jmina lo kaptegori sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyfbLN]
23:18  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: brivla Negators - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_brivla_Negators by Cirko - jmina lo kaptegori sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyfo1f]
23:18 < gleki> i sa'e selklesi
23:20  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Attitudinal Specifiers - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Attitudinal_Specifiers by Cirko - jmina lo kaptegori sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyfrdA]
23:22 < gleki> let me add glosses for cmavo then
23:23 < gocti> (to zo kleste pei toi)
23:29  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Highlight Discursives - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Highlight_Discursives by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyfVR5]
23:29  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Hesitation - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Hesitation by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyfZ3g]
23:29  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: gismu Issues - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gismu_Issues by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyg1YQ]
23:29  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: General Negators - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_General_Negators by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyg2Mc]
23:29  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Evidentials - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Evidentials by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyg3jt]
23:30 < gocti> .e'u ru'e gau ku la uitki na tu'itsku lo me lo se tcita be fi lo ka na'e vajni moi
23:32  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Erasures - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Erasures by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyg4Un]
23:32  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Epistemology_sumtcita by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyg8nf]
23:32  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Discursives - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Discursives by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dygdHo]
23:36 < gleki> sa'u mi pu mipri lo batke pe lo nu tu'itsku
23:37 < gleki> i mi na djuno i su'o za'u pa lo jbopre pu djica lo nu zgana lo nu galfi i xu nu bu srana ro papri i na djuno
23:41  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: New cmavo Proposals - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_New_cmavo_Proposals by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1II5ojW]
23:41  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Modal Aspects - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Modal_Aspects by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dygRox]
23:41  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Miscellaneous Notes And To-Dos - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Miscellaneous_Notes_And_To-Dos by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dygRVt]
23:41  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Logical Variables - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Logical_Variables by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1II5wjd]
23:41  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: lerfu Shifts - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_lerfu_Shifts by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dygWIC]
23:41  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: lerfu - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_lerfu by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyh0YY]
23:42 < gleki> i ku'i u'i ca ti ma'a se slabu so'a lo BPFK papri
23:45 < gleki> i mi tatpi lo ka jmina lo gloso
23:47  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: PEG Morphology Algorithm - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_PEG_Morphology_Algorithm by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1II6oEz]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Opinionated Gripes - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Opinionated_Gripes by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyhpdT]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Pedagogical Tags - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Pedagogical_Tags by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyho9R]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Text Structure Discursives - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Text_Structure_Discursives by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1II6rAm]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: The Problem With comma - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_The_Problem_With_comma by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyhqyz]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: ZOI - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_ZOI by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyhrTd]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Vocatives - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Vocatives by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1II6sUW]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Utterance Pro-sumti - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Utterance_Pro-sumti by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyhuy9]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Typicals - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Typicals by Cirko - jmina lo kleste sinxa [http://bit.ly/1dyhtdB]
23:49 < gocti> ca'e ca spama co'u
23:49 < gleki> en: gloss
23:49 < mensi> 12 da se tolcri: bangigusu, bogytacfi'e, sparnodontoglosu, sparnrosioglosu, dutso, finprplekoglosu, karpo'ijbe, pupsu,
23:49 < mensi> sparbe'alara, sparburage'ara, sparko'eloglosu, zucna
23:50 < gleki> la pupsu cu omni
23:50 < gleki> sai la kurti cu omni
23:50 < gleki> sa
23:50 < gleki> i la kurti cu omni
23:51 < gocti> mi pu se jetmlu lo du'u zo pupsu catni gismu
23:51 < gleki> lo si'o pupsu cu cinri sidbo ma'i lo sapfi je lo uorfi
23:52 < gocti> xu srana lo ni lo si'o fasnu cu frica lo si'o dacti
--- Day changed Thu Jun 11 2015
00:12 < gleki> go'i
01:15 < gleki> mi mo'u jmina a'enai lo cmavo gloso
01:19 < gocti> .i'o
01:19 < gocti> .i jmina fi lo gugle gredile ku xu
01:20 < gleki> go'i
02:18 < ctefaho> coi
02:22 < niftg> coi
02:24 < akmnlrse> coi re mei be lo .niftyg.
02:26 < niftg> li'a pa lo re mi cu nonspu cando
02:28 < niftg> coi ak.ak.akmnd.akm.akmnlrse
02:30 < akmnlrse> cumki fa lo nu zo'oi akmynlyrse ba za co'a gendra
02:31 < akmnlrse> je voi dunli zo .akmnlrse
02:33 < niftg> lo nazbi pagre zunsna cu ka'e ba rinju fi lo nu lamsi'u vauvauxu
02:34 < akmnlrse> lo sa'e zunsna poi ka'e slaka kernelo cu go'i ie
02:35 < akmnlrse> y
02:35 < akmnlrse> sa.i
02:37 < akmnlrse> sa'e rinju fi lo ka ja'a slaka kernelo kei fe lo nu me'o .ybu lidne lo no'a
02:39 < niftg> mi to'eta'e jundi lodu'u makau poi zunsna ka'e slaka kernelo
02:48 < dutchie> zo makau se fanva fi lo glico fu ma
02:50 < dutchie> .i mi na kakne lonu tolci fi la jbovlaste
02:50 < akmnlrse> valsi re mei .i lu "ma kau" li'u
02:50 < valsi> 6 results: litru, mei, li'ei, te'ai, xei, relyfi'es
02:51 < dutchie> .ua ki'e
02:51 < akmnlrse> .i dunli lo nu pilno zo'oi "what" va'o lo na'e preti
02:53 < gleki> zo tolci ua
02:53 < akmnlrse> .y ua .i mi pu na ganse
02:54 < akmnlrse> .i melbi .i ie melbi
02:54 < dutchie> mi skudji zo tolcri
02:55 < gleki> mi pu sruma lo nu lo jvajvo cu se galfi fi lo gismu
02:57 < dutchie> lonu samci'a cu nandu zo'o
03:45 < gleki> Glosses for particles included mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-04
06:31 < gleki> Hm, they want such words as "when" is En2jbo dictionary
06:41 < gleki> i cant even add "to die" to eat because .. it's two words in Lojban!
06:41 < gleki> *to it
06:45 < ctefaho> .u'iru'e .oidai
06:47 < gleki> "to squeeze". is it just {danre}?
06:47 < gleki> .w squeeze
06:47 < phenny> squeeze — noun: 1. A difficult position, 2. A traversal of a narrow passage — verb: 1. (trans.) To apply pressure to from two or more sides at once, 2. (trans., intransitive) To fit into a tight place
06:48 < Ilmen> denmi zenba gasnu
06:48 < Ilmen> or catke
06:49 < Ilmen> but not danre
06:50 < gleki> to apply pressure. why not danre?
06:50 < gleki> en: danre
06:50 < mensi> danre = x1 (force) puts pressure on/presses/applies force to x2. |>>> Agentive press/depress (= da'ergau, da'erzu'e).
06:50 < mensi> See also catke, bapli, prina, tinsa. |>>> officialdata
06:50 < gleki> en: catke
06:50 < mensi> catke = x1 [agent] shoves/pushes x2 at locus x3. |>>> Move by pushing/shoving (= ca'ermuvgau).  (cf. danre for
06:50 < mensi> non-agentive force, lacpu) |>>> officialdata
06:55 < gleki> these are the words that i dont know how to add to the dict. atm: louse, bark, ash, to die, to wipe, dirty, dull, if, he, they, this, that, here, there, what, when, where, who, how
06:56 < gleki> pls ignore "louse" !
07:04 < gleki> so it looks like i have to add {co'a morsi} as a separate dictionary entry
07:28 < phma__> zoi .gy. bark .gy. do skudji zo ricyskapi ji zo gavgava?
07:29 < gleki> pe'i na ralbrivla
07:29 < gleki> fa genai zo ricyskapi ginai zo gercmoni
07:31 < phma> bloti xu?
07:32 < gleki> sa'u zo'oi bark pagbu lo liste pe la suadec
07:34  * nuzba @AllTheTwits: thinks everybody should learn Lojban [http://bit.ly/1JHRPAZ]
07:34 < gleki> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swadesh_list
07:34 < gleki> ja'o ricyskapi
07:35 < phma> 27. bark (of tree)
07:35 < gleki> ma gismu gi'e valsi zo'oi ash
07:36 < phma> zo fagyfesti ji zo fraksino?
07:37 < gleki> en: fraksino
07:37 < mensi> fraksino = x1 is an ash of species/variety x2. |>>> phma
07:37 < gleki> la'a zo fagyfesti
07:37 < phma> fagyfesti
07:37 < phma> it's between fire and burn
07:37 < gleki> i cizra falonu lo si'o fagyfesti cu vajni
07:38 < gleki> i ji'a lo me'oi ash cu ve vimcu
09:13 < gleki> looks like "ashes" are just setting of the oxidization reaction
09:39 < durka42> za'a la .guskant. ba'o galfi zo jo'au tezu'e lo nu ri jdika lo ni janli lo lerfu se stidi
09:40 < durka42> #jbodrama
09:41 < gleki> en: jo'au
09:41 < mensi> jo'au = [MAI] change version/dialect of parser |>>> The morphology and the grammar of numbers preceding to jo'au,
09:41 < mensi> including ''word''-bu, should conform to the version 134 of the page ''BPFK Section: PEG Morphology Algorithm'' on the
09:41 < mensi> website lojban.org and the official grammar for number cmavo, so that a jo'au cluster forms a free modifier compatible
09:41 < mensi> with every version/dialect of lojban parser: for example, ''jie bu jo'au'' and ''xei jo'au'' are not meaningful clusters.
09:41 < mensi>  As a standard usage, jo'au cluster appears at the very beginning of the whole text, just as the inverse of the usage of
09:41 < mensi> fa'o. The scope of the meaning of jo'au cluster spans over the following part until the next jo'au cluster appears...
09:41 < mensi> [mo'u se katna] http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/jo'au
09:41 < gleki> jbo: jo'au
09:41 < mensi> jo'au = [MAI] galfi lo namcu lo tcita be lo selsku bei lo du'u sinxa lo du'u dei te gerna fi lo se sinxa be ny |>>> mu'a
09:41 < mensi> lu cylylypapi'epa jo'au li'u a lu camxes.bu jo'au li'u a lu iocixes.bu jo'au li'u a lu ilmentufa
09:41 < mensi> burenopavopi'epapapi'erevo jo'au li'u a lu fancylojban.bu jo'au li'u mu'anai |>>>
09:41 < mensi> gusnikantu
09:41 < durka42> ba'onai ningau
09:41 < durka42> co'a selma'o COI3
09:41 < durka42> mensi: ko ningau
09:41 < durka42> mensi: ko co'u masno lo nu ningau
09:41 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
09:41 < mensi> xu do so'i va'e cinmo fi lo nu casnu lo simsa
09:42 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
09:42 < durka42> en:jo'au
09:42 < mensi> jo'au = [COI3] change version/dialect of parser
09:42 < durka42> jbo:jo'au
09:42 < mensi> jo'au = [COI3] tcita lo cmene ja ve skicu le du'u sinxa le du'u makau genturfa'i dei
09:42 < mensi> makau
10:21 < Mateon1> Is there any pronounciation guide (Actual spoken words, not links to velar consonants or whatever on Wikipedia), for lojban?
10:21 < zipcpi> There is a recording of this story: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/la_.teris._ku_noi_tigra_cu_stuvi%27e_lo_barda_tcadu
10:22 < Mateon1> Thanks, will look into that, anything else I could look at?
10:22 < zipcpi> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emCDL4aocDE
10:33 < durka42> selpa'i has some more corpus readings on youtube
10:33 < durka42> and guskant recorded some simple songs
10:34 < durka42> I wouldn't recommend selpa'i's songs as a pronunciation guide, they are way too fast :)
10:34 < durka42> (but amazing)
10:34 < zipcpi> Heh :p
10:47 < zipcpi> I want to just record sentences for Tatoeba already but they force me to use this strange "Shtooka Recorder" that keeps throwing errors
10:49 < durka42> yeah I could never get that thing to work
10:49 < durka42> not sure why they make it so difficult
10:49 < gleki> because it's an open source project
10:51 < zipcpi> A celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness. -> {lo'e mispre cu me lo prenu poi misno mu'i lo ka misno}? :p
10:51 < durka42> cu prenu gi'e
10:51 < durka42> or… lo ka mispre cu ka prenu gi'e misno […]
10:52 < zipcpi> u'i
10:52 < durka42> doesn't misno have an x2
10:52 < gleki> {gi'e} breaks english priginal
10:52 < durka42> vlaste: misno
10:52 < vlaste> misno = x1 (person/object/event) is famous/renowned/is a celebrity among community of persons x2 (mass).
10:52 < durka42> gleki: we don't translate word for word, lojban isn't an english cipher
10:53 < zipcpi> Yeah it has an x2 but lacks an x3
10:53 < durka42> or maybe just
10:53 < durka42> lo'e mispre cu misno mu'i lo ka misno
10:53 < gleki> durka42: if you start from the original Lojban sentences then that's fine but this is a link between English and Lojban sentence. The meaning should be preserved.
10:53 < zipcpi> Right drop the prenu
10:53 < durka42> yes preserve the meaning
10:53 < durka42> that doesn't mean gloss the sentence :p
10:54 < gleki> and "is a person who" isn't the same as "is a person and"
10:54 < gleki> they differ in meaning
10:55 < zipcpi> {lo'e mispre cu misno mu'i lo nu ri misno}
10:55 < Mateon1> Can fa fe fi fo fu be used for corrections? For example if I mistake x3 in some relation, can I use fi to correct after I said it?
10:56 < zipcpi> Corrections are hard to make. We have {lo'ai... sa'ai... le'ai} for that
10:56 < gleki> it's better to use {si} or {sa} of those three.
10:56 < zipcpi> Also {sa} can be used to repeat your entire sentence if necessasary
10:56 < zipcpi> {si} removes a word
10:57 < gleki> it's generally assumed that repeating the same particle from {fa} series assumes you just add new information. So {fa mi fa do klama} is the same as {fa mi klama .i fa do klama}
10:57 < zipcpi> So = {mi je do klama}?
10:58 < gleki> nope
10:58 < gleki> {mi je do klama = mi klama ije do klama}
11:00  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Gleki - /* Human body */ [http://bit.ly/1QrzxrG]
11:20 < gleki> Eng2Jbo dictionary will need a lot of work.
11:21 < gleki> and it still wont help people much even if they think different now.
11:21 < lenton> Does jbo = lojban?
11:22 < zipcpi> Yes
11:22 < gleki> yes, those are ISO codes.
11:23 < zipcpi> Also the Lojban word for Lojban is actually {jbobau} :p
11:23 < zipcpi> Although {la .lojban.} is acceptable
11:23 < gleki> i just dont feel i need to create a 20th century style tool when we just have simple tools like la muplis nowadays.
11:24 < zipcpi> You mean a physical dictionary?
11:24 < zipcpi> Yeah I can see that T.T
11:24 < gleki> i mean a dictionary where to find {pe'i} you have to look into "think" entry.
11:25 < gleki> yes, it's a like a paper dictionary i.e. without hypertext
11:25 < lenton> Is there a web app which will speak out a lojban word? I'm still getting used to pronunciation and it would be very helpful
11:27 < gleki> since Lojban spelling is straightforward it's unlikely such dictionary will be made anytime soon. Because every letter corresponds to one sound: http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cirkotci.html
11:28 < gleki> one could create a text-to-speech converter but im not familiar with any open source tools for that
11:28 < zipcpi> If you want a sample of spoken Lojban: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/la_.teris._po%27u_lo_tirxu_cu_vitke_zi%27o_le_barda_tcadu
11:29 < zipcpi> Hmm... that {mispre} sentence might actually be better with {lo'i}. At least, my {lo'i} :p
11:30 < zipcpi> It is, contextually, a definition
11:33 < gleki> one could use google tts actually
11:34 < zipcpi> The buttons on the sound thingy doesn't seem to work
11:34 < durka42> meh
11:34 < durka42> if we start using CKTJ and gadri proposals and stuff on tatoeba
11:34 < akmnlrse> lenton: not a web app, but if you have espeak you can do "espeak -v jbo"
11:34 < durka42> then lojban becomes polysemous
11:34 < akmnlrse> (it does have bugs)
11:34 < zipcpi> Yeah... I understand
11:35 < gleki> i probably need to move sound files into the inside of the cirkotci tool itself
11:35 < akmnlrse> zipcpi: try http://chins.qc.to/voksna.html
11:35 < gleki> oh, huh a speech recognition tool. would be nice for e-learning tools for Lojban https://github.com/syl22-00/pocketsphinx.js
11:36 < zipcpi> ... I don't like their [x] for some reason
11:36 < akmnlrse> yeah because it's [X]. bu'a'a
11:38 < zipcpi> {le}, {lo}, and {lo'e} are relatively safe though I believe ({lo'e} isn't used much but I don't think I have shifted its meaning too far)
11:38 < lenton> akmnlrse: Thanks, that's perfect
11:39 < akmnlrse> oi, espeak seems to pronounce /x/ and /h/ identically
11:40 < gleki> that's ... terrible http://vrici.lojban.org/~gleki/mediawiki-1.19.2/extensions/ilmentufa//speak.js/demo.html
11:40 < zipcpi> Tsk tsk tsk
11:41 < zipcpi> That's for English though gleki :p
11:56 < gleki> "document.querySelector("#table").appendChild" i guess this leads to two tables displayed instead of one
12:00 < akmnlrse> lo gredile re mei noi pa ke'a zo'u no da fasnu ganse
12:01 < zipcpi> mo'oi gredile
12:02 < akmnlrse> lo pa moi co xaptemele gredile
12:02 < gleki> akmnlrse: ie i xunai nabmi
12:02 < akmnlrse> sa'u .ei vimcu lo tinsa se sampla sei malgli
12:03 < gleki> uanai
12:04 < akmnlrse> .i ja sa'u kibycpa lo krasi papri se pi'o ge nai lo brauzero gi la'oi wget mu'a
12:04 < gleki> mi ca jimpe no da
12:05 < akmnlrse> cd /lo/judri/be/la/glekitufa/; curl http://chins.qc.to/voksna.html > cirkotci.html
12:06 < gleki> ua frica
12:06 < akmnlrse> .i lo brauzero va'o lo nu selsrogau lo xaptemele cu jmina lo ca'o jai se jarco poi dodme
12:09 < zipcpi> lol I think I prefer [x] over [X]. [X] is a bit closer to [h]
12:09 < zipcpi> I mean, if I focus I can tell the difference
12:10 < zipcpi> But it might make it even more difficult for some Polish guy that we know :p
12:10  * akmnlrse cu zmanei zo'oi X (to la'a ki'u lo nu malpo'olska toi)
12:10 < zipcpi> u'i
12:10 < zipcpi> do ji'a po'olska xu
12:10 < akmnlrse> go'i
12:13 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cirkotci/cirkotci.html
12:14 < gleki> i ku'i ca ti mi na nelci lo nu le apli cu kibycpa lo bartu ke sance vreji
12:14 < mensi> i ji'a mi na nelci mi'e la mensi
12:15 < gleki> i ei galfi le za'u vreji lo ju'oi data: vreji
12:15 < zipcpi> zo ju'oi ki'a
12:16 < gleki> zo ju'oi se mipri valsi i fa po'o lo jbocre cu se krali lo ka pilno le valsi
12:16 < zipcpi> uezo'o la gleki cu finti lo cmavo
12:16 < akmnlrse> na ku
12:17 < akmnlrse> .i ba'a nai la danmo cu finti
12:17 < gleki> i mi pe na cu pu finti zo ju'oi
12:18 < akmnlrse> lo mlatu goi na cu pinxe lo ladru goi pa mu'ei
12:19 < zipcpi> to to to to to to toi toi toi toi toi toi
12:21 < akmnlrse> alta: tu'e nu lo noi
12:21 < mensi> (tu'e [{FA ZOhE} {CU <(¹nu [{FA <lo (²[COhE SF] [noi {<FA ZOhE> <CU (³COhE SF³) VAU>} KUhO]²) KU>} {CU <COhE SF> VAU}] KEI¹) SF> VAU}] TUhU)
12:22 < zipcpi> mi pu srera jinvi lo du'u lo xaptemele cu cidja
12:22 < zipcpi> mau'u kukte xaptemele
12:22 < gleki> tu'e fa zo'e cu nu fa lo co'e sf noi fa zo'e cu co'e sf vau ku'o ku cu co'e sf vau kei sf vau tu'u
12:23 < akmnlrse> so'u da kukte gi'e xaptemele
12:23 < akmnlrse> .i ku'i lo ja'a kukte cu jai nu zmo'una
12:24 < akmnlrse> alta: cu co'e sf
12:24 < mensi> ([FA ZOhE] [cu {<co'e sf> SF} VAU])
12:24 < zipcpi> zo sf na jetnu famyma'o
12:24 < zipcpi> e'u zo i'au'u'au'o'e'au zo'o
12:32 < zipcpi> Is {voi} CKTJ for {poi'i}?
12:35 < akmnlrse> go'i
12:35 < zipcpi> ua
12:53  * nuzba @selpahi: doi lo jefyfa'o vokta'a ne la .mambyl. ko jungau lo drata ne mu'a lo mriste tau la virtu'ale jbogu'e .i ka'e cinri ru | #lojban [http://bit.ly/1KGzJP3]
13:21 < Ilmen|2> je'e
13:35 < Mateon1> coi
13:35 < Mateon1> How would I go about learning more vocabulary?
13:36 < Mateon1> Just looking through the dictionaries doesn't seem the best way to learn
13:36 < dutchie> Mateon1: i'm finding anki is working well
13:36 < dutchie> http://ankisrs.net/
13:36 < Ilmen> Anki or Memrise
13:36 < dutchie> adding words myself as i see them i think is better than just downloading a huge list
13:38 < Ilmen> In those words are usually sorted by frequency, which is good
13:38 < Ilmen> dutchie: As for me I've made my own deck, which is probably the best option, although more time consuming
13:39 < dutchie> yes, that's what i meant
13:40 < demize> I guess it could be a good idea to compile a 'core list' of the most common words at least.
13:40 < Ilmen> http://mw.lojban.org/images/9/9a/MyFreq-COMB_without_dots.txt
13:41 < Ilmen> ^ A complete frequency list, recent enough
13:42 < Ilmen> A fresh frequency list can be generated anytime by using Korpora zei Sisku
13:42 < Ilmen> http://korp.alexburka.com/
13:43 < Ilmen> (just go to the "Extended" tab, then click on the Search button with an empty search, and then click on the Statistics tab which is on the right of the KWIC tab
13:44 < Ilmen> then a fresh frequency list appears
13:44 < Ilmen> hm
13:49 < durka42> a wild frequency list appeared!
13:49 < durka42> heh, did not expect {le} to be up that high
13:52 < afurrow> ...the phrase I remember best from my first foray into lojban 20 years ago is "le nu mi klama"
13:52 < afurrow> that's like the only one I can never forget
13:52 < afurrow> it feels wrong that it should be lo now :)
13:53 < durka42> I like the sound of {lo} better
13:53 < durka42> makes lojban sound less like F7U12
13:54 < Ilmen> .u'i ua nai
13:54 < afurrow> ehh?
13:54 < dutchie> if you don't know, you are better off
14:14 < durka42> lo fengu lisxra
14:50 < Ilmen> co'o
14:51 < lenton> .a'o xamgu nicte
15:13 < demize> Hmm, wiki is down.
15:16 < durka42> so it is
15:16 < durka42> the whole server is down actually
15:16 < durka42> ping rlpowell
15:20 <@rlpowell> durka42: Hmm?
15:20 <@rlpowell> Huh.
15:20 < durka42> rlpowell: JVS and LMW are refusing connections
15:20 < durka42> ssh to vrici works though
15:20 < durka42> (slowly)
15:21 < durka42> I thought ssh wasn't going through at first, that's why I said "the whole server"
15:22 <@rlpowell> *nod*  Looking.
15:25 <@rlpowell> Huh.
15:26 < durka42> hey, JVS responds now
15:26 <@rlpowell> Yeah, httpd was off.
15:26 < durka42> LMW is thinking about it....
15:26 < durka42> there it goes
15:26 < durka42> :)
15:27 <@rlpowell> But I'm probably going to shut it off in a sec.
15:27 <@rlpowell> Well.  Maybe not.
15:28 <@rlpowell> Let me know if it's ridiculously slow, please; I'm thinking about changing RAM allocations.
18:36  * nuzba @mpfl: @snailx This is why we need to abandon English to swap to Lojban. [http://bit.ly/1I7Snup]
19:50 < fleimbo> coi
20:46 < noncomcinse> coi prenu
22:26  * nuzba @uitki: zipcpi: Yet another gadri article - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1IMjyjO]
22:26  * nuzba @uitki: gadganzu proposal - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadganzu_proposal by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1FcubF9]
23:17 < gleki> once again im reminded that in some Romance languages "to know to swim" means "to be able to swim". Is Lojban malgli in this regard?
23:29 < zipcpi> gleki: I don't know. {mi ka'e limna}, {mi certu lo ka limna}, and {mi djuno lo du'u ta'i ma limna}; are all acceptable renderings IMO, though there might be slight semantic differences
23:30 < gleki> they literally say "I know to swim"
23:30 < gleki> {mi djuno lo ka limna}
23:30 < zipcpi> It's kinda like how I was told the other day; in Malay you don't "guna" {pilno} a language, you "pakai" {dacti} it... don't think that would be right in Lojban though.
23:30 < zipcpi> Yeah I think that stretches {djuno} somewhat
23:31 < gleki> {mi ka'e limna}, {mi certu lo ka limna}, {mi djuno lo du'u ta'i ma limna} <-- all sound like a calque from English
23:31 < zipcpi> True
23:31 < gleki> Well, hm, in Russian it's the same as in English.
23:31 < zipcpi> I don't know... maybe {djuno} *could* mean that? It's not as if I expect {ka} to be used with {djuno} any other way
23:32 < gleki> djuno can be used with ka, since ka = du'u +ce'u
23:32 < gleki> but what it'd mean is another question
23:32  * zipcpi nods
23:33 < gleki> Most likely it'd mean "I know that I swim"
23:33 < gleki> I know myself swimming
23:33 < zipcpi> Difference is a {ka} "belongs" to something, whether that thing is concrete or abstract
23:33 < zipcpi> Yeah in that case it won't be quite right
23:33 < zipcpi> Oh I forgot the {kau}
23:33 < zipcpi> ta'i makau
23:33 < zipcpi> That's a bit long though x.x
23:34 < zipcpi> But yeah as I noted, in Malay you don't {pilno} a language (or any skill), you {dacti} it
23:35 < zipcpi> Er not dacti
23:35 < zipcpi> dasni?
23:35 < gleki> wear?
23:35 < zipcpi> Yeah dasni
23:35 < gleki> jb: dasni
23:35 < gleki> oh no
23:35 < zipcpi> Yep, you "wear" a skill/language
23:35 < zipcpi> mensi ragequit :p
23:36 < gleki> again she couldnt download dumps and crashed
23:36 < gleki> jb: dasni
23:36 < zipcpi> New word "oicli" = "ragequit" :p
23:37 < gleki> enough for me. i just wont restart it
23:37 < zipcpi> Maybe "oicli'a"
23:39 < zipcpi> exp: +s oicli'a
23:39 < zipcpi> Oops lol
23:40 < gleki> k:oicli'a
23:40 < mensi> (CU [Z:oicli'a VAU])
23:42 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/oicli'a
23:47 < zipcpi> {mi certu lo ka limna} is not *very* glico though. Sure "I am skilled at swimming" is perfectly good English, but is not the usual English rendering
23:49 < zipcpi> And {mi djuno lo du'u ta'i makau limna} both manages to be longer and be less semantically precise
23:49 < zipcpi> Because all it implies is that you have a "head knowledge" of it; maybe you read it in a book somewhere, but not that you can actually do it
--- Day changed Fri Jun 12 2015
00:00 < gleki> then {mi vedli lo ka limna}
00:18 < zipcpi> I'm not sure {vedli} means what we want here
00:18 < zipcpi> That implies you swam once upon a time, and remember the experience
00:28 < gleki> ok let's assume they mix {certu/djuno lo ka}
00:40  * nuzba @uitki: ce ki tau jau - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ce_ki_tau_jau by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1IysFli]
01:14 < dutchie> cerni coi
01:36 < gleki> coi
01:48 < gleki> im converting all these external ogg files in la cirkotci tool into data uri
02:20 < gleki> LIVLABOT: la cirkotci tool is now self-contained http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cirkotci.html
02:58 < dutchie> wiki down again?
03:01 < gleki> dutchie: no, works for me.
03:02 < dutchie> hmm
03:04 < gleki> dutchie: which page in particular
03:05 < dutchie> all of it
03:05 < dutchie> can't even ping mw.lojban.org
03:05 < gleki> downforeveryoneorjustme.com/mw.lojban.org
03:05 < dutchie> mm
03:06 < dutchie> ah well, i can manage without it for now. must be some network weirdness
03:06 < gleki> try vpn
03:08 < dutchie> seeing the same from my london-hosted vps box (unsurprising, given i'm practically in london now)
03:08 < dutchie> fine from aws
03:08 < dutchie> *shrug*
03:10  * nuzba @uitki: ko'a marji lo rectu - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ko%27a_marji_lo_rectu by Guskant - notci [http://bit.ly/1e7WK1n]
03:21 < dutchie> oh, apparently level 3 is down
03:37  * nuzba @uitki: complex Languages and Writing Systems - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/complex_Languages_and_Writing_Systems by Mark.xafirkamp. - fix link to [[context free grammars]] [http://bit.ly/1e7YSWF]
03:47  * nuzba @uitki: pronunciation - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/pronunciation by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1GiHDLB]
04:31  * nuzba @uitki: la ckuzda pe la babel - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/la_ckuzda_pe_la_babel by Guskant - ref [http://bit.ly/1Mvpf3y]
04:33  * nuzba @selpahi: na'i fegli toldi | #lojban [http://bit.ly/1L4U7ux]
05:17 < gocti> di'e zo'u ma ke'a zei sumti lo noi zei jufpau
05:17 < gocti> yacc: lo mi noi broda vau broda
05:17 < mensi> ({lo <mi [noi (broda vau) KU'O] broda> KU} VAU)
05:17 < gocti> exp: lo mi noi broda vau broda
05:17 < mensi> ([lo {<mi (¹noi [CU {broda vau}] KUhO¹)> broda} KU] VAU)
05:18 < gocti> (to ta'o zo minbri mu'a ji ma mapti lo ka noi zei bridi toi)
05:19 < gleki> lu noi zei bridi li'u plixau i ku'i ma valsi lo noi zei bridi ja poi zei bridi
05:19 < gleki> no'i ma nabmi i mi noi ke'a no'u mi broda cu co'e
05:20 < _mukti_> coi la gleki
05:20 < gleki> coi la kurji
05:20 < gocti> va'i lo gentufa cu ficysi'u fi lo ka te smuni sa'e nai ma kau le jufra
05:20 < gocti> lo [mi noi broda vau] broda
05:20 < gocti> lo mi [noi broda vau] broda
05:21 < gocti> .i lo simsa be lo'u «lo mi noi broda vau noi broda vau broda» le'u na se zanru
05:21 < gleki> mi na zgana
05:21 < _mukti_> do xendo lo nu te cmene mi zo kurji .i ca ku mi na mutce lo ka kurji
05:22 < gleki> i ku'i do ka'e kurji ma su'a
05:22 < gleki> sa'enai
05:22 < _mukti_> je'e
05:24 < _mukti_> Is there significant support for the proposals that were added the uitki? It seems to me like they break with tradition on a number of points.
05:25 < _mukti_> The idea that a naming article is more definite for example.
05:26 < gleki> naming article?
05:26 < _mukti_> {la}
05:26 < gleki> the proposals?
05:26 < gleki> examples?
05:26 < gocti> la'a tavla fi lo me la zipcpi moi
05:27 < _mukti_> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
05:27 < gleki> you mean that zipcpi's  weirdness?
05:27 < gleki> je'e
05:27 < _mukti_> yes
05:27 < _mukti_> I like some of the technical approaches that they take ... identifying dimensions, etc.
05:28 < _mukti_> But some of the specifics seem out of step with the history of discussions on some issues.
05:28 < gleki> btw, if we want to make the appearance of lojban in online e-learning resources closer in time we should start creating a course in any format (e.g. spreadsheet one) now. so that the owners of those e-learning resources are able to just use what's already done.
05:28 < gleki> anyone wants to watch me doing the course and bugging me with proposals?
05:29 < gleki> definite <-- no idea what that is
05:29 < gleki> Demonstrative  <-- ne'a, VA, TA
05:30 < _mukti_> gleki, you've done amazing work to that end. It seems like the crash course aggregates the most modern teaching approaches.
05:30 < gleki> Anaphoric<-- mi'u, letterals, ri, ra
05:30 < gleki> _mukti_: no, i mean something like Memrise/Duolingo/NooLearning
05:30 < gleki> as for other things like "deictic" i wonder what they really mean
05:31 < gleki> or whether they are meaningful at all
05:31 < _mukti_> Yeah, there's a tradition in philosophy of considering names as "rigid designators", etc. But I never got the idea lojban bought into that.
05:31 < _mukti_> A {la} name to my understanding is a different mode of description.
05:31 < _mukti_> No more or less definite than any other description.
05:31 < gleki> Anaphoric determiner. le'e broda = the aforementioned broda(s). Essentially identical to lo bi'unai broda. <-- that's not what bi'unai means
05:32 < _mukti_> gleki: I know you mean other resources -- I just wanted to thank you for pushing the state of teaching materials forward.
05:33 < gleki> _mukti_: if you have time you can join jboTatoeba TotalScan project
05:33 < _mukti_> What's that?
05:33 < gleki> H: coi .i xu do nelci le draci = "Hi. Did you like the play? (that you just watched)"
05:33 < gleki> ^ sounds like demonstrative
05:33 < gleki> unless by demonstrative you mean space/time things
05:34 < gleki> mi djica lo nu do penmi le prenu : "I want you to meet a person (I have in mind)."
05:34 < _mukti_> I think that comes from cadgu's proposed usage of {le} to contrast with {lo}
05:34 < gleki> ^ sounds like {da}
05:35 < Ilmen> I think this le has to do with most-salient-ness
05:35 < _mukti_> coi la .ilmen.
05:35 < Ilmen> coi
05:35 < gleki> Also I can't see why they mention anaphora but never cataphora and exophora. thus the whole page looks extremely eclectic.
05:37 < gleki> _mukti_: note that it's better to put more "wrong translation" tags if you doubt rather than less such tags. since we are first interested in raising the quality of the Tatoeba db rather than retaining a large number of sentences https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Md0pojdcO3EVf3LQPHXFB7uOThNvTWszkWd5T4YhvKs/edit?usp=drive_web
05:38 < Ilmen> --> zipcpi-le broda = lo poi'i ke'a broda gi'e traji lo ka prominente ku lo ro broda ?
05:38 < Ilmen> {lo broda poi co'e} is also possible, but maybe too weak
05:39 < gleki> lo broda pe dei?
05:39 < Ilmen> Maybe; I don't know anymore what {dei} is
05:42 < Ilmen> {dei} is sometimes used for the current sentence, and sometimes for the current situation
05:44 < Ilmen> The problem of using {pe dei} as "pertaining to the current sentence" is that "the current sentence", if it's a mere letter/sound sequence, may have been uttered more than once, especially if it's a simple sentence
05:45 < Ilmen> so it's maybe not the best way to express "pertaining to the current situation"
06:08 < gleki> "the current discourse", I think. not "sentence"
06:10 < Ilmen> The most important deictic is "here and there / the current situation"
06:10 < Ilmen> I'd like "nau" to be a sumka'i, so that it'd be that deictic
06:10 < gleki> how is it different from demonstrative?
06:11 < Ilmen> I'm unsure, I haven't thought much about demonstratives
06:11 < Ilmen> gleki: Do you mean ti/ta/tu?
06:11 < gleki> Ilmen: i mean that zipcpi's page
06:12 < Ilmen> the current sentence = lo nau selsku
06:12 < Ilmen> (well, maybe that also means "the current speech/text"
06:12 < Ilmen> )
06:13 < Ilmen> lo nau jufra
06:13 < gleki> en: ca ti
06:14 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
06:14 < gleki> en: cati
06:14 < mensi> 438 da se tolcri: daklytcati, ri'ortcati, tcati, be'ei'oi, ctuci'e, di'o, do'ai, doi, doinai, do'u, dzadza, gafyzmico,
06:14 < mensi> jaivi, jibycu'e, kaidza, le jaivi, ma'u zei ionti, mosysna, nartolkau, pavmeidza, roldza, selcanci, setu'i, suzdza,
06:14 < mensi> suzmeidza, tede'i, terbriju, terzilkancu, toi'e, toi'o, veti'u, xau'e'o, zairsnucu'u, aigne, a'oi, bacru, ba'ei, bai'i,
06:14 < mensi> banmu'i'i, bavlamcte, bavlamvanci, be'a, be'e, bi'ai, bijyjbu, birlxatere, brano, braro'i, briju, bromalsi, broralmalsi,
06:14 < mensi> bruneleskia, bu'u, cabycte, cabyku'e, canci, cando, canro'i, catlpero, ca'u, cermurse, cerni, ce'ulno, cilfu,
06:14 < mensi> cimnyselcmi, cimtu'a, cistcika, ckafi, ckuke'u, clevalua, clinu, clupa, cmagdaleini, cmamalsi, cmaro'i, cmeci'u,
06:14 < mensi> cmenrline, cmeta, cmeveigau, cmisau, ...
06:15 < gleki> btw, in Facebook i got the strangiest request. to add lojban translations of words from swadesh and other frequency lists . like "a/an", "any" etc. O_0
06:15 < Ilmen> jbo: ti
06:15 < mensi> ti = [KOhA6] lo se jarco be le cusku be'o noi jibni le cusku |>>> ta, tu |>>> xorxes
06:16 < Ilmen> my concern with using "ca ti" for "now" is that it doesn't seem very related to jarco-ing
06:16 < gleki> what is jarco? for me it's manifestation
06:16 < Ilmen> (but then, maybe it's the definition of "ti" that is unaccurate)
06:17 < Ilmen> jbo: jarco
06:17 < mensi> jarco = x1 gasnu ja curmi lo nu x2 se sanji x3 .i x1 to'e mipri x2 x3 |>>> gasnu; curmi; sanji; mipri |>>>
06:17 < mensi> xorxes
06:17 < gleki> for me it's "x1 demonstrates property x2
06:25  * nuzba @Rodericus: «La biblioteca de Babel» de Borges en la «lengua lógica» lojban: https://twitter.com/uitki/status/609321883381579776 [http://bit.ly/1FY3IM3]
06:31 < gleki> finti fa la bofxes i se fanva fa lo xorxes i to'u lo ckuzda pe la orxes
06:31 < gleki> *borxes
06:38 < Rodericus> .u'i .i .u'i la .borxes. cu se cmene zo .xorxes.
06:45 < Rodericus> .i xu la .xorxes. ku poi jbopre cu gento .i la .xorxes. go'i
06:46 < Rodericus> Hm… is {ku} necessary there?
06:46 < Ilmen> lo fadni jbobau zo'u zo ku jai toldra
06:46 < Ilmen> (In standard Lojban, this ku is wrong there)
06:47 < durka42> if you don't take the brivla-cmevla merge, definitely not
06:47 < durka42> if you do, it's optional
06:47 < durka42> (but with the merge, that second sentence requires a {ku} or a {cu})
06:47 < Rodericus> That's what I was thinking, durka42. Wouldn't it absorbe the relative clause into the name?
06:48 < gleki> and there should be a parser that decides without any external help
06:48 < durka42> Rodericus: yeah
06:48 < Ilmen> camxes: la noi broda .brodos.
06:48 < camxes> ([la {noi <broda VAU> KUhO} brodos] VAU)
06:48 < durka42> it's not decidable
06:49 < durka42> la xorxes ku poi jbopre: Among those called Xorxes, the one(s) who are jbopre
06:49 < Rodericus> So The Jorge the Lojbanist? I was trying to imply only the proper name as the name.
06:49 < durka42> la xorxes poi jbopre [vau ku'o ku]: The one(s) called Xorxes the Jbopre
06:50 < Rodericus> Oops, without the first “the”.
06:50 < Ilmen> (Note: those are brivla-cmevla merger examples)
06:50 < gleki> durka42: prgamatically it is decidable. at least this is how all natlang parsers work :P
06:51 < Rodericus> "Among those called Xorxes, the one(s) who are jbopre". Exactly that I tried to say.
06:51 < gocti> (sei A cusku) doi .xorxes. viska ma .i (sei X cusku) la .moxamed. morsi
06:51 < durka42> gleki: pragmatically yes :p
06:52 < gleki> => la moxamed  cu morsi
06:52 < durka42> gleki: well if you ever see {la [cmevla] [selbri]} and there is no main selbri, then almost definitely no-merge
06:52 < durka42> gleki: but it can be very hard to tell the other way around
06:52 < gleki> i ki'u bo claxu lo selbri
06:52 < durka42> I mean without understanding the meanings of words
06:52 < gleki> durka42: the other way around is rare.
06:53 < durka42> .ei denpa lo tsali rutni bo mencre genturfa'i
06:53 < gleki> I'd translate "Alexander the Greatest" as {lo banli be fa la aleksander}
06:53 < durka42> not {la banli .aleksandr.}?
06:54 < gleki> ^ that's under merge
06:54 < gleki> which i avoid
06:54 < gleki> la bangu is under attack from all sides :/
06:54 < gleki> and has always been by design
06:54 < durka42> you avoid the merge but say {cu} all the time to be compatible with it?
06:54 < gleki> yes
06:54 < durka42> I see
06:55 < gleki> i will even probably have to remove {la jasmin noi} from CC
06:55 < durka42> you are a reformer in other ways though, don't pretend you aren't :p
06:55 < gleki> in paedagogics?
06:55 < durka42> in glekitufa
06:56 < gocti> zo ce zo jo'u .i zo nu zo su'u .i pe'i lo me lu lo mo be fa ti li'u moi ku ji'a retfo'orma
06:58 < durka42> ie
07:55 < gleki> glekitufa is partially a joke, partially a test of te sumti detection using PEG only, partially just learning the science of parsing
08:55 < gleki> how would you say "better" using tags only?
10:25 < gleki> "as soon as". how do we translate it? co'a ko'a?
10:27 < zipcpi> Maybe?
10:47 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 144 nicks [3 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 141 normal]
10:49 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 145 nicks [3 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 142 normal]
10:49 < gleki> .w as soon as
10:49 < phenny> Can't find anything in Wikipedia for "as soon as".
10:49 < gleki> .w as
10:49 < phenny> "1 Organizations 1.1 Business legal structures" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As
10:50 < zipcpi> Do I dare suggest {co'i} lol
10:51 < gleki> .dict as soon as
10:51 < phenny> as soon as — preposition: 1. Used other than as an idiom: see as,‎ soon
10:51 < gleki> it's not phenny actually. it's jenni
10:51 < zipcpi> immediately at or shortly after the time that <call as soon as you get there>
10:51 < gleki> https://github.com/myano/jenni/wiki
10:51 < phenny> [ Home · myano/jenni Wiki · GitHub ] - https://github.com
10:51 < gleki> because phenny stopped working
10:52 < gleki> .btc
10:52 < phenny> 1 BTC (in USD) = bitstamp: 229.81 | btce: 232.5 | coinbase: 230.72 | ripple: 327.42057115 | rock: 229.01 | lolcat (coinbase) index: $36,915.20 | Howells (coinbase) index: $1,730,400.00 | last updated at: 2015-06-12 10:52:33.086480 UTC
10:52 < gleki> lolcat !
10:53 < gleki> .add point zipcpi
10:53 < zipcpi> Call as soon as you get there -> {ko fonjorne co'i lo nu do mo'u klama tu} ?
10:53 < gleki> .addpoint zipcpi
10:53 < phenny> zipcpi: +1/-0, 1
10:54 < gleki> .addpoint gleki
10:54 < phenny> gleki: +1/-0, 1
10:54 < gleki> .addpoint gleki
10:54 < phenny> gleki: +2/-0, 2
10:54 < zipcpi> lol
10:54 < gleki> .rmpoint xorlo
10:54 < phenny> xorlo: +0/-1, -1
10:54 < zipcpi> Is that what la xorxes logs on here as?
10:55 < gleki> list_banned_words 
10:55 < gleki> .list_banned_words 
10:55 < phenny> AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'bad_words' (file "/home/gleki/jenni/modules/banned_words.py", line 116, in list_banned_words)
10:56 < gleki> o'u
10:57 < zipcpi> Let's see what the BPFK says about {co'i} at the moment...
10:58 < gleki> co'i is just perfective. what is "le" in Mandarin.
10:58 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Aspect#cmavo:_co.27i_.28ZAhO.29
10:59 < phenny> [ BPFK Section: Aspect - le uitki ] - http://mw.lojban.org
10:59 < zipcpi> Seems to check out with my use
10:59 < gleki> i think it's hard to explain what is perfectivity to speakers of English
11:00 < zipcpi> I dunno, if {co'i} is not good here, what else is there?
11:00 < zipcpi> IIRC "le" in Mandarin is more like {mo'u}
11:01 < zipcpi> Or {ba'o}
11:02 < gleki> not always
11:02 < gleki> {ba'o} means "no longer"
11:02 < zipcpi> My memory is hazy x.x
11:03 < gleki> {mo'u citka} is "to eat up"
11:03 < zipcpi> I think it could mean both {mo'u} and "already"
11:03 < gleki> it may be so that telicity (mo'u) and perfectivity (co'i) sre often mixed together, though.
11:05 < zipcpi> Yeah we can't just rely on one word of the ma'oste definitions; we also have to think about the other explanations of it, and also how useful it is when contrasted with competing cmavo
11:05 < gleki> try thinking that telicity=mo'u and perfectivity=co'i here: http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/membres/postdoctorands/Borik/borik-reinhart-lola8.pdf
11:05 < zipcpi> I just really wish I remembered more about Mandarin or Malay right now
11:06 < zipcpi> Would help me not to be so malglixlu in my approach to Lojban
11:06 < zipcpi> se malglixlu
11:06 < ldlework> ko broda pu'o ko'a
11:06 < ldlework> "Don't broda until ko'a"
11:06 < ldlework> ko broda co'i ko'a
11:06 < ldlework> "Don't broda until the moment of ko'a" ?
11:07 < zipcpi> Nah, there is no "don't" sense
11:07 < ldlework> ko'a broda ko'e : ko'a doesn't broda until ko'e
11:07 < zipcpi> And pu'o I think means "Broda before ko'a"
11:07 < ldlework> nope
11:07 < ldlework> we just had this discussion in here
11:07 < zipcpi> Where are you getting "don't"?
11:07 < ldlework> I originally thought the natural use of pu'o would be
11:08 < ldlework> mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka
11:08 < ldlework> but I was told that this means
11:08 < gleki> do broda pu'o ko'a => do pu'o broda ca ko'a = you are about to broda when ko'a happens
11:08 < ldlework> "I'm not hungry until I eat."
11:08 < ldlework> so following the same logic
11:08 < zipcpi> Ugh... the weird logic of time tenses again...
11:09 < ldlework> yes
11:09 < ldlework> when used as tags
11:09 < gleki> mi xagji pu'o lo nu mi citka = > mi pu'o xagji calonu mi citka = I am about to be hungry while I'm eating.
11:09 < ldlework> the senses are always inverted counter-intuitively
11:09 < ldlework> I was told that to get hte sense I want, I needed co'a or something
11:09 < ldlework> mi xagji co'a lo nu mi citka
11:09 < gleki> then better not to use tense tags as tags except {ca}
11:09 < gleki> ^ I get hingry when I eat.
11:10 < gleki> ^ I get hungry when I eat.
11:10 < ldlework> That's po'u
11:10 < ldlework> I'm not hungry, until I eat ~= I get hungry when I eat
11:10 < gleki> is everyone familiar with xorxe's rule on tense tags+ca?
11:11 < ldlework> nope
11:12 < gleki> CLL has this rule reversed
11:12 < gleki> thus confusion with co'a/pu'o
11:12 < durka42> what's the correct rule?
11:12 < ldlework> I mean, when it is explained with ba and pu, it *almost* makes sense
11:12 < ldlework> the inverted senses, I mean
11:12 < ldlework> but the others? it melts my intuition
11:12 < ldlework> (which is ok ofc)
11:13 < ldlework> and then scope O_O
11:13 < durka42> all the ZAhO cmavo expand with ca as the tag, {co'a sumti} => {ca sumti co'a}
11:13 < durka42> as far as I understand
11:14 < gleki> yeah
11:14 < ldlework> need that visualizer :)
11:15 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ZAhO_as_sumti_tcita
11:15 < phenny> [ ZAhO as sumti tcita - le uitki ] - http://mw.lojban.org
11:15 < zipcpi> The more immediate problem is, if {co'i} doesn't mean "as soon as", what other tag can be used for it?
11:15 < gleki> that terrible legacy of Tiki...
11:15 < zipcpi> Cause the BPFK articles seem to corroborate the "as soon as" interpretatio
11:16 < gleki> .dict as_soon_as
11:16 < phenny> as_soon_as — preposition: 1. Used other than as an idiom: see as,‎ soon
11:16 < gleki> darn
11:16 < gleki> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/as_soon_as
11:16 < phenny> [ as soon as - Wiktionary ] - https://en.wiktionary.org
11:16 < zipcpi>  immediately at or shortly after the time that <call as soon as you get there>
11:16 < gleki> At the moment when; immediately after.
11:16 < gleki> As soon as he arrived, everyone gasped.
11:16 < durka42> whoa who turned on all the phenny features
11:16 < gleki> it's not phenny
11:17 < gleki> it's jenni
11:17 < gleki> phenny stopped working with wiktionary and i dont know  why
11:17 < gleki> .addpoint durka42
11:17 < phenny> durka42: +1/-0, 1
11:17 < durka42> probably they switched to https or something
11:17 < durka42> .rmpoint gleki
11:17 < phenny> gleki: +2/-1, 1
11:17 < dutchie> they did
11:17 < dutchie> all the wikimedia sites default to https now
11:17 < gleki> phenny doesnt even have https settings
11:18 < gleki> and this ".dict" switch isnt as nice as of the old phenny
11:19 < gleki> At the moment when <-- i think {seco'i} works fine here.
11:19 < gleki>  immediately after <-- bazi
11:20 < zipcpi> I don't even know how {se} works with ZAhO
11:20 < zipcpi> My head x.x
11:20 < gleki> it reverses the two clauses.
11:20 < gleki> so first reverse them from English order.
11:21 < zipcpi> So broda co'i lo nu brode = co'i broda ca lo nu brode?
11:21 < zipcpi> Or did I get that the wrong way?
11:21 < zipcpi> Well according to the BPFK section I'm right
11:22 < gleki> that's what xorxes suggested, yes.
11:22 < zipcpi> Ah
11:22 < zipcpi> But the CLL works the other way?
11:22 < gleki> not sure about co'i in particular.
11:22 < zipcpi> oisai ro'e
11:23 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ZAhO_as_sumti_tcita- this says nothing
11:25 < zipcpi> Yeah all that does is discourage {pu'o} and {ba'o} as tags
11:25 < zipcpi> Doesn't help with our {co'i} problem
11:26 < zipcpi> {ko fonjorne ca lo nu do co'i mo'u klama} = ???
11:27 < zipcpi> Well working from right to left mo'u klama means "finished going"... za'e klamymulno
11:27 < zipcpi> So then co'i would mean what we want?
11:28 < zipcpi> Seems to check out
11:28 < ldlework> zipcpi: want to collaborate on a write up about the tensing system
11:28 < zipcpi> lol
11:29 < ldlework> I don't suggest we change it, its probably fine
11:29 < zipcpi> I think this time I want a long talk with xorxes first :p
11:29 < ldlework> but lets figure it out, and then write an expose about it
11:29 < ldlework> Maybe what we learn in that process would help me write a visualizer
11:31 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/images/thumb/2/2f/display2.png/500px-display2.png
11:31 < ldlework> That isn't what I mean
11:31  * zipcpi nods
11:31 < gleki> i dont know what problem you have. havent i put all aspects into two tables?
11:31 < ldlework> And that thing isn't the most helpful in understanding the semantics of tagging
11:31 < zipcpi> True
11:32 < gleki> ... aligning linguistic and lojbanic terms
11:32 < ldlework> I mean you type in a thing like ko'a broda TAG ko'e and it shows you the two events, and how they overlap chronologically
11:32 < zipcpi> Right
11:34 < ldlework> co'o .i de'a jundi
11:35 < gleki> formatting corrected: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ZAhO_as_sumti_tcita
11:35 < phenny> [ ZAhO as sumti tcita - le uitki ] - http://mw.lojban.org
11:41 < zipcpi> "When one tinkers, they are correcting drastic problems and proving extensions of genius and foresight. When anyone else tinkers, they are repeating old, spent discussions, introducting major flaws, and generally being annoying." - xod
11:41 < zipcpi> u'i
11:41 < zipcpi> That could be the BSFK's second motto :p
11:49 < zipcpi> exp: lo'e lu'i re bruna
11:49 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
11:49 < zipcpi> exp lo'e me lu'i re bruna
11:49 < zipcpi> exp: lo'e me lu'i re bruna
11:49 < mensi> ([lo'e {me <lu'i (¹[re BOI] bruna KU¹) LUhU> MEhU} KU] VAU)
11:49 < zipcpi> exp: lo'e me lu'i bruna
11:49 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
11:50 < gleki> lu'i is LAhE
11:50 < zipcpi> Yeah I know
11:50 < zipcpi> There might be a small problem there with sets
11:51 < zipcpi> Does {zu'ai} and {simxu} expect a set?
11:51 < zipcpi> And differentiates them from a mass?
11:51 < gleki> mass is just gunma
11:51 < zipcpi> Right so in a mass they all clump together as one entity
11:51 < gleki> although it is grammaticalized in lojban into {loi}
11:52 < zipcpi> Yeah that might not be good
11:52 < zipcpi> loi re bruna cu tende lo ka damba zu'ai - I guess this doesn't work then?
11:53 < gleki> no idea. but it works with {lo}
11:54 < zipcpi> Then what would {lo'e re bruna} mean...
11:54 < zipcpi> The typical two brothers; counted as individuals?
11:54 < zipcpi> Or the generalistic two brothers under my model; not sure if that's very different
11:56 < gleki> loi re bruna cu tende lo ka damba zu'ai <= masses of brothers, a twofold each fight with each other.
11:57 < zipcpi> Right, as in {xo'e loi re bruna}
11:57 < zipcpi> So each group of "two brothers" act as a single entity in the set
11:59 < zipcpi> lo'e so'o bruna cu tende lo ka damba zu'ai = "[Several] brothers tend to fight each other"?
12:01 < zipcpi> Or maybe I should bite the bullet and use {za'upa}
12:01 < gleki> a typical group of several brothers tend to fight with another such group
12:01 < zipcpi> lo'e isn't mass
12:03 < zipcpi> And in fact can be replaced with just {lo}; or at least that's the theory we're working from
12:03 < zipcpi> {lo} can be either {le} or {lo'e}
12:04 < gleki> then idk
12:04 < zipcpi> As far as I know I'm not changing the definition of {lo'e} much; just using it a *lot* more often
12:05 < zipcpi> Essentially resurrecting it as {le}'s long-lost twin brother
12:07 < zipcpi> Where {le} refers to specific objects, {lo'e} generalizes about "typical" objects
12:10 < zipcpi> Anyway, gotta go. co'o
13:07 < Ilmen> bazicai
13:08 < Ilmen> Er, was replying to a post from 1:48 hours ago
13:08 < Ilmen> ju'i nai jbopli
15:20 < rakmaak> mensi: doi ldlework Here, for you and zipcpi: http://selpahi.de/ZAHO_Explanation.txt
15:20 < mensi> rakmaak: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.ldlework.gy. di'a cusku da
15:35 <@rlpowell> gleki: I think I may have fixed the outages; let me know.
19:13 <@rlpowell> Please check for down lojban.org services.
21:13 < zipcpi> Is there a selma'o that quotes an arbitrary word, like zo, but turns it into a selbri rather than a sumti?
21:13 < zipcpi> I want it to work something like {me la'e zo}
21:14 < zipcpi> This way we can avoid using {zei} for nonce tanru with cmavo
21:15 < zipcpi> It would be a very vague selbri - something like {x1 is related to the meaning of this word by aspect x2}, but good enough for tanru
21:22 < durka42> sounds like a job for my selma'o GOhOI
21:23 < durka42> vlaste: class:GOhOI
21:23 < vlaste> go'oi = pro-bridi: quotes the next word and repeats the most recent bridi containing that word
21:23 < durka42> another word of the same selma'o could have the semantics you describe
21:23 < durka42> (I didn't really invent this word, just jbovlastified it)
21:25 < zipcpi> Ah
21:26 < durka42> GOhOI : any-word -> selbri
21:26 < durka42> ZO : any-word -> term
21:26 < durka42> er
21:27 < durka42> term? sumti? idk
21:27 < durka42> mi sipna nitcu
21:42 < zipcpi> Definition of ME is funny
21:42 < zipcpi> *me
21:43 < zipcpi> The English one makes it sound like ckini
21:43 < zipcpi> But the other languages make it menre instead
22:27 < gleki> I hope everyone will let us (and rlpowell too) know of new outages.
--- Day changed Sat Jun 13 2015
01:48 < ctefaho> coi ro
02:05 < gleki> coi
05:24 < Ilmen|2> coi
05:26 < Ilmen> There's a vocal chat in Lojban beginning right now on Mumble (Zgana server)
05:51 < Ilmen> Mumble:  zbaga.ax.lt:64738
07:08 < gleki> je'e
07:29 < zipcpi> Yeah, I think {ze'oi} is quite useful; it also allows you to more-conveniently use tanru structure-cmavo, like {ke}, {bo}, and {co}
07:29 < zipcpi> And leave {zei} for lujvo-making
07:30 < zipcpi> Also we finally know what the veljvo of {ga'e zei lerfu} is :p
07:30 < zipcpi> It's {ze'oi ga'e lerfu}
07:31 < gleki> zipcpi: already added examples with ze'oi into tatoeba?
07:31 < zipcpi> Not yet... though I don't know how. I try not to overuse tanru in Tatoeba
07:31 < gleki> then add somthing without tanru
07:32 < zipcpi> Although I could break up my translation of "Trojan horse (malware)" as {.troias. zei xirma zei malsamtci}
07:32 < gleki> if no examples then this word doesnt exist
07:32 < zipcpi> {ze'oi} is primarily meant for use with tanru. It is rather vague otherwise
07:33 < zipcpi> Make it {ze'oi .troias. xirma malsamtci}, although {ze'oi} isn't quite needed here under BCM
07:34 < zipcpi> We might want a real brivla for "Trojan horse (malware)" though, but I don't know what to call it :p
07:35 < zipcpi> Not sure about the status of BCM on Tatoeba though :p
07:36 < gleki> they are allowed but in future will all have to be tagged
07:36 < gleki> after the total scan project is done and i mass upload tags to the db
07:36 < zipcpi> Right
07:36 < gleki> .dict condition
07:36 < phenny> condition — noun: 1. A logical clause or phrase that a conditional statement uses. The phrase can either be true or false, 2. A requirement, term, or requisite — verb: 1. To subject to the process of acclimation, 2. To subject to different conditions, especially as an exercise
07:37 < zipcpi> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4224329 There, two uses of {ze'oi}
07:37 < phenny> [ Lojban example sentence: bu'a'a mi ze'oi .troias. xirma malsamtci .i ja'e bo mi gunta lo do ze'oi .makintoc. skami - Tatoeba ] - http://tatoeba.org
07:38 < gleki> zabna
09:21 < gocti> zipcpi: za'a lo nabmrfazdymru ...... sei ri'e zei nai denpa ...... xa'o co'u nabmi
09:35 < zipcpi> doi gocti cu mo
09:38 < zipcpi> ta'i ma co'u nabmi
09:40 < gocti> la xorxo xelso pu lo nu mi ganse lo nu nabmi cu stika lo srana ke .peg. javni
09:40 < gocti> .i sa'u za'o na pagbu la .ilmentufa
09:42 < zipcpi> je'e
09:56 < zipcpi> About kakne vs ka'e... I don't think there is actually much difference really. {kakne} could also mean "has the potential to" pe'i
09:57 < zipcpi> And if it didn't before it does now, due to the strong association and lack of alternatives
09:58 < zipcpi> Basically = {jai cumki}
09:59 < zipcpi> Philosophical potential vs actual potential might need to be split according to {te kakne}
10:01 < durka42> what do you think about the {limna} example
10:02 < durka42> mi [ki'u lo nu remna] cu ka'e limna
10:02 < durka42> mi [ki'u lo nu nu'o cilre] cu na kakne lo ka limna
10:02 < durka42> different? both ka'e? both kakne? interchangeable?
10:02 < zipcpi> mi ka'e limna / mi kakne lo ka limna  = I have the potential to swim. {lo te kakne} is ambiguous; it could mean that I can swim given lessons and time to practice. Or that I can swim right now if you dropped me in the water
10:02 < durka42> je'e
10:03 < Ilmen> jbo: jinzi
10:03 < mensi> jinzi = lo nu x1 se ckaji x2 cu rarna gi'e na se gasnu .i x1 se ckaji x2 co'a lo nu x2 zasti .i x2 cu ro roi pu ckaji x1
10:03 < mensi> |>>> srana fa zo lakne .e zo rarna .e zo stati .e zo tcaci .e zo kakne .e zo ckaji |>>>
10:03 < mensi> selpahi
10:03 < Ilmen> jbo:kakne
10:03 < mensi> kakne = lo nu x1 zukte ja ckaji x2 cu cumki x3
10:04 < Ilmen> jbo:vlipa
10:04 < mensi> vlipa = x1 kakne lo ka zukte ja akti x2 .i x1 kakne x2 noi ka gasnu
10:06 < gocti> .o'a nai la mintcenti cu vitke je na se rinsa
10:07 < zipcpi> mi na selsau my
10:07 < gocti> y
10:07 < gocti> mincenti
10:07 < gocti> coi la cinfo co ranmi
10:07 < zipcpi> coi la mincenti
10:08 < mindszenty> coi .ui
10:08 < Ilmen> coi!
10:08 < gocti> do ze'a mo
10:12 < gleki> {mi ka'e limna} - it's possible that i swim. {mi kakne lo ka limna} - i am able capable of swimming
10:13 < gleki> ua i ca lo cabdei mi pu kucli lo nu la mintcenti cu zvati makau
10:13 < gleki> i coi my
10:13 < zipcpi> Yes, but the meaning of the word "capable" is in dispute, and my opinion is that given {lo te kakne} it doesn't have much difference from mere possibility
10:14 < zipcpi> And I think the tagged sumti of {ka'e} is lo te kakne
10:14 < zipcpi> The Lojban definition also links it to {cumki}
10:14 < gleki> those are just hints and links, not expansions
10:15 < zipcpi> x1 doesn't have to be a person; could be an object... even an event that {kakne lo ka fasnu}
10:16 < gleki> jbo: limna
10:16 < mensi> limna = x1 fulta gi'e sezu'e muvdu vau x2 |>>> gleki
10:16 < gleki> ua la gleki
10:17 < mindszenty> Well, various things happen :) Biggest obstacle to being here was laptop malfunction. But now all is well, it seems.
10:17 < gleki> is freefeed now out of beta?
10:22 < gleki> these are the words that i cant translate to Lojban: "account, almost, any, anything, as, being, beside, better - semau xau?, business, to call,  chance, character, court                                                                        
10:22 < mindszenty> No, freefeed is still beta, and afaik, registration is not yet open. There are another experimental implementation of the engine, with free registration on http://mokum.ru.
10:22 < phenny> [ Mokum ] - http://mokum.ru.
10:22 < zipcpi> account has a lot of meanings
10:22 < gleki> oh, really. how so xo'o
10:22 < zipcpi> almost is typically {naru'e}, though I don't know if that could have any problems
10:22 < gleki> zo'onai that's why i cant
10:22 < zipcpi> "any"... well that's a funny problem
10:22 < mindszenty> I am not involved in the development now, but I think the plan is to replace freefeed's engine with mokum's, because it develops faster an better.
10:23 < gleki> explain "any" in one word ...
10:23 < zipcpi> Look up {xe'e} on JVS if you please
10:23 < zipcpi> It's an abandoned gadri that is only explained by the word "any"
10:23 < gleki> we discussed it many times. CC has the answer
10:23 < zipcpi> I have no idea what its intention was, and why {lo} is considered acceptable in its place
10:24 < gleki> http://tatoeba.org/por/sentences_lists/show/1351
10:24 < phenny> [ "Any" & "Some"- Tatoeba ] - http://tatoeba.org
10:24 < zipcpi> Exactly... I just don't think {lo prenu} for "anybody" is sufficient
10:24 < gleki> either {lo } or {da} but that's not a sufficient answer
10:25 < zipcpi> It's probably something la gadganzu would have to cover :p
10:25 < gleki> the whole idea of eng2jbo dictionary is broken
10:25 < zipcpi> Or maybe it should be something in UI
10:25 < gleki> as for "any" you may search in the archive of the mriste
10:25 < gleki> *archives
10:26 < zipcpi> Ugh... sounds like a word that will hit lots of search chaff
10:26 < gleki> or maybe someone needs to convert it to a wiki page
10:26 < gleki> search for those sentences from tatoeba in the mriste
10:26 < zipcpi> Yeah I think I like it in UI better than a gadri; that way it can attach to a pronoun as well
10:27 < zipcpi> It could also be an acceptable answer to {mo'oi}
10:27 < zipcpi> do djica tu'a mo'oi plise
10:27 < zipcpi> xe'e
10:28 < zipcpi> Also nicely rhymes with {ge'e} :p
10:28 < gleki> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/yh8-ChFLanM/discussion
10:28 < phenny> [ Google Groups ] - https://groups.google.com
10:28 < gleki> 6 pages i know. but it has the answer
10:29 < zipcpi> So {lo xe'e prenu} = any person; da xe'e = any X
10:29 < zipcpi> pei
10:29 < durka42> en: xe'e
10:29 < mensi> 17 da se tolcri: banbuxe'e, bancuxe'e, bankuxe'e, banmuxe'e, bansuxe'e, bantuxe'e, banxe'e'a, banxe'ebu, banxe'edu,
10:29 < mensi> banxe'egu, banxe'e'i, banxe'emu, banxe'eru, banxe'exe, banxuxe'e, baurguxe'e, baurnuxe'e
10:29 < zipcpi> It's downvoted
10:30 < zipcpi> You'd have to look in JVS
10:30 < durka42> I see it
10:30 < durka42> any person = ro prenu …?
10:30 < zipcpi> That means the sentence applies to everyone
10:30 < zipcpi> And is inappropriate as an answer to "mo'oi plise"
10:30 < zipcpi> Or {mo'oi prenu} in this case
10:31 < zipcpi> We would need to define it better than a single word "any" though
10:31 < gleki> it's a solution but not the solution since "any" has around 10 meanings in english
10:31 < zipcpi> Yep
10:31 < niedzielski> is logban versioned or would it be if incompatible changes were made?
10:31 < durka42> sounds like {su'a}
10:32 < zipcpi> I don't think {su'a} is an acceptable answer to {mo'oi prenu} either
10:32 < durka42> niedzielski: it's effectively versioned already, into "old lojban" (CLL era) and newer style
10:32 < durka42> the differences are not that large though
10:32 < gleki> niedzielski: it would be versioned then. but there arent any beacward incompatible changes, mostly additions like in any language
10:32 < durka42> zipcpi: why not?
10:32 < zipcpi> "I generalize"... about what?
10:33 < gleki> oh my, pls first read the discussion from 2012
10:33 < zipcpi> OK fine
10:33 < durka42> well, there are incompatible changes
10:33 < Ilmen> mo'oi prenu ka'e nerkla --- bu'a
10:34 < durka42> but we haven't reached a real consensus on how to deal with that
10:34 < durka42> {jo'au} is the best answer so far
10:34 < zipcpi> Hmm... my first impression is that yes, generally "any" can be replaced by other quantifiers logically, but they aren't an acceptable answer to {mo'oi}
10:34 < Ilmen> zipcpi: how about {bu'a}?
10:34 < gocti> gleki: xu do se krali lo ka vimcu lo .tatoebas. jufra
10:34 < durka42> okay but how does adding another cmavo with a vague english definition help anything
10:34 < durka42> .u'i
10:34 < niedzielski> durka42, gleki thanks. so if a flaw was found in the current version that required a restructure, this would not be done?
10:34 < gleki> gocti: go'i
10:35 < gleki> gocti: i ku'i mi pu nupre lo ka lanli fe po'o lo lojbo
10:35 < durka42> niedzielski: it seems like you're assuming there's a central authority that decides these things :p
10:35 < zipcpi> durka42: Yeah that's what we're going to have to fix... find a good definition for it; or find a sufficient existing solution
10:35 < durka42> first step, figure out why existing words aren't good enough
10:35 < durka42> and not with something like "it doesn't feel right to me, you know man"
10:35 < durka42> uai
10:36 < gleki> niedzielski: there cant be flaws in the grammar since the core is fully described in a formal grammar. there can be additions to the core like it's done in English and other languages.
10:36 < gocti> .e'u vimcu la'e di'e lu'u noi mi jmina va'o lo nu na sanji lo nu xa'o ku su'o drata cu xe fanva
10:36 < gocti> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4271600
10:36 < phenny> [ Lojban example sentence: ro da zo'u .e'a do cinba da - Tatoeba ] - http://tatoeba.org
10:36 < gocti> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4271601
10:36 < phenny> [ Lojban example sentence: lo banxa cu rivbi lo ka jdice da - Tatoeba ] - http://tatoeba.org
10:36 < durka42> if such a huge flaw were found, I'd imagine most of us would want to fix it
10:36 < gocti> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4271604
10:36 < phenny> [ Lojban example sentence: na ku la .djon. cu viska da - Tatoeba ] - http://tatoeba.org
10:37 < niedzielski> durka42: independent of how it happens :) there must be some improvements that a large audience pushes for
10:37 < gleki> gocti: e'o do ciska lu e'u vimcu le jufra li'u a lo simsa
10:37 < niedzielski> gleki: when i say flaws, what i mean is that a better way is discovered
10:37 < Ilmen> zipcpi: {mo'oi brodo cu brode} ask for what subset of lo brodo satisfies the brode predicate; if one wants to answer "any", the actually mean there's no specific subset, and that any brodo will do. So {bu'a} seems like a satisfying answer. pei
10:38 < gleki> niedzielski: there can be options, sure. but reworking what already works isn't much appreciated. why ruining what has already been used?
10:38 < Ilmen> *they actually mean
10:38 < zipcpi> {su'a lo'e nixli cu nelci lo bambola} = "Generally, girls like dolls". {su'a} doesn't mean "any" here
10:38 < gocti> vi'o
10:38 < zipcpi> Ilmen... Hmm... then {lo bu'a prenu} can also mean "anyone"?
10:39 < Ilmen> "lo prenu" is already okay for "anyone" I think
10:39 < durka42> bu'a??
10:39 < zipcpi> I don't even know how you can quantify {bu'a} like {da}
10:39 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Probably depends on context
10:39 < Ilmen> bu'a = me'au da, as far as I can tell
10:39 < durka42> yeah I guess so
10:39 < durka42> I never imagined using it this way
10:39 < Ilmen> I prefer to use {me'au da}, it's only one syllable longer and is more versatile
10:40 < Ilmen> {ro da zo'u ko'a me'au da....}
10:41 < gleki> and it probably has advantage since you can insert something between me'au and da
10:44 < gleki> gocti: mo'u  vimcu
10:45 < gocti> ki'e
10:45 < gleki> gocti: i ku'i da'i gau do na jorne lo krasi fai lo xe fanva 
10:45 < Ilmen> zipcpi: {lo prenu poi mo} asks for a subset of prenu; if the addresse wants to deny it's a subset (but the whole set qualifies), then they can answer "(poi) prenu", or "(poi) bu'a" (it's the same)
10:45 < zipcpi> Right
10:45 < niedzielski> gleki: it seems strange to me that such a purposeful language wouldn't want to reinvent itself if a better way was found, hence my versioning questions
10:45 < gleki> gocti: i ku'i mi na mulno briti lo nu zukte makau
10:46 < zipcpi> I do want to avoid {lo prenu poi bu'a} though
10:46 < gleki> niedzielski: as of now we mostly dont change past things since they work. providing new options doesnt always lead to invalidating past changes. they can peacefully coexist.
10:46 < zipcpi> Don't like using relative clauses too often, due to often needing to close open bridi tails
10:46 < Ilmen> zipcpi: "lo prenu poi prenu" is also okay, although a bit silly
10:47 < gocti> jbo: itca
10:47 < mensi> itca = x1 cu su'o mei x2 gi'e jai se djuno su'o da fai lo kamdu'o gi'e co'e .i lo du'u ma kau cmene x1 cu na'e se djuno
10:47 < mensi> ja na'e se jungau |>>> srana fa zo co'e .e zo du .e zo djuno .e zo kamdu'o |>>> selpahi
10:47 < zipcpi> u'i
10:47 < zipcpi> Huh what's itca
10:48 < gleki> xu lo mupli be zo itca be'o pe la mupli cu zasti
10:48 < gocti> za'a na go'i
10:48 < gocti> zipcpi: "x1 itca x2" -> "x1 is a particular x2"
10:48 < durka42> niedzielski: the problem is that "reinventing" conflicts with the way humans learn languages, so a language that constantly has major changes in order to be more perfect is unusable, there is a balance though
10:48 < zipcpi> Ah
10:49 < Ilmen> "x1 is a certain x2"
10:49 < zipcpi> so what does na'e itca mean?
10:49 < gocti> "any old" ru'a
10:50 < zipcpi> So is that an acceptable answer?
10:50 < gocti> na djuno .i pe'i xagmau lu poi bu'a li'u
10:50 < Ilmen> durka42, niedzielski: Also, when one wants to make some major changes to the basics of the language, why not change everything in one go, basically creating a new language? Nothing prevent people from forking Lojban; there are already other logical languages out there
10:51 < durka42> ie
10:51 < durka42> well, adoption is the problem
10:51 < durka42> but that is also a problem with lojban proposals
10:51 < durka42> so yes
10:52 < Ilmen> As for vocabulary, there's no copyright on Lojban, and Xorban (another loglang) seems to have stealed pretty heavily Lojban's vocab :)
10:52 < niedzielski> gleki durka42 Ilmen: thank for your thoughtful responses and patience. wikipedia lists gua\spi as descendent. to me, considering learning lojban feels like trying to pick the best programming language (except not for programming)
10:53 < gleki> guaspi: bi
10:53 < Ilmen> niedzielski: There is also Xorban and Toaq Dzu, but these two aren't finished
10:53 < mensi> bi = X1 is an instance of the following phrase X2? as language |>>> Transforms as an infinitive similar to -vo.
10:53 < gleki> guaspi: vo
10:53 < mensi> vo = Event X1: is a member of the referent set of sentence X2? |>>> To restrict the infinitive rather than the phrase,
10:53 < mensi> use -xe |R /vo P
10:53 < gleki> guaspi: xe
10:53 < mensi> xe = In-mind elements of referent set, in extension |>>>
10:53 < gleki> O_0
10:53 < Ilmen> niedzielski: But Lojban is the one with the most speakers
10:53 < Ilmen> So you're more likely to get help from real speaker with Lojban
10:53 < gleki> X1 is an instance of the following phrase X2? as language <-- what is a language here???
10:54 < gleki> guaspi: koy
10:54 < mensi> koy = (ji) X1M2 thinks thought (bi) X2+ to listener (zdmo) X3M3 |>>> Alternative modal case for speaker.  Except for
10:54 < mensi> psychic X1, X3 always defaults to copy X1.
10:54 < zipcpi> xu lo dukti be zo itca cu me zo atci u'i
10:54 < zipcpi> ki'ai atci atci atci
10:55 < durka42> acti
10:55 < gleki> is this place structure of "koy" says that x3=x1 by default? i think not, only the notes say it
10:55 < zipcpi> mi zmanei zo atci zo'o
10:56 < zipcpi> mo'oi plise
10:56 < zipcpi> atci
10:56 < zipcpi> a'o se zandapma
10:57 < zipcpi> mi du'eva'e se xajmi
10:57 < Ilmen> niedzielski: But all the Loglangs share the same basics (Phonologic spelling, unambiguous syntax, inspiration from predicate logic, avoidance of polysemy, etc)
10:57 < Ilmen> hence the generic term "loglang" (which encompasses Loglan, Lojban, Gua\spi, Xorban, Toaq Dzu)
10:58 < niedzielski> Ilmen: great notes. thank you
10:58 < Ilmen> The main difference between those language is how those goals are implemented
10:58 < Ilmen> *those languages
11:01 < zipcpi> Huh... interesting. {itca} can also potentially be used to define {le}
11:02 < Ilmen> ta'o co'o
11:02 < zipcpi> co'o .ilmen.
11:03 < zipcpi> lol the word "specific/particular" is already given to "steci"; but the place structure is different
11:05 < zipcpi> So essentially {itca} = {zi'o X_1 steci X_2}; given the caveats of {zi'o}
11:09 < zipcpi> Anyway I've written up an English definition for {itca}
11:12 < durka42> specific but unspecified, heh
11:12  * durka42 de'a
11:12 < zipcpi> ie u'i
11:19 < Mateon1> de'a?
11:19 < Mateon1> en:de'a
11:19 < mensi> de'a = [ZAhO] event contour for a temporary halt and ensuing pause in a process.
11:20 < Mateon1> Doesn't tell me much
11:20 < zipcpi> Alone it typically is used in the IRC for {de'a jundi} ~ "be right back"
11:20 < zipcpi> Lit. "pause in attention"
11:21 < zipcpi> Opposite is {di'a jundi} "resume of attention"
11:21 < Mateon1> Need to save these two somewhere :P
11:22 < Mateon1> Seem very useful
11:22 < rutytar> coi
11:22 < zipcpi> coi
11:22 < Mateon1> coi
11:24 < pinji> coi
11:24 < Mateon1> Is there any way to say [greeting] but specify that it is me who just joined/came back to the conversation/channel, same with partings, to specify it's me going, or me just responding?
11:25 < Mateon1> Is {mi coi} {mi co'o} {do coi} {do co'o} valid?
11:25 < zipcpi> Yes, but doesn't say much
11:25 < rutytar> if you specify the listener than the speaker is implied
11:26 < zipcpi> For partings...
11:26 < rutytar> so "hello to everyone" would indicate that you had entered, and "goodbye to everyone" would indicate that you are leaving
11:26 < Mateon1> We usually respond with greetings when a person joins the conversation
11:26 < zipcpi> {co'o lo stali} lit. means "Bye, stayers"
11:26 < zipcpi> {co'o lo cliva} lit. means "Bye, leaver"
11:27 < Mateon1> This seems slightly ambiguaous the default way
11:27 < zipcpi> So that could work if it's necessary to disambiguate {co'o}
11:27 < Mateon1> Ah
11:28 < rutytar> how does one determine the sumti place on a DOhU?
11:28 < zipcpi> While {coi lo zvati} would mean "Hello, those who are present"
11:28 < zipcpi> DOhU just closes COI
11:28 < zipcpi> COI can accept up to one (selbri or sumti)
11:29 < zipcpi> But may be left empty or closed with do'u
11:29 < rutytar> i mean what makes it "co'o lo cliva" and not "lo cliva cu zo'o"
11:29 < rutytar> although i guess cu wouldn't work since co'o isn't a selbri
11:29 < zipcpi> co'o has no predicate relationship; it's a discursive
11:29 < zipcpi> Though...
11:29 < zipcpi> mi tolrinsa ko'a could work
11:29 < rutytar> "lo cliva cu co'o" is what i meant
11:29 < zipcpi> co'o is not a selbri
11:30 < zipcpi> lo cliva cu co'o isn't grammatical
11:30 < rutytar> i know, but would would you determine that "co'o lo cliva" means goodbye everyone?
11:30 < rutytar> or, goodbye leavers i mean
11:30 < rutytar> if co'o has no place structure
11:30 < zipcpi> co'o is part of selma'o COI1
11:30 < zipcpi> Anything in COI1 refers to the addressee
11:30 < rutytar> okay
11:31 < zipcpi> Essentially a hidden {doi}
11:31 < zipcpi> co'o lo cliva = co'o doi lo cliva
11:32 < rutytar> okay
11:32 < rutytar> does it discuss that in the CLL? i might just not have gotten to that part yet
11:32 < zipcpi> COI is one of the oldest parts of the language, yes
11:32 < zipcpi> There is originally just COI; COI2 is a later addition: similar grammar, but doesn't address anyone
11:45 < zipcpi> Yeah I think {na'e itca} or {bu'a} are the best solutions for "any" we have at the moment
11:45 < zipcpi> Just wonder if it's worth dedicating a UI to the {itca - na'e itca} spectrum
11:46 < zipcpi> It might as well be {xe'e} if that's the case
11:46 < zipcpi> Although some people want to use {xe'e} as a variant of {xa'a}
11:51 < zipcpi> One downside of {bu'a} is that it's context sensitive; if you already used {bu'a} in the sentence, the next ones must be {bu'e} / {bu'i}. It's similar to glossing "nothing" as {noda} for instance
12:04 < rutytar> "xu do djica lo klama be lo zarci" is this correct grammar?
12:05 < zipcpi> It's grammatical but doesn't quite mean what I think you want to mean
12:05 < zipcpi> I think you want {xu do djica lo ka klama lo zarci}
12:06 < zipcpi> "Do you want to go to the market"? {lo ka klama lo zarci} is an abstraction corresponding to the infinitive {to go to the market}
12:07 < rutytar> okay. so ka and ke have the same terminator?
12:07 < zipcpi> ka is selma'o NU
12:07 < rutytar> okay
12:07 < zipcpi> Just like {nu} and {du'u}
12:07 < zipcpi> all closed with {kei}
12:08 < rutytar> reading the CLL is annoying because i keep thinking of things and having to wait until later to find solutions
12:08 < zipcpi> {nu} is also acceptable in this particular case, but is a little more vague as it doesn't specify *who* goes to the market
12:09 < zipcpi> There is a subtle difference between {nu} and {ka} as illustrated by this comic: http://imgur.com/Uh7Nm44
12:09 < phenny> [ Imgur ] - http://imgur.com
12:09 < rutytar> you could say "xu do djica lo ka do klama lo zarci"?
12:09 < zipcpi> lo ka ce'u klama lo zarci
12:09 < zipcpi> {ka} is a "property" abstraction
12:10 < zipcpi> {ce'u} is a pronoun representing what the property applies to
12:11 < zipcpi> So it's either {xu do djica lo nu do klama lo zarci} "Do you want an event of "you going to the market"?" or {xu do djica lo ka [ce'u] klama lo zarci} "Do you want the property of something going to the market?"
12:11 < zipcpi> {ce'u} automatically fills the first empty spot if omitted
12:12 < zipcpi> Thus... the comic...
12:12 < zipcpi> {ma djica lo nu cenba} = "Who wants an event-of change" = "Who wants change?"
12:12 < zipcpi> Doesn't specify what is doing the changing.
12:12 < zipcpi> However
12:13 < zipcpi> {ma djica lo ka [ce'u] cenba} = "Who wants the property of something changing" = "Who wants to change?"
12:13 < zipcpi> See? :p
12:14 < zipcpi> Subtle difference, but very useful
12:14 < rutytar> i get it
12:15 < rutytar> wouldn't "ka do klama lo zarci" still be the property of you going to the market?
12:16 < zipcpi> The problem is where does the ce'u go?
12:16 < zipcpi> Under the automatic-placement rules it will become {ka do klama lo zarci ce'u}
12:16 < zipcpi> The property of the destination of you going to the market
12:16 < zipcpi> Probably not what you want to mean :p
12:17 < zipcpi> Er not destination; source
12:17 < zipcpi> The property of where you go to the market from
12:17 < zipcpi> Thus {do} is worse than useless here
12:17 < rutytar> i don't think i understand
12:18 < zipcpi> ka always has a {ce'u}
12:18 < rutytar> xu do djica ka do klama lo zarci ce'u
12:18 < zipcpi> lo ka
12:18 < rutytar> what would i be asking if you want, exactly
12:18 < rutytar> right, lo ka
12:18 < zipcpi> Do you want to be where you go to the market from?
12:19 < zipcpi> ka always has a {ce'u}; if it's left out it automatically fills the first empty spot
12:19 < rutytar> oh, ce'u is literally in the place of the sumti it's acting as
12:19 < zipcpi> Yes
12:19 < rutytar> it's not a terminator for some clause
12:19 < rutytar> okay, that makes sense
12:19 < zipcpi> ce'u is a special pronoun that works with {ka}
12:20 < rutytar> i'm trying to think of a way that might be useful
12:21 < zipcpi> Well, it's useful if you want to include {ce'u} in some place weird, like within a {poi} clause, or in something like {gau ce'u}
12:21 < rutytar> mi nelci ka ce'u klama kei - i like the stuff which goes to the store?
12:21 < zipcpi> Remember the {lo}
12:21 < rutytar> i mean, i like the stuff which oges
12:21 < rutytar> right
12:22 < zipcpi> Without the lo, ka just makes a selbri
12:22 < zipcpi> And you then make a tanru
12:22 < zipcpi> {mi nelci ka ce'u klama} means "I am a liking type of property of something that goes"
12:22 < gleki> lu co'o co'u jundi li'u
12:23 < rutytar> so "mi nelci lo ka ce'u klama" does mean "i like things which go to the store"?
12:23 < zipcpi> It means "I like to go to the store"
12:24 < zipcpi> Or "I like to be the thing that goes to the store"
12:24 < zipcpi> Oh you left out the {lo zarci}
12:24 < zipcpi> But you get the idea
12:24 < rutytar> whoops
12:26 < gleki> jb:de'a
12:26 < mensi> de'a = de'a [preposition of aspect] — pause (pausative aspect)
12:26 < mensi> :mi pu de'a citka lo plise — I stopped eating apples for a while.
12:42 < zipcpi> So, gleki, what do you think about {na'e itca} / {bu'a}?
12:42 < zipcpi> Or perhaps a new UI
12:43 < zipcpi> Dunno how necessary the new UI is, but it'd help avoid having to make tanru or a poi clause
12:44 < zipcpi> And it can even be negated
12:44 < zipcpi> {*xe'e} = "any/non-specific; {*xe'enai} = "something specific"
12:45 < zipcpi> lo xe'enai prenu ~ lo itca prenu / lo prenu poi itca
12:46 < zipcpi> Which ~ le prenu, but sometimes that additional emphasis is helpful
12:49 < zipcpi> do birti lo du'u do jbopre kei va'o lo nu do troci lo ka gugle zoizoi define [lo jbobau valsi] zoi
12:49 < zipcpi> Er... general {do} again
12:50 < zipcpi> Maybe a {su'a} at the beginning might "fix" it?
12:51 < Ilmen> {ro da zo'u ganai da troci gi da birti}
12:51 < zipcpi> Yeah...
12:52 < Ilmen> Also, a vaguer {lonu... cu banzu lonu...} is fine too
12:52  * zipcpi nods
12:53 < zipcpi> Anyway any objections to my resurrecting {xe'e} just to test it out? I can even define it in terms of {itca}
12:53 < zipcpi> As a UI this time though, not a LE
12:55 < zipcpi> discursive: any (non-specifically...) - specifically...
12:55 < Ilmen> Why not SE?
12:55 < Ilmen> %)
12:56 < zipcpi> UI is better; can modify any sumti or pro-sumti
12:56 < Ilmen> what would mean {mi xe'e}?
12:56 < Ilmen> {mi poi .itca}?
12:56 < zipcpi> mi poi na'e itca
12:56 < zipcpi> So something unspecific among {mi}; which might be useful if {mi} is plural
12:58 < zipcpi> Mostly I see it being used with {da xe'e}; yes usually it can be just {ro da} or {su'o da}, but sometimes that subtle semantic difference is helpful
13:00 < zipcpi> Also UI is good because it can stand alone as an answer to {mo'oi}
13:00 < Ilmen> {bu'a} can also stand alone
13:00 < zipcpi> True
13:01 < zipcpi> It's just being a pro-sumti it has slightly different grammar
13:01 < Ilmen> I guess mo'oi primarily asks for a selbri~property
13:01 < zipcpi> Right
13:01 < zipcpi> exp: se
13:01 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "e" found.
13:02 < Ilmen> It's likely not grammatical because there's no SE question
13:02 < zipcpi> lol yeah
13:03 < Ilmen> Yet interestingly there's a FA question, {fi'a}, although it's seldom used
13:04 < gocti> la kurti ca da stidi tu'a zo se'u'o
13:04 < zipcpi> u'i
13:07 < Ilmen> "se broda" could be formalized as {me'au lo [swap_x1_with_x2_predicate] be lo si'o broda}, where swap_x1_with_x2_predicate is a relation between a relation/ka and another relation/ka with the same meaning but with the x1 and x2 slots permuted
13:07 < zipcpi> Wow
13:07 < zipcpi> setpenekederemeze zo'o
13:09 < Ilmen> In the same fashion, {to'e broda} is arguably something like {me'au lo smudukti be lo si'o broda}
13:09 < zipcpi> Right
13:13 < Ilmen> Just to demistify a little the SE and NAhE selmaho :3
13:14 < zipcpi> I don't see using {setpenekederemeze} the way I did {nundumu} the other day though :p
13:14 < zipcpi> Even if it wasn't that long :p
13:15 < zipcpi> But seriously there is a use for {lo nundumu} that {lo fasnu} doesn't cover. The second implies something that actually happened
13:15 < zipcpi> While the first is just "an event"; agnostic as to whether it actually happened
13:20 < Ilmen> As for "acceptable", the -able suffix isn't always trustworthy; here it sounds more like {selzau'inda}
13:20 < Ilmen> exp: selzau'inda
13:20 < mensi> (CU [selzau'inda VAU])
13:20 < zipcpi> ma krasi zo'oi 'inda
13:20 < Ilmen> lo spero bangu
13:20 < Ilmen> eo: inda
13:21 < mensi> inda = x1 indas/meritas x2 (eco de x1) |>>> Rilatas vorto jerna |>>> Ilmen
13:21 < zipcpi> Yeah... again the {kakne} - "possibility" thing
13:21 < Ilmen> "inda" is close to "jerna", although I don't know whether they're synonymous or not
13:21 < Ilmen> inda = to be worthy...
13:22 < Ilmen> lo vi cukta cu .inda lo ka se tcidu
13:22 < zipcpi> Yeah I might put in {selzau'inda} as a synonym
13:22 < Ilmen> this book is worth reading
13:23 < Ilmen> for example, "trustworthy" = lacry'inda
13:23 < Ilmen> rafsi: lacri
13:23 < mensi> zo'oi lac .e zo'oi lacr rafsi zo lacri
13:23 < Ilmen> lacy'inda
13:24 < Ilmen> memorable = morji+inda
13:24 < Ilmen> etc
13:24 < zipcpi> Nice
13:25 < zipcpi> I don't think {kakne} is wrong, just very vague
13:25 < zipcpi> Cause it just implies possibility/capability
13:25 < Ilmen> arguably trustworthy is se+lacri+inda, but the sel- can be dropped if the se-less lujvo doesn't seem very useful
13:25 < zipcpi> Yeah...
13:26 < zipcpi> As I have noted, {lo te kakne} is pretty much everything as to what {kakne} means
13:26 < Ilmen> if -able was possibility in "memorable", that would imply that something not memorable can't be rememberd :p
13:27 < zipcpi> lol
13:27 < zipcpi> True
13:28 < zipcpi> Yeah it might be worth dropping {ka'e} for things that don't necessarily mean "possibility"
13:32 < Ilmen> So -able/-ible is usually either -cu'i/-ka'e or -inda, (it's ambiguous), and possibly less often it may mean other things
13:32  * zipcpi nods
13:32 < Ilmen> like "edible", which is something like "lo nu citka na ckape"
13:32 < zipcpi> Hm maybe that's better with {xamgu}?
13:33 < zipcpi> Analogous with {plixau}
13:33 < Ilmen> at least nalxla
13:33  * zipcpi shrugs
13:34 < Ilmen> edible isn't necessarily good, but just not harmful, ienai pei
13:34 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
13:34 < Ilmen> ku'i mi na birti
13:34 < zipcpi> Yeah sounds right; I just don't like long lujvo :p
13:35 < Ilmen> maybe ctinu'a
13:36 < Ilmen> unless it means "x1 is secure from the threat of being eaten" :p
13:36 < zipcpi> lol
13:36 < Ilmen> nurdja
13:37 < Ilmen> well maybe that's tautological
13:37 < Ilmen> ju'i nai doi vrude nolnau
13:38 < zipcpi> Yeah {cidja} does imply edibility though sometimes the subtle connotation/shift in emphasis can be useful
13:38 < b_jonas> I should learn these digit rafsi properly. non- pav- rel- cib- vor-? mum- xav- zel- bi?- soz-
13:38 < b_jonas> rafsi: vo
13:38 < zipcpi> von
13:38 < mensi> zo'oi von rafsi zo vo
13:38 < b_jonas> rafsi: bi
13:38 < mensi> zo'oi biv rafsi zo bi
13:39 < Ilmen> ui mi drani smadi tu'a zo bi
13:39 < b_jonas> non- pav- rel- cib- von-  mum- xav- zel- biv- soz-  je'e
13:41  * nuzba @voxelcomposer: @MyInnerRurf Each word in Lojban is like a function which takes certain arguments. Programming languages have the same rigid syntax. [http://bit.ly/1GEEIjG]
13:41 < phenny> [ Voxel Composer on Twitter: "@MyInnerRurf Each word in Lojban is like a function which takes certain arguments. Programming languages have the same rigid syntax." ] - http://bit.ly
14:11  * nuzba @voxelcomposer: @MyInnerRurf The Loglan/Lojban split had quite a bit to do with that, I think. [http://bit.ly/1JMEM1l]
14:11 < phenny> [ Voxel Composer on Twitter: "@MyInnerRurf The Loglan/Lojban split had quite a bit to do with that, I think." ] - http://bit.ly
14:14 < durka42> oi .u'i
14:15 < durka42> la .djen. cu refgau lo se gasnu be la nuzba jecu spogau lo judrysni
14:19  * nuzba @voxelcomposer: @MyInnerRurf That's why I believe the primary practical use of Lojban is a sort of intermediate language in the framework of AI development. [http://bit.ly/1JMFlIk]
14:19 < zipcpi> ei mi sipna co'o
14:20 < phenny> [ Voxel Composer on Twitter: "@MyInnerRurf That's why I believe the primary practical use of Lojban is a sort of intermediate language in the framework of AI development." ] - http://bit.ly
14:23 < durka42> phenny: co'u ko'oi uai
14:38 < isd> .i coi rodo
14:39 < dutchie> coi
14:41 < durka42> coi
14:45 < isd> .i do mo
14:47 < dutchie> mi kinzga zoi gy. Battlestar Galactica gy.
14:49 < durka42> ua .i banli iepei se tivni
14:49 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
14:49 < dutchie> mi ji'a tugni
14:49 < dutchie> .i ku'i na fanmo
14:50 < dutchie> (is that right?)
14:51 < durka42> yes!
14:51 < dutchie> uisai
14:52 < LeoBeltran> Hello!
14:52 < durka42> coi la .beltran.
14:53 < LeoBeltran> coi do
14:54 < LeoBeltran> .i do mo
14:55 < dutchie> .u'i puzi se casnu
14:58 < durka42> la .dutcis. cu kinzga la nunda'a tarci co tarso'imei
19:54  * nuzba @willingtheweird: @_Vanessa_sary_ Learn lojban. [http://bit.ly/1ISAghI]
19:54 < phenny> [ Will Ibarra on Twitter: "@_Vanessa_sary_ Learn lojban." ] - http://bit.ly
19:58 < durka42> mensi: doi gleki can you turn off phenny/jenni auto-following links
19:58 < mensi> durka42: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.gleki.gy. di'a cusku da
20:05 < durka42> ta'osai http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/06/13/413968033/esperanto-is-not-dead-can-the-universal-language-make-a-comeback
20:05 < phenny> [ Esperanto Is Not Dead: Can The Universal Language Make A Comeback? : Goats and Soda : NPR ] - http://www.npr.org
20:41 < fleimbo> coi
20:48 < durka42> coi la fleimbo
20:53 < tsani> coi la fleimbo .e la durka
20:55 < durka42> coi la tsani
20:55 < tsani> .i do mo
20:55 < durka42> mi co'a fa'u co'u pilno la'oi Colloquy la'oi Adium
20:56 < tsani> ua
20:56 < durka42> krinu fa lo nu lo so'imei co'a benji lo spama
20:56 < durka42> .a'y na kakne lo ka toljundi
20:56 < tsani> ue
20:56 < tsani> .i ku'i plixaurai cfila
20:56 < tsani> zo'o zo'o nai
20:57 < durka42> ie
20:57 < durka42> cy kakne lo drata ku ji'a
20:57 < durka42> mu'a mi nau se jungau ca lo nu da cusku zo durka
21:01  * nuzba @willingtheweird: @_Vanessa_sary_ *.i ko cilre la lojban [http://bit.ly/1JR0jUY]
21:01 < phenny> [ Will Ibarra on Twitter: "@_Vanessa_sary_ *.i ko cilre la lojban" ] - http://bit.ly
21:03 < tsani> ua
21:03 < tsani> .i ba'a nai cy xamgu ie .i mi pu zu pilno
21:15 < noncomcinse> coi do'u ma jundi zei .irci
21:16 < durka42> coi
21:17 < Zearen> . coi
21:17 < Zearen> sa .i coi
21:17 < noncomcinse> coi la durka .e la'oi .Zearen.
21:19 < Zearen> .i za'a lo clani cu temci lonu mi tavla bau la .lojban.
21:19 < Zearen> .i ta'o mi'e .ziren.
21:20 < durka42> .ei mi bazi sipna
21:20 < Zearen> je'e .i pluka sevna
21:20 < noncomcinse> .i mi pensi lonu .irli fa'u .irci co noncomcinse jungau     .i nandu fa'u frili vau pe'i    .i na birtu .u'i
21:21 < noncomcinse> .i doi .ziren. ta'o lu tavla fo li'u lu bau li'u simxu loka smuni
21:23 < noncomcinse> je'e dy
21:26 < Zearen> .ie .i mi djuno .i mi cusku zo bau mu'i lodu'u mleca fi loni te kancu lo te bridi poi mi morji
21:26 < noncomcinse> .u'i
21:27 < Zearen> .i ma smuni zo .irli
21:27 < noncomcinse> zo'oi .IRL.
21:27 < Zearen> .ua
21:37  * nuzba @willingtheweird: @_Vanessa_sary_ That is difficult with lojban, however... [http://bit.ly/1ecF0C0]
21:37 < phenny> [ Will Ibarra on Twitter: "@_Vanessa_sary_ That is difficult with lojban, however..." ] - http://bit.ly
21:41  * nuzba @willingtheweird: @_Vanessa_sary_ It's a little dry, however. Lojban caters to linguistic nerds. [http://bit.ly/1ecFwzZ]
21:41 < phenny> [ Will Ibarra on Twitter: "@_Vanessa_sary_ It's a little dry, however. Lojban caters to linguistic nerds." ] - http://bit.ly
21:43 < gleki> durka42: if only i knew how to do that
21:43 < mensi> gleki: cu'u la'o gy.durka42.gy.: can you turn off phenny/jenni auto-following links | 2015-06-14T02:58:12.
21:43 < mensi> 223Z
21:44 < durka42> gleki: is it https://github.com/sbp/phenny ?
21:44 < phenny> [ sbp/phenny · GitHub ] - https://github.com
21:44 < durka42> or some fork?
21:44 < gleki> https://github.com/myano/jenni
21:44 < phenny> [ myano/jenni · GitHub ] - https://github.com
21:47 < gleki> .i gleki
21:48 < durka42> gleki: I don't see a way to disable individual parts of a module
21:48 < durka42> gleki: comment out lines 520-521 in modules/url.py? :p
21:48 < durka42> no, that's not all of them
21:49 < durka42> lines 472-473 are the ones for showing the title
21:49 < durka42> leave lines 520-521, but comment out 472-473
21:49 < durka42> then .title will still work
21:52 < mindszenty_> coi rodo
21:52 < durka42> coico'o
21:52 < gleki> http://google.com
21:52 < durka42> .title
21:52 < gleki> .title
21:52 < durka42> .u'i
21:52 < gleki> .titlehttp://google.com
21:52 < gleki> .title http://google.com
21:52 < mindszenty_> gleki: while I was away, you asked me something about Ithkuil. Perhaps something about new Ithkuil math subsystem?
21:53 < durka42> gleki: I think we killed everything :)
21:53 < gleki> http://google.com
21:53 < gleki> .title
21:53 < phenny> [ Google ]
21:53 < gleki> ok
21:53 < durka42> .title http://alexburka.com/lojban
21:53 < phenny> [ Lojban ]
21:53 < durka42> uo dai
21:53 < durka42> ki'e
21:53 < durka42> co'o
21:54 < gleki> mindszenty_: probably but it's not perfect as JQ himself aknowledged
21:55 < mindszenty_> I missed what the question was :) And I did not follow current Ithkuil development.
21:59 < gleki> how would you express this? https://www.reddit.com/r/Ithkuil/comments/30bjgz/
21:59 < gleki> ^ di'u pu preti
21:59 < mindszenty_> At first glance, math and measurement proposal reminds mex. I did not analyzed it deeper.
22:00 < mindszenty_> Ah, or do you mean the comment?
22:00 < mindszenty_> ta'o ba'anai http://rossogilvie.id.au/essays/2013-01-22-fancu-bridi-mekso/
22:02 < gleki> that comment didnt exist when i opened that page last time
22:05 < deltab> "the inevitable Lojban-based skynet"
22:08 < mindszenty_> ze'i .u'i
22:14 < mindszenty_> gleki: Well, if take surjection as an example... firstly, it is easier for me to define it as "An ordered pair of functions (to of type A → B, from of type B → A) such as ∀x ∈ B: to(from(x)) = x"
22:18 < mindszenty_> The only thing that I do not know how to express in lojban are function types. I guess I need to study type teory and develop tectaipe staile :)
--- Day changed Sun Jun 14 2015
00:12 < gleki> so how does one say "better" using tags only?
00:13 < shcg> hi
00:13 < gleki> hi
00:13 < shcg> what is the best resource to learn lojban
00:14 < gleki> lojban.org/papri/Learning
00:14 < shcg> thank you.Is there any video lessons
00:16 < gleki> only this introductory video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjSTUK3hFI It uses a specific method.
00:16 < gleki> The general rule is that if you dont like a particular method you may try another method
00:16 < shcg> thank you. bye
00:17 < gleki> co'o
00:17 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 138 nicks [3 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 135 normal]
00:19  * nuzba @uitki: Learning - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Learning by Gleki - Redirected page to [[Welcome!/en#Unofficial and supplemental resources]] [http://bit.ly/1ID2UR2]
00:19  * nuzba @uitki: Learning/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Learning/en by Gleki - Redirected page to [[Welcome!/en#Unofficial and supplemental resources]] [http://bit.ly/1ID30Io]
00:53 < gocti> la'a lo nu mi retsku lo simsa cu cafne dukse .i ku'i .ai retsku
00:53 < gocti> .i ma smuni lu lo re da li'u .i xu da go'i
00:56 < gleki> mi na djuno
00:56 < gocti> xu da djuno .u'i
00:58 < gleki> lo re da cu djuno
00:59 < gocti> li'a
00:59 < gleki> lo re da == lo re me da == zo'e noi ke'a me da gi'e zilkancu li re lo me da
01:00 < gleki> == zo'e noi da zo'u ke'a me da gi'e zilkancu li re zo'e noi da zo'u me da
01:00 < gleki> i ja'o mo i mi na djuno
01:00 < gocti> simlu lo ka nonselsmu
01:02  * nuzba @uitki: gadri report, aug 2003 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadri_report,_aug_2003 by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1GFuyiz]
01:05 < gleki> zo da nenri lo nalralju bridi noi kuspe vo'a
01:07 < gleki> i ca ma ma'a co'a finti lo lojbo gerna se cukta poi na pilno lo na lojbo
01:09 < gocti> ro da ga lazni gi zukcfu
01:10 < gleki> ge xu
01:10 < gocti> cumki
01:13 < skgc> hello,can anyone explain what is xorlo reforms. I am beginners and i cant understand the wiki
01:15 < gleki> skgc: generally when the reference grammar uses {le} in modern style lojban you usually use {lo} instead.
01:20 < skgc> so now the modern lojban uses xorlo reforms and it should be applied manually to the grammer book
01:20 < skgc> will there be a new edition of the book
01:20 < gleki> skgc: mostly yes. this year the reference grammar is being converted to another format. after the technical things are done xorlo will be pplied to it
01:21 < gleki> *applied
01:22 < deltab> would it be accurate to say lo is basically a/some and le the?
01:22 < skgc> another format meaning?
01:22 < gleki> skgc: technical stuff. from docbook to prince
01:23 < skgc> prince?
01:23 < skgc> do you mean print?
01:23 < deltab> xml/html and css
01:23 < deltab> right?
01:24 < gocti> http://www.princexml.com/ (not sure why, though)
01:24 < gleki> prince to print :)
01:25 < gocti> skgc: for a very detailed look at xorlo you can read http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadri:_an_unofficial_commentary_from_a_logical_point_of_view
01:25 < gocti> (a version of that is likely to end up in the updated CLL)
01:27 < skgc> so at this years end lojban will be revamped for ease and detailed explanation
01:29 < gocti> one can hope!
01:30 < gleki> la samyuan cu pacna
01:30 < skgc> anyone making good video content
01:32 < gocti> There's the bripre jikca series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huRQ5-CObUs ) but it's probably too demanding for beginners (lojban only, and not everything is subtitled)
01:38  * nuzba @464161niftg: ru'a la .lojban. cu saske gi'o fatci gunma .inajabo lu cilre la .lojban. li'u cu smudra la'a .iseju ru'a javni gi'o bridi gunma [http://bit.ly/1L80Rb1]
01:39 < skgc> thank you very much
02:07  * nuzba @464161niftg: le patfu la lojban cu mo .a'u ru'e [http://bit.ly/1HFyhMa]
02:19 < Ilmen> coi
02:20 < Ilmen> en: tarso'imei
02:20 < mensi> tarso'imei [< tarci so'i mei ≈ Star many cardinal selbri] = s1 is a/the galaxy (default is the Milky Way) |>>> Cf. tarci,
02:20 < mensi> so'imei, sostartai, tarboi, tarci'e. |>>> totus
02:20 < Ilmen> xD
02:21 < Ilmen> (furthermore so'i has a short rafsi, -sor-)
02:25 < Ilmen> This lujvo sounds so awkward though; it seems to throw away all the galaxy's complexity to sum it to a bunch of stars. But then is a globular cluster a tarso'imei, and if not, why?
02:48 < dutchie> coi
02:55 < Rodericus> coi la'oi .dutchie. .i coi rodo
03:07  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Timoteos - i → .i [http://bit.ly/1GFEY1J]
04:06 < zipcpi> ju'i ctefaho ganai do na jmina lo do cnima'o la jbovlaste gi ai mi zerle'a pe'a cy
04:08 < ctefaho> yes yes I will add them
04:08 < zipcpi> On {uau}: It does have a difference from {u'e}, in that it has a useful negation; it's too bad that {u'e} was only defined with two points
04:08 < zipcpi> I wish we could just change it
04:09 < ctefaho> ia'u and ie'i I can do today
04:09 < ctefaho> ue'i, wanna check the prime-languages IPA first
04:09 < ctefaho> for excited
04:10 < ctefaho> as lojban doesn't even have an effing gismu for the concept
04:10 < zipcpi> The gismu list is kind of a rush-job :p
04:10 < zipcpi> The number one priority was to clone Loglan
04:10  * ctefaho pats zo rozgu
04:11 < ctefaho> but I am leaving now
04:11  * ctefaho co'o
04:11 < zipcpi> co'o
04:35 < vensa> coi jundi
04:35 < zipcpi> coi
04:35 < vensa> coi. i ma nuzba
04:36 < zipcpi> mi'a pu casnu loi cnima'o
04:37 < vensa> je'e
04:37 < vensa> mi nelci lo'e cnima'o .i plixau pe'i
04:37 < zipcpi> iesai
04:39 < zipcpi> mi co'a xagji .i ju'ocu'i xukau lo vanci sanmi cu bredi
04:40 < vensa> ta'o xu do djuno lodu'u makau poi sampre cu basti la gerna
04:40 < vensa> de'a jundi
04:40 < vensa> di'a jundi
04:40 < vensa> ma bregau le do sanmi
04:40 < zipcpi> la gerna ki'a
04:41 < vensa> la gerna cu sampre gi'e puze'u spuda ma'a sera'a lo gerna be lo jamfu
04:41 < zipcpi> lo mi rirni cu erve lo cidja
04:42 < vensa> sa be fi lo jamfu
04:42 < vensa> zo erve ki'a
04:42 < zipcpi> smudu'i zo terve'u
04:43 < vensa> je'e .iku'i va'oku ki'u ma na'e pilno zo terve'u
04:44 < zipcpi> ju'ocu'i .i la'a lo ka tordymau .i u'ise'iru'e
04:44 < vensa> je'e
04:45 < vensa> ku'i pe'i lo'e lojbo jufra cu clamau lo'e glico jufra .i pe'i xagmau fa lonu pilno lo se jimpe valsi kei lonu pilno lo tormau valsi
04:46 < zipcpi> je'eru'e
04:46 < vensa> no'i xu do se slabu lo irci sampre noi spuda sera'a lo gerna
04:47 < vensa> xu la mensi cu co'e
04:47 < zipcpi> lo zi'evla pe la'oi <VCCV> cu plixau ku'i pe'i .i ri ka'e se pilno fi lo nu zbasu lo zi'evla lujvo pe la .xorxes.
04:49 < gleki> coi la vensa
04:49 < vensa> uicoi la gleki
04:49 < vensa> mi na se slabu lo javni pe lo zi'evla lujvo pe la xorxes uinai
04:50 < zipcpi> mu'a lu lacri zei inda li'u cu binxo zo lacry'inda ja zo lacy'inda
04:52 < gleki> mensi: doi Ilmen zo tarso'imei na jvajvo ibo sa'u
04:52 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.Ilmen.gy. di'a cusku da
04:53 < zipcpi> la jbovlaste ca selsau lo'e zi'evla lujvo
04:55 < vensa> ua .i mi pu tirna la'e di'u
04:55 < vensa> mi nelci lodu'u lo fu'ivla ka'e se rafsi
04:56 < zipcpi> mu'a za'umai lu aste zei finpe li'u cu binxo zo aste'yfi'e
04:56 < vensa> i'e
04:57 < vensa> ku'i sera'a zo erve zo terve'u xa'o ka'e lujvo pagbu
04:57 < gleki> en: za'umai
04:57 < mensi> za'umai = [MAI*] discursive: further utterance ordinal |>>> tijlan
04:57 < gleki> xm
04:58 < gleki> lu za'umai li'u se fanva fu zo'oi Next
04:58 < zipcpi> "Furthermore"
04:58 < vensa> zo'oi furthermore
04:58 < vensa> u'i
04:58 < zipcpi> de'a jundi .i za'a le sanmi cu bredi
04:58 < gleki> .dict furthermore
04:58 < phenny> furthermore — adverb: 1. In addition; besides; what's more; used to denote additional information
04:59 < gleki> ienai
04:59 < gleki> i zo ji'a mapti
04:59 < gleki> i lu mo'unai li'u su'o ia roi mapti
04:59 < gleki> en: mo'unai
04:59 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
04:59 < gleki> en: mo'u
04:59 < mensi> mo'u = [ZAhO] interval event contour: at the natural ending point of ...; completive              |    >|<. |>>>
04:59 < mensi> officialdata
04:59 < gleki> oise'i
04:59 < zipcpi> Well, it's like {pamai}, {remai} = "firstly", "secondly"
04:59 < gleki> i mi bebna
04:59 < zipcpi> So za'umai means "moreth-ly"
05:00 < gleki> i lu mu'onai li'u su'o ia roi mapti
05:00 < gleki> en: mu'o
05:00 < mensi> mu'o = [COI] vocative: over (response OK) - more to come. |>>> officialdata
05:00 < zipcpi> Similar logic to za'ure'u
05:00 < gleki> yeah, i just dont think futhermore/in addition matches it
05:00 < gleki> jb: mu'o
05:00 < mensi> mu'o = mu'o [vocative] — I am done talking. Over. That's all I can say (in radio communications), mu'o nai — more to
05:00 < mensi> come ... I am not done talking
05:00 < mensi> :i ro mai mi jinvi lo du'u za'u lo cukta cu jai sarcu mu'o — Finally, I think that more books are necessary, I'm done.
05:00 < mensi> :ja'o dai le za'u sonci pu cliva le tcadu mu'o nai loi mi tadni — As you may conclude, the soldiers left the city ... no,
05:00 < mensi> that's not the end of the story, my students.
05:01 < vensa> pe'i ci le valsi selzba cu xamgu
05:01 < vensa> doi la gleki .i ta'i ma pilno la mensi lonu lanli lo gerna be fi lo jufra
05:02 < gleki> exp: la lojban mo
05:02 < mensi> ([la {lojban mo} KU] VAU)
05:02 < gleki> off: la lojban mo
05:02 < gleki> k:lojban
05:02 < gleki> to le selfu skami ca masno toi
05:02 < mensi> ([{la lojban} CU] [mo VAU])
05:02 < mensi> (CU [C:lojban VAU])
05:02 < gleki> k:esporte
05:02 < mensi> (CU [Z:esporte VAU])
05:02 < gleki> di'u zi'evla
05:02 < gleki> i zy sinxa lo zi'evla
05:03 < gleki> i zo vy sinxa zo vendeta ibo zo'o
05:03 < vensa> u'i
05:03 < vensa> ku'i mi na jimpe fi lo te frica zo'oi exp ce zo'oi off ce zo'oi k
05:04 < gleki> indeed, if so many people say {la gleki cu cmene mi} why not invent a brivla the same as {cmene} but tuned up so it requires {la} in its x1
05:04 < gleki> zo'oi exp sinxa lo cnino gerna
05:04 < gleki> i zo'oi off sinxa lo catni gerna pe BPFK
05:04 < vensa> je'e
05:04 < gleki> alta: lo noi ku
05:04 < mensi> ([FA {lo <(¹COhE SF¹) (¹noi [{FA ZOhE} {CU <COhE SF> VAU}] KUhO¹)> ku}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
05:05 < vensa> srana zo'oi official .enai zo'oi off u'i
05:05 < gleki> zo'oi alta sinxa la altatufa ku noi la gleki cu finti
05:05 < vensa> la altatufa ki'a
05:05 < gleki> lo noi ku = > lo co'e noi fa zo'e cu co'e cu co'e
05:05 < vensa> si
05:05 < vensa> mo
05:05 < gleki> i sa'u cmene fa zo altatufa
05:06 < gleki> i se smuni no vajni
05:06 < gleki> i cmene po'o
05:06 < vensa> no'i zo'oi k: se pilno fi ma
05:07 < gleki> lo nu zgana lo valsi klesi
05:07 < vensa> je'e
05:07 < gleki> camxes: +s esporte
05:07 < camxes> (Z:esporte VAU)
05:07 < vensa> ki'esai
05:07 < gleki> ^ dunli
05:07 < vensa> je'e
05:07 < gleki> sa'u zo'oi k: tordu zmadu
05:07 < vensa> xu do pu finti la mensi
05:08 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/IRC_Bots
05:08 < gleki> i ie mi e lo drata pe su'ova'e pu finti la mensi
05:08 < vensa> je'e
05:08 < vensa> io
05:09 < gleki> i ku'i zo ce enai zo e mapti zmadu
05:09 < vensa> zo su'eva'e ki'a
05:09 < vensa> ie
05:10 < gleki> lu su'ova'e li'u se fanva fi lo simsa be zoi gy to some degree gy
05:10 < gleki> i srana lo si'o me la'o gy fuzzy logic gy
05:11 < vensa> je'e
05:17 < vensa> no'i sera'a lei cnima'o .i ti'a lo'e no'e makcu cu pilno so'i etmoji .i pe'i lo'e no'e makcu ba se prali lei cnima'o
05:19 < gleki> pe'i no  da valsi lo me'oi emotion lo lojbo
05:19 < gleki> i zo cinmo co'e zo'oi attitude
05:19 < vensa> ta'o ta'i ma cusku losedu'u da cu pilno zoi gy more X than Y gy
05:20 < Ilmen> zo zmadu
05:20 < vensa> ku'i zo .ui cu simsa zo'oi :) pei
05:20 < vensa> doi la ilmen .i e'o ko cusku lo mupli
05:20 < Ilmen> ma glibau mupli pa mai
05:20 < Ilmen> to coi toi
05:21 < vensa> zoi gy people use more emoji than words gy
05:21 < vensa> uicoi
05:21 < Ilmen> fi lo ni lo prenu cu pilno cu zmadu fa lo .emoji lo drata valsi
05:22 < vensa> a;u
05:22 < vensa> a'u
05:23 < zipcpi> ua la vensa cu te preti tu'a lo gerna sampre .i mi pu se cfipu
05:23 < vensa> go'i
05:23 < vensa> na vajni .i la gleki pu spuda mi
05:23 < zipcpi> za'a
05:23 < vensa> ki'e
05:24 < vensa> de'a jundi .i mi pu'o terve'u lo snuji
05:24 < gleki> lo prenu u pilno lo me'oi emoji ne semau lo drata valsi
05:24 < gleki> sa
05:24 < gleki> lo prenu cu pilno lo me'oi emoji ne semau lo drata valsi
05:24 < zipcpi> zo snuji cu gismu ueru'e
05:24 < gleki> en: sanduici
05:24 < mensi> sanduici = x1 is a sandwich with x2 sandwiched between x3 |>>> Restricted to food. See snuji |>>>
05:24 < mensi> glekizmiku
05:24 < zipcpi> u'i
05:25 < zipcpi> ku'i ba'o vlatai gendra uinai
05:25 < gleki> la glekizmiku cu zmiku gi'e za'adai certu lo nu zabna citka
05:25 < gleki> k:sanduici
05:25 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "s" found.
05:25 < gleki> k:sandvici
05:25 < vensa> ki'e la gleki .i lo do jufra cu glico pensi ke simsa zmadu
05:25 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "s" found.
05:25 < gleki> xm ie
05:25 < gleki> nabmi
05:25 < vensa> de'a
05:25 < zipcpi> k: sanduuici
05:25 < mensi> (CU [Z:sanduuici VAU])
05:26 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Frank_likes_Betty_more_than_Mary
05:26 < gleki> vensa: za'adai puzu casnu
05:28  * nuzba @uitki: L17-04 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-04 by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1IcA4nF]
05:29 < zipcpi> oi xore'u zo xe'e pu se snigau
05:29 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/xe%27e
05:30 < gleki> once again im reminding everyone of the new English to Lojban dictionary/wordlist. Please send me feedback via IRC or any other media. What words are abesnt? What mistakes can you find? http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-04
05:39 < vensa> di'a jundi .i kukte snuji
05:55 < zipcpi> coi
06:01 < zipcpi> ma smuni te frica zo sorpeka zo aftobuso
06:04 < gleki> looks like ai found a new description of SWH that isnt that disputed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_effect
06:04 < gleki> zipcpi: la'a no da
06:16  * ctefaho slaps zipcpi around a bit with a large trout
06:17 < ctefaho> ia'u submitted
06:17 < ctefaho> now don't you go and steal the others ia'unai zo'o
06:17 < zipcpi> u'i
06:20 < zipcpi> Erm you're really going forward with the {iau} thing? Cause {i'au} is quite important too pe'i
06:20 < ctefaho> well I didn't want to occupy iau
06:21 < zipcpi> I meant with your proposed alternate form
06:21 < zipcpi> I can allow that for the other two, but {i'au} is really too important to be compromised IMO
06:22 < ctefaho> well I *can* remove that sentence
06:23 < ctefaho> the idea was to let usage decide now that everyone seems to want the VVVs
06:23 < ctefaho> but that was perhaps a stupid idea
06:23  * ctefaho edits
06:24 < zipcpi> ki'e
06:26 < ctefaho> 1 down 2 to go
06:26 < gleki> .rmpoint ctefaho
06:26 < phenny> ctefaho: +0/-1, -1
06:26 < gleki> zo'ocu'i
06:26 < ctefaho> rmpoint? o_O
06:27 < gleki> you just got one vote down
06:27 < gleki> dont feel sorry. i also got one minus yesterday out of nothing.
06:27 < gleki> durka ... i will never forgive him...
06:28 < ctefaho> ah I thought one of my proposals was negative
06:28 < gleki> 06:23 < ctefaho> but that was perhaps a stupid idea => 06:26 < gleki> .rmpoint ctefaho
06:28 < ctefaho> uh huh
06:28 < ctefaho> what does rmpoint do? >_>
06:29 < zipcpi> It's just a silly bot "karma" thing
06:29 < ctefaho> .rmpoint zipcpi
06:29 < phenny> zipcpi: +1/-1, 0
06:29 < zipcpi> .addpoint zipcpi
06:29 < phenny> zipcpi: I'm sorry, but I can't let you do that!
06:29 < dutchie> u'i
06:30 < zipcpi> ... dang it Gleki's got admin rights
06:30 < zipcpi> Either that or he changed it
06:31 < dutchie> la'a da na kakne lonu jmina da
06:31 < ctefaho> but as for ue'i, will need to look at the "ancestor languages" words for exciting
06:31 < ctefaho> can't figure out the IPA for the chinese ones though
06:31 < ctefaho> or the arabic
06:32 < zipcpi> Hmm... I don't think the Chinese exclamation is very helpful
06:32 < ctefaho> well I meant 兴奋
06:32 < ctefaho> (Xīngfèn)
06:33 < zipcpi> That literally just means "excitement"
06:33 < ctefaho> yes
06:33 < zipcpi> Unless you're trying to make a gismu?
06:33 < ctefaho> I am skipping the gismu step
06:34 < ctefaho> I based ia'u and ie'i on lacri and rigni (and their ancestor words)
06:34 < zipcpi> .cinfen.
06:34 < ctefaho> u in ia'u is from the arabic
06:34 < zipcpi> That's how I'd enter it into the gismu co'e if I had it
06:35 < ctefaho> منفعل
06:35 < ctefaho> that one?:p
06:35 < zipcpi> I'm not too certu at reading Arabic, though I might be able to guess from the letters
06:35 < zipcpi> THat's only consonants though
06:36 < ctefaho> hmm well that's what I get
06:36 < zipcpi> Actually I don't know Arabic at all :p
06:36 < zipcpi> منفعل is a Persian translation of the word passive ("not active, but acted upon").
06:36 < zipcpi> What?
06:37 < ctefaho> huuuh
06:37 < zipcpi> I think you got the wrong word
06:37 < ctefaho> متحمّس I also got this one
06:37 < ctefaho> well then google sucks
06:37 < ctefaho> this is from en.bab.la
06:37 < zipcpi> We should find that gismu co'e
06:39 < zipcpi> m-y-h-m-s
06:39 < zipcpi> No idea how it's actually pronounced
06:40  * ctefaho thinks of sticking with ue'i
06:41 < zipcpi> Oh it's actually m-t-h-m-s
06:41 < zipcpi> http://www.forvo.com/word/%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%B3/
06:41 < zipcpi> mutixemis ?
06:42 < ctefaho> muti'emis?
06:42 < zipcpi> You don't enter ' into the gismu co'e
06:42 < zipcpi> Or y either
06:42 < ctefaho> ah you meant that way
06:42 < ctefaho> but well, still got the u&i&e in there
06:43 < zipcpi> I just don't actually have it... I know Curtis has it...
06:44 < gleki> .addpoint zipcpi
06:44 < phenny> zipcpi: +2/-1, 1
06:44 < gleki> so i guess one cannot add/remove a point more than once
06:44 < gleki> .addpoint zipcpi
06:44 < phenny> zipcpi: +3/-1, 2
06:44 < phenny> zipcpi: +3/-1, 2
06:44 < gleki> .rmpoint zipcpi
06:44 < phenny> zipcpi: +3/-2, 1
06:44 < gleki> hm
06:45 < gleki> does that mean only i can do that?
06:45 < demize> .addpoint gleki
06:45 < phenny> gleki: +3/-1, 2
06:45 < demize> You can't add or remove points to/from yourself.
06:45 < gleki> Xīngfèn is rather {sinfen}
06:46 < zipcpi> Hm it's a wash, and x is usually rendered as {c} when entered IIRC. But yeah I might prefer {s} just because it's easier to pronounce
06:46 < zipcpi> Chinese x is actually, like, halfway between {s} and {c}
06:47 < zipcpi> Also there are no minimal pairs with Chinese s and x
06:47 < gleki> in general Mandarin phonology almost never identical to the English  one. except in [m] and [n] probably
06:48 < zipcpi> s is also identical
06:48 < gleki> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_w-c7yM6beFUc_G-XCSLlRfrCewhQosFdQuPD1DwhuU/edit?usp=drive_web
06:49 < zipcpi> The main thing is that their distinction between most consonant pairs, e.g. b/p, is ejective rather than voicedness
06:49 < zipcpi> b sounds like /p/
06:49 < zipcpi> But p is /p^h/
06:49 < zipcpi> Has that additional puff of air
06:50 < zipcpi> That probably makes it difficult to teach a native Mandarin speaker how to distinguish voiced from unvoiced consonants...
06:50 < gleki> in some dialects "b" is pronounced as semi-voiced in Mandarin
06:51 < zipcpi> Probably so
06:51 < gleki> so this is the solution
06:51 < zipcpi> I'm not too studied in dialectal variations
06:51 < gleki> {b} is semi-voiced and {p} is aspirated.
06:51 < zipcpi> I just go with what the books tell me
06:52 < gleki> i think it was curtis who wanted [ŋ] in Lojban.
06:53 < gleki> but adding more letters is of no problem.
06:53 < gleki> they say high in lai jbocmana tey still use hieroglyphics to write lojban
06:53 < gleki> *they
06:53 < zipcpi> lol /ŋ/ might be useful if it wasn't already an allophone of /n/ before /k/ /g/ /x/
06:53 < zipcpi> Maybe just ban /ŋk/ /ŋg/ /ŋx/ then
06:54 < gleki> rinka ma
06:54 < zipcpi> Ban those phonemes being together; people can still pronounce /nk/ that way
06:54 < gleki> rinka lo nu sinxa lo nu ma'a co'u ka'e sanga
06:55 < zipcpi> I mean, da'isai we assign q to /ŋ/
06:55 < zipcpi> Then rinka can still be pronounced "riqka"
06:56 < zipcpi> But there will never be a word that actually puts q and k together
06:56 < zipcpi> Same with g and x
06:57 < zipcpi> I mean I would rather just respell rinka as riqka, but since /n/ was here first it gets priority :p
06:58 < zipcpi> And while we're at it make /eu/ a valid allophone as well
06:58 < zipcpi> et voila ~24 more monosyllabic cmavo :p
06:58 < zipcpi> *valid diphthong rather
06:59 < gleki> which will provide us with one more year of free cmavo space
06:59 < zipcpi> je'e u'i
06:59 < gleki> until Curtis fills them all
06:59 < zipcpi> u'i
06:59 < gleki> then we'll add click sounds
06:59 < zipcpi> u'isai
07:00 < demize> I can't wait for the grunting noises.
07:00 < gleki> at least no one will say anymore that Ithkuil is the hardest language to utter.
07:00 < zipcpi> :p
07:02 < ctefaho> let's use pure IPA only
07:02 < ctefaho> and the whole IPA
07:02 < ctefaho> and every sound is a letter
07:02 < zipcpi> Including the ones with so many diacritics it looks like Zalgotext
07:03 < zipcpi> But by that time, just see Ithkuil :p
07:03 < gocti> /t/ /t^h/ /t\/ /t\^h/ /t`/, all phonetic
07:04 < gocti> si phonemic
07:04 < ctefaho> ʔi ʃɔj
07:04 < zipcpi> If you sneeze the earth will open up and swallow you for being na'e gendra
07:05 < ctefaho> make sneezing a letter hmm hmm
07:05 < ctefaho> and the tones
07:05 < ctefaho> all the tones there are
07:06 < ctefaho> la selpahi will be pleased
07:06 < zipcpi> high tone, low tone, medium tone, kinda high tone
07:06 < gleki> ~ tone
07:06 < zipcpi> kinda low tone, kinda medium but just slightly high tone
07:06 < zipcpi> -/\\/\/\//~~$#^@* tone
07:07  * ctefaho solemnly pledges not to design a language
07:08  * ctefaho goes to add ue'i
07:08 < gocti> /11/ inserts a "lo" syllable before it, /14/ overrides stress on itself and the next syllable and puts it in the preceding one, /41/ inserts a "cu" syllable before it, anything else (cf. buffer vowel strategy) has no transformations
07:09 < zipcpi> lol
07:09 < gleki> la besnygletu
07:10 < zipcpi> Does that also apply to {lojbo} and {cusku}? :p
07:12 < gocti> /lO11"ZbO14Su41"sku14/ {lo lojbo cu cusku}
07:13 < demize> That is so much more readable than the regular Lojban spelling.
07:14 < zipcpi> u'i
07:14 < gocti> li'a sai
07:16 < zipcpi> I have also brought up the "poor man's Ithkuil" idea
07:16 < zipcpi> Take for example {co'u nai je ku'i zei'a carvi}
07:17 < zipcpi> Under Lojban stress rules we can ram them together as {co'unaijeku'izei'acarvi}
07:17 < zipcpi> There, now this complex idea is "one word" just like in Ithkuil
07:18 < ctefaho> case in point, I could make a case for some of Ithkuil's cases to get into lojban zo'oru'e
07:19 < zipcpi> And hey, we can gloss them with crazy three letter codes just like Ithkuil too! [CSS]-[NGT]-[AND]-[CNT]-[INC]-rain
07:23  * ctefaho pokes zipcpi
07:23 < ctefaho> ue'i submitted
07:24 < zipcpi> OK
07:24 < gocti> sei mi ca morji
07:24 < gocti> 250622 23:41 < tsani> ia'u = attitudinal: Yahoo!
07:24 < gocti> 250623 23:41 < tsani> The competing attitudinal is gu'oi = attitudinal: Google.
07:25 < zipcpi> u'i
07:25 < ctefaho> gu'oi? o_O
07:25 < zipcpi> I thought that was u'ui'e = Houhynhm :p
07:26 < zipcpi> It's not a real cmavo atm
07:26 < gocti> la'a la kurti ba'o finti su'o drata je malmau li'a smuni be zo gu'oi
07:26 < gleki> zo gugle
07:26  * ctefaho throws accusations of malgli all around
07:27 < gocti> x1 searches for x2 with search engine x3 (definitely not defaulting to Google! No, not by any means!)
07:27 < ctefaho> .u'isai
07:27 < gocti> oi
07:27 < gocti> lo velcki cu bramau ro jai se kanpe be mi
07:28 < gocti> valsi: gugle
07:28 < valsi> no results. http://vlasisku.lojban.org/gugle
07:28 < ctefaho> but now I can finally say
07:28 < gocti> en: gugle
07:28 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
07:28 < zipcpi> Downvoted...
07:28 < ctefaho> ue'icai OCULUS RIFT
07:30 < ctefaho> except that cai is now more like a sai after their latest press conference
07:30 < ctefaho> if anyone else follows it
07:30  * ctefaho somewhat assumes the only interest anyone here has is lojban
07:31 < zipcpi> I do play games but I'm not cutting edge enough for that x.x
07:32 < zipcpi> Tend to wait for the format wars to die down; see where the wind is blowing first
07:32 < ctefaho> well now we are all going to get an xbox controller
07:32 < ctefaho> FOR FREE
07:32 < ctefaho> THANKS MICROSOFT
07:32 < zipcpi> Huh?
07:33 < ctefaho> well if you buy an oculus rift you will get a free (I *think*) xbox controller
07:33 < ctefaho> (that also works for PC)
07:33 < zipcpi> That offer is probably not valid in Malaysia T.T
07:34 < ctefaho> uanai?
07:34 < zipcpi> There isn't much of a gaming industry here
07:34 < zipcpi> I pretty much get all my games from Steam these days
07:37 < ctefaho> I live in Sweden and I get all my games from Steam lately
07:37 < zipcpi> Right
07:37 < gleki> i wish someon finally translated minecraft.
07:38 < zipcpi> I tried, but then I got stuck in all the stuff about shaders or whatnot
07:38 < zipcpi> How in the world do we translate all that
07:38 < gleki> the amount of work would be fine for me but i wouldnt waste my time on actually playing it. and without playing i wont understand a thing
07:38 < gleki> actually the localization website even has explanations of objects there
07:39 < zipcpi> It's not the explanation; it's that these are very technical things; relating to graphics and such
07:39 < zipcpi> We'd need dozens of new brivla
07:40 < zipcpi> And I'm not even sure I know what they mean myself
07:41 < ctefaho> maybe I could help out
07:41 < ctefaho> some time
07:42 < zipcpi> Also I'm even also debating {bliku} for "block"... what should "brick" be then?
07:44 < gleki> en: kitybli
07:44 < mensi> kitybli [< kliti bliku ≈ Clay block] = b1 is a clay-based building brick of composition k2,  surfaces/sides s4. |>>> Cf.
07:44 < mensi> kliti, bliku. |>>> totus
07:44 < gleki> heh
07:44 < dutchie> but you can make bricks out of stone and other things in mc also
07:45 < gleki> but really how those blocks differ from bricks?
07:45 < dutchie> not necessarily just clay
07:45 < zipcpi> "Block" is a very technical term in Minecraft
07:45 < zipcpi> The world is made out of "blocks"
07:45 < zipcpi> They are all cubic, and are exactly one meter per side
07:46 < zipcpi> Thus it means a very different thing from "bricks", which are also a material in Minecraft
07:46 < gleki> selci?
07:47 < gleki> btw, is there a list of those terms with such explanations you just gave for "block"?
07:47 < zipcpi> That might not be wrong per se, but it might be weird to hold an item that's {mudri selci}
07:48 < gleki> do humans there consist of blocks too?
07:48 < dutchie> no, and not animals either
07:48 < zipcpi> No, just the terrain, and even trees
07:48 < zipcpi> And any buildings that either preexist or that you build
07:48 < gleki> thngs getting complicated
07:49 < zipcpi> I kinda want to make {za'ei} "jargon word next" and assign the rafsi {zam} to it
07:50 < zipcpi> Awr za'ei is taken
07:51 < ctefaho> will submit ie'i later today
07:51 < ctefaho> zipcpi no go stealing
07:51 < gocti> .o io ioi
07:51 < phenny> gocti: Service not found in https://github.com/nslater/oblique/wiki
07:51 < zipcpi> Anyway idea is that then {zambli} will have exactly one meaning in one particular jargon context, but may also be used for other jargons
07:52  * gocti has been using za'ei as ba'ei is to ba'e
07:52 < zipcpi> gocti: There is ci'ai
07:52 < gocti> also zi'a
07:53 < gocti> but {fu'e [zi'a/ci'ai] le fu'o} is lo'ong
07:53 < zipcpi> lol
07:53 < zipcpi> I always thought ci'ai always marks a single word despite being in UI
07:53 < zipcpi> Cause it's used primarily to mark experimental cmavo
07:54 < gocti> ua
07:54 < gleki> en: ci'ai
07:54 < mensi> ci'ai = [UI] discursive: marks an utterance as using something that is experimental/not official, especially
07:54 < mensi> experimental grammar |>>> In some sense, functions as an error marker or an error quote (but without the quote). |>>>
07:54 < mensi> krtisfranks
07:55 < zipcpi> Oi curtis also took zai'e
07:57 < demize> Curtis takes everything
07:57 < zipcpi> I know
07:57 < zipcpi> All your cmavo space are belong to la kurti
07:58 < zipcpi> Of course I'm almost as bad :p
07:58 < zipcpi> But at least my cmavo definitions aren't academic papers zo'o
07:59 < demize> la kurbau
08:00 < gocti> ti'e zo'oi cketak'uyre'u valsi fi lo kurtyba
08:00 < gocti> u
08:01 < gocti> .i ge lo zunsna cu lidne lo .y'y zei sance gi lo .y'y zei sance cu lidne lo karmlisna
08:02 < zipcpi> Hmm... any objections if I reappropriated {zai'e}? Given how the other cmavo of this series looks like he can always move it to {zai'o'e}
08:03 < gocti> XOhEhOhE XOhEhOhE XOhEhOhE XOhEhOhE
08:03 < gocti> .i ko ci roi xoi sutra cu cusku
08:03 < zipcpi> doi gocti ca stidi tu'a lu <ze'oi y'y sance> li'u
08:03 < gocti> je'e .i mi pu tcidu
08:05  * nuzba @selpahi: Utan-n ažral ta. http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/random-phrases-im-smarter-than-i-was-but-im-still-not-very-smart now with audio. #Ithkuil #lojban [http://bit.ly/1C6tCN0]
08:06 < Ilmen> .a'u
08:08 < gleki> itku'ile ga'a mi
08:09 < gleki> where is that ithkuil rafsi expander when one needs it
08:11 < gleki> parsing doesnt seem to be very complex https://github.com/ieremias/ithkuil-parser/blob/master/IthkuilParser.hs
08:15 < zipcpi> There added {zai'e} and {zi'ai}
08:15 < zipcpi> Dunno what is the protocal for experimental rafsi though
08:20 < durka42> vlaste: affix:zam
08:20 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/affix%3Azam
08:20 < gocti> all exp rafsi in jbovlaste (as of last week): coc dis dit tso gav jax ked kex kek kib les luk nif pup rex toz voz vul xig xoz xro xut zuc
08:20 < durka42> what about zmo
08:21 < durka42> and bom/nom
08:21 < durka42> I guess selckiku never added anything to JVS
08:21  * gocti just grepped for [: ]-[a-z]{3}-
08:22 < durka42> je'e
08:22 < durka42> -[a-z']{3,4} *
08:22 < durka42> ko na tolmo'i tu'a y'ybu
08:23 < gleki> en: jax
08:23 < mensi> 6 da se tolcri: jaxnalvai, jaxpu'a, samjavyfonxypliduskemjuglerci'analka'ebi'ojaxyja'e, sudjaxri'a, banju'axu,
08:23 < mensi> tunri'a
08:23 < gleki> rafsi: jax
08:23 < mensi> zo jai se rafsi zo'oi jax
08:23 < durka42> vlaste: affix:jax
08:23 < vlaste> 3 results: jai, jaxpu'a, tunri'a
08:23 < gocti> ua .oi se'i
08:23 < gleki> la robin pu jmina ra'oi jax
08:23 < gleki> i catni rafsi
08:24 < gleki> en: samjavyfonxypliduskemjuglerci'analka'ebi'ojaxyja'e
08:24 < mensi> samjavyfonxypliduskemjuglerci'analka'ebi'ojaxyja'e [< skami ja fonxa pilno dukse ke jungo lerfu ciska na'e kakne binxo
08:24 < mensi> jai jalge ≈ Computer and/or telephone use excess start grouping Chinese letteral write not able become modal conversion
08:24 < mensi> result] = x1 becomes incapable of writing characters x2 of alphabet/writing system x3, which is reflects chinese culture/
08:24 < mensi> languge/etc. in aspect x4 and which represent x5, on writing surface/medium x6 with writing implement x7 under
08:24 < mensi> conditions of being incapable x8 under conditions of becoming incapable x9, as a result of x1 making excessive use of
08:24 < mensi> x10 which is a computer for purpose x11 or x12 which is a phone connected to network x13, used for purpose x14,
08:24 < mensi> excessive by amount x15. |>>> The two "under conditions" places arise from the incorporation of both kakne and binxo.
08:24 < mensi> They are not to be confused. Ilmen inspired the creation of this lujvo. |>>> djeikyb
08:24 < durka42> oi
08:24 < gleki> lujvo: skami ja fonxa pilno dukse ke jungo lerfu ciska na'e kakne binxo jai jalge
08:24 < mensi> samjavyfonpliduskemjuglerci'analka'ebi'ojaxyjag[44933], samjavyfonpliduskemjugle'uci'analka'ebi'ojaxyjag[45422], samjavyfonpliduskemjuglerci'analka'ebi'ojaxyja'e[45422], samjavyfonplidu'ekem
08:24 < mensi> juglerci'analka'ebi'ojaxyjag[45422], samjavyfonpliduskemjuglerci'analka'ebixyjaxyjag[45544], ...
08:24 < mensi> samjavyfonxypliduskemjuglerci'analka'ebi'ojaxyja'e [< skami ja fonxa pilno dukse ke jungo lerfu ciska na'e kakne binxo jai jalge ≈ Computer and/or telephone use excess start grouping Chinese
08:24 < mensi>  letteral write not able become modal conversion result] = x1 becomes incapable of writing characters x2 of alphabet/writing system x3, which is reflects chinese culture/languge/etc. in aspe
08:24 < mensi> ct x4 and which represent x5, on writing surface/medium x6 with writing implement x7 under conditions of being incapable x8 under conditions of becoming incapable x9, as a result of x1 makin
08:24 < mensi> g excessive use of x10 which is a computer for purpose x11 or x12 which is a phone connected to network x13, used for purpose x14, excessive by amount x15.
08:25 < durka42> oi ke'u
08:25 < gleki> samjavyfonpliduskemjuglerci'analka'ebi'ojaxyja'e[45422]
08:26 < gleki> i ki'u ma la tsani pu troci lo ka gasnu lo nu mi'a srera jinvi lo du'u le lujvo bi'ai clani i na mutce clani i sa'u ei pilno ra'oi fon enai ra'oi fonx vau zo'o
08:26 < durka42> .u'i
08:28 < durka42> co'o la vlaste ku xrukla bazi
08:29 < durka42> co'o la vlaste ko xrukla bazi
08:37 < durka42> vlaste: affix:zam
08:37 < vlaste> zi'ai = jargon word indicator; indicates previous word is a jargon word
08:40 < durka42> that went pretty smoothly
08:40 < durka42> perhaps automatic updates coming soon...
08:49 < gleki> i m not able to run this: https://github.com/fizyk20/
08:49 < durka42> that's a user
08:49 < gleki> https://github.com/fizyk20/ithkuil
08:51 < gocti> gleki: la'oi ithkuil noi .irci cu .instansa ra
08:51 < gocti> .i mi tolmo'i lo du'u ma kau pu .ei se stika
08:51 < gleki> gocti: ba'anai i ku'i mi djica lo ka pilno si'unai
08:52 < durka42> gleki: you get a Unicode error when running test.py? that's what I get
08:52 < gleki> yes
08:52 < gleki> is it even python or python3?
08:52 < dutchie> py2
08:52 < durka42> that's what I'm checking
08:52 < gleki> # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
08:52 < durka42> seems like python3
08:52 < dutchie> gleki: yes, was just about to put that
08:52 < gleki> but that's not the end of the story
08:52 < durka42> also needs sqlalchemy
08:53 < durka42> now it runs
08:53 < durka42> uhednaláň :  CNF-P1S2/STA-CPL-dn-OBL-UNI/CSL/M/DEL/NRM-COO_1/5-EXS-FML/UNFRAMED
08:53 < gleki> is it possible to put this library into the repo itself so that it works locally from the same ithkuil folder?
08:53 < durka42> not sure
08:53 < durka42> you could make a virtualenv and install it locally
08:54 < gleki> when i say "$ pip install sqlalchemy --user" it says "Requirement already satisfied". i should probably change pythonpath, right?
08:56 < zipcpi> Anyway, use case with zai'e/zi'ai : e.g. in Magic the Gathering, "flying" is a keyword with a very specific, technical, in game meaning. Sure, you can say that the creatures {vofli} within the context of the game world itself; but if you say {zai'e vofli} you then make clear that you are referring to all the very specific meanings the word "flying" has within the narrow context of the game itself
08:57 < zipcpi> Also back to Minecraft it might then be possible to use {zai'e bliku} to distinguish the very specific term "block" for any cuboid-like object including the clay bricks you can forge
08:57 < durka42> it's uncomfortably close to natlang-ish polysemy
08:57 < durka42> but I definitely see the use case
08:58 < durka42> gleki: there is a pip for python2 and a pip for python3...
08:58 < durka42> gleki: you may be running the wrong one
08:58 < zipcpi> durkavore Yeah I can see the possible objection; the rafsi is one way of alleviating that IMO
08:59 < zipcpi> That way you can use {samzamgri} to refer to the jargon word "group" within the context of computers, say... (though I'm not sure what that should mean; just making up a random example)
08:59 < gleki> durka42: ju'inai. it now works for me. just "export pythonpath" did the trick
08:59 < zipcpi> Problem is that with many of these concepts, building a lujvo or a zi'evla is impractical, and loses that convenient association with a known concept
09:00 < durka42> hum
09:00 < durka42> so samgri != samzamgri
09:00 < durka42> actually
09:00 < durka42> that's ambiguous :(
09:00 < durka42> -zam- can't be the rafsi for both zai'e and zi'ai then
09:00 < zipcpi> No, it's always a prefix
09:00 < zipcpi> Just like -pev- is always a prefix
09:00 < durka42> oh okay
09:00 < durka42> ja'o zo zi'ai na se rafsi
09:01 < gleki> wait "analyzer.py - interactive script analyzing words from input
09:01 < gleki> "
09:01 < gleki> where is this file???
09:01 < zipcpi> Yeah maybe I'll remove that just to alleviate confusion, or add a note
09:01 < durka42> zipcpi: but you put in -zam- as the rafsi for zi'ai
09:01 < zipcpi> I put it in for both
09:01 < zipcpi> My reasoning is that it acts like -pev-
09:01 < Ilmen> rafsi: zu'o
09:01 < mensi> zo'oi zum rafsi zo zu'o
09:01 < durka42> zipcpi: okay that is confusing though. definitely add a note
09:02 < durka42> gleki: na zasti .i lo tcidyminde datnyvei cu jifyxu'a
09:03 < zipcpi> OK done
09:03 < Ilmen> lo tcidufakomi
09:03 < Ilmen> si tcidufakofimi
09:03 < Ilmen> ta'onai ke'u ra'oi zum rafsi zo zu'o
09:04 < Ilmen> ua cu'i pei
09:04 < durka42> ua
09:04 < durka42> ma nabmi sera'a zo zu'o
09:04 < Ilmen> en: zumfau
09:04 < mensi> zumfau [< zu'o fasnu ≈ Activity abstract event] = x1 is an activity |>>> See zu'o. Maybe other sumti places are needed.
09:04 < mensi> |>>> Ilmen
09:04 < gleki> i ku'i mi ca zukte ma i xu lo nu galfi fi la djavaskripti
09:04 < gleki> i nandu
09:04 < gleki> i tatpyri'a
09:05 < gleki> i au la samyuan cu zukte
09:05 < gleki> exp: l๏ кเ๒ץкคгภเ թє lค รєlթคђเ
09:05 < durka42> la samyuan cu zukcfu
09:05 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "k" found.
09:05 < durka42> Ilmen: ua nai bu'o
09:05 < durka42> xu do xusra lo du'u ra'oi zam janli ra'oi zum
09:06 < Ilmen> ra'oi zam ua
09:06 < Ilmen> .i la'a mi pu tcidu fliba .u'u ju'i nai
09:06 < zipcpi> Nah... rafsi aren't subject to collision rules; we'd have a big problem otherwise
09:08 < durka42> je'u
09:28 < gleki> looks like jvs is getting worse and worse
09:29 < gleki> i wish someone could resume working on tagging tatoeba sentences.
09:29 < gleki> because i have other tasks atm
09:30 < durka42> is it still in the same google doc
09:31 < gleki> yes
09:31 < durka42> I might have some time this week
09:31 < gleki> as for ithkuil i thought i could make a sutysisku out of it but ... too many rules
09:33  * nuzba @uitki: experimental rafsi - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/experimental_rafsi by Ramcinfo [http://bit.ly/1L8sP3l]
09:35 < durka42> heh
09:35 < durka42> xm
09:35 < durka42> .title
09:35 < phenny> [ le uitki on Twitter: "experimental rafsi - http://t.co/zRYgXnl5Za by Ramcinfo" ]
09:40 < gleki> nei -  rafsi nej.
09:40 < gleki> i thought it was sez-
09:41 < niftg> zo'oi nej zo nejni cu rafsi vau .au
09:43 < niftg> .ue zo'oi nen cu go'i
09:43 < gleki> ie mi pu pensi lo simsa
09:43 < durka42> vlaste: nejni (a)
09:43 < vlaste> nejni (affix) = -nen-
09:43 < durka42> vlaste: affix:nei
09:43 < vlaste> nelci = x1 is fond of/likes/has a taste for x2 (object/state).
09:43 < durka42> whoops
09:43 < durka42> vlaste: affix:nej
09:43 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/affix%3Anej
09:45 < gleki> en:court
09:45 < mensi> 13 da se tolcri: flapaizda, litytce, nolkansa, pairtruci'e, selsrustu, cinjikca, cinse, clite, febjbijukpa, febmlijukpa,
09:45 < mensi> juprblanca, pairkamni, pairkamnycmi
09:45 < gleki> en:flapaizda
09:45 < mensi> flapaizda [< flalu pajni zdani ≈ Law judge nest] = z1 is a judicial court administering lawsuit p2=f2 for community f3.
09:45 < niftg> .i ku'i .uenairu'ero'e .i cafne fa lo nu lo slaka kernelo kakne zunsna cu se cuxna tepi'o lo nu fanmo lo rafsi
09:45 < gleki> .dict court
09:45 < phenny> court — noun: 1. An enclosed space; a courtyard; an uncovered area shut in by the walls of a building, or by different building; also, a space opening from a street and nearly surrounded by houses; a blind alley, 2. (US, Australia) A street with no outlet, a cul-de-sac — verb: 1. (trans.) T[...]
09:46 < gleki> court = an assembly (including one or more judges) to conduct judicial business
09:47 < gleki> loi pajni?
09:47 < zipcpi> gleki: As I understand it the problem of Ithkuil is much like the problem of having to construct the cmavo compound {za'ure'u} over and over again, but about a 100 times worse :p
09:47 < zipcpi> Maybe a few more zeroes
09:47 < gleki> i restored analyzer.py https://github.com/lagleki/ithkuil/
09:48 < gleki> the problem with this repo is that it has an sqlite db
09:49 < durka42> is there such a thing as too much compositionality :p
09:50 < gleki> well,no. the problem is not in the repo.
09:51 < mindszenty_> My problem with Ithkuil is what it is not logical enough :)
09:51 < mindszenty_> Not in loglang sense.
09:52 < mindszenty_> Well, not in _basic_ longlang sense of supporting predicate logic.
09:52 < gleki> my problem with ithkuil is that i dont speak it
09:53 < mindszenty_> Design of language is simply inconsistent in many places.
09:54 < gleki> can anyone run this? https://github.com/ieremias/ithkuil-parser
09:55 < zipcpi> ... .hs? .md? ki'asai
09:55 < gleki> it's haskell not compiled
09:57 < mindszenty_> For example, there is little to no consistency in morphological fusion tables, meaning you need to remember them wholesale. And these tables are _huge_.
09:57 < durka42> gleki: looks like it depends on Parsec
09:57 < durka42> mindszenty_: not even quijada has them memorized, IIRC
09:58 < phma> coi
09:58 < zipcpi> do'oi niftg: lo'e rafsi poi se fanmo lo ra'irzunsna ja'a plixau va'o lo vrici
09:59 < zipcpi> tolcafne fa lo nu nitcu tu'a me'oi ybu
10:00 < zipcpi> .y. me'o ybu
10:13 < niftg> doi zipcpi mi do tugni .iki'ubo ze'u jijyji'i lodu'u lo zunsna nu zmanei cu srana lo rafsi zbasu te pruce
10:14 < niftg> zo ki'u na mapti vau pe'ibu'o .u'use'i
10:16 < niftg> .ybubu .ybububu dunli xu
10:16 < niftg> la'a na go'i
10:16 < niftg> zu'unai .ybu .ybubu go'i xu
10:16 < zipcpi> na dunli
10:17 < zipcpi> simsa .abu jo'u .abubu
10:18 < zipcpi> ji'a xy jo'u xy.bu
10:18 < niftg> .uenai .uiro'e
10:19 < zipcpi> me'o xy cu sinxa me'oi x .ijeku'i me'o xy.bu cu sinxa me'oi h
10:20 < zipcpi> .y. zo zo'oi jenai zo me'oi
10:20 < zipcpi> mi so'iroi se cfipu gau zo me'o
10:21 < niftg> .ue .i .iabu'ocu'i {.y'ybu} pu'i ckaji lo ka pilno ce'u lo nu sinxa zo'oi h
10:22 < niftg> mi nu'o certu tu'a zo me'o noi mekso srana
10:23 < niftg> .ua .u'a dunli zo li
10:23 < zipcpi> mi cafne pilno zo me'o tu'a lo lerpoi .iku'i mi na certu tu'a lo cmaci mekso pe zo me'o
10:24 < niftg> .a'u je'e
10:25 < niftg> ta'onai lu denpa bu li'u mu'a ka'e sumka'i vau xu .uanai
10:26 < zipcpi> ja'ago'i
10:26 < niftg> .ue .i jinvi fo ma .a'u
10:26 < zipcpi> ro lervla ja lerpoi ka'e sumka'i
10:26 < Ilmen> .e'u zo depybu'i
10:27 < niftg> selbri nu galfi
10:28 < zipcpi> mi pu zgana lo nu pilno lu kabu li'u je lu nubu li'u mu'a tu'a lo sumka'i
10:29 < zipcpi> na djuno lo du'u makau ci'artadji i'au u'i
10:31 < zipcpi> le ma'orpoi ku ji'aku'i se jbovlaste
10:31 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ka%20bu
10:35 < ctefaho> gleki: want me to edit ue'i too?
10:36 < niftg> .ua lu nubu li'u mu'a ka'e .ia sumka'i ki'u lo nu so'ida sucta sumti
10:37  * ctefaho edits
10:37 < gleki> ctefaho: e'u stika fau lo nabmi
10:39 < ctefaho> well, it is fixed now
10:39 < ctefaho> will do that style for ie'i too
10:40 < gleki> "court" is not {loi pajni} but again something like {lo jai ci'e pajni}
10:42 < gleki> hm, according to xorxes ciste => stura => gunma
10:42 < gleki> and gunma2 is full set
10:42 < gleki> but court probably consists not only of judges
10:43 < gleki> then again {lo jai se pa'u pajni}
10:45 < ctefaho> hmm what would the midpoint between "attraction/appeal" and "disgust/revulsion" be?
10:45 < durka42> indifference?
10:46 < ctefaho> well yeah. but that would describe a lot of UI-cu'i:p
10:47 < ctefaho> hmm and aucu'i even has that as its gloss
10:47 < durka42> vlaste: au
10:47 < vlaste> au = attitudinal: desire - indifference - reluctance.
10:48 < ctefaho> "indifference of attraction/disgust" would work but that's kinda long:(
10:48 < durka42> yeah well, what's the difference between {au} and whatever new UI you are proposing? :)
10:49 < ctefaho> ie'i is disgust/revulsion/abhorrence/loathing
10:49 < ctefaho> (basically rigni)
10:49 < gleki> we dont have a word for "to play a role in a drama"?
10:49 < ctefaho> and the opposite is trina
10:49 < ctefaho> (not cinri!)
10:50 < durka42> gleki: xe draci
10:50 < gleki> maybe tigni?
10:50 < gleki> durka42: lisri lacks x5
10:50 < gleki> i need something more general
10:50 < gleki> to express " character in a story/play"
10:51 < gleki> i.e. fictional character
10:51 < durka42> xarpre
10:51 < durka42> is what I've seen used before
10:51 < ctefaho> even if I don't specify ie'icu'i people will/can still use it right?
10:51 < gleki> not necessarily a person
10:51 < durka42> ctefaho: yeah probably
10:51 < ctefaho> it is kinda obvious but not that hard to explain
10:51 < gleki> probablyjust {lo participe be lo lisri}
10:52 < ctefaho> doesn't really have a simple english word though
10:52 < durka42> what kinda characters aren't prenu? .u'e
10:52 < durka42> cognates are a cop-out :/
10:52 < gleki> jbo: xarpre
10:52 < mensi> [< xanri prenu ≈ Xanri prenu*] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:52 < mensi> xarpre[5878], xarprenu[7917], xanrypre[8008], xanryprenu[10047]
10:52 < gleki> en: xarpre
10:52 < mensi> xarpre [< xanri prenu ≈ Imaginary person] = xa1=p1 is a character/role/imaginary person created by xa2. |>>>
10:52 < mensi> arj
10:53 < gleki> okay, how would you say "Alice is a character in the story "Alice in Wonderland""?
10:53 < gleki> xe lisri?
10:54 < ctefaho> gleki: will "disgust - lack of disgust/attraction - attraction" work? or does the "/" mess things up?
10:54 < durka42> it does seem like lisri ought to have an x5 to parallel draci
10:54 < durka42> on the other hand you could just call Alice in Wonderland a draci
10:54 < durka42> lisydraci
10:55 < gleki> interesting that WordNet has frequencies specified for each meaning of each english word. it may help la selpa'i  in his search for the holy graal sisisi upper ontology list
10:55 < gleki> ctefaho: looks fine from the viewpoint of official definitions
10:55 < gleki> although long ago we just decided to specify the scale in the note
10:55 < durka42> it matches the style of current definitions
10:55 < gleki> but havent updated official definitions yet
10:56 < durka42> though pe'i all the slashes make them very hard to read
10:56 < gleki> jbo: au
10:56 < mensi> au = [UI1] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri se djica le cusku |>>> djica |>>> xorxes
10:56 < gleki> jb: au
10:56 < mensi> au = au [interjection] — Wish ... (desire), au cu'i — meh (indifference), au nai — Nuh-uh! (disinclination,
10:56 < mensi> reluctance)
10:56 < mensi> :au e'o tcati — I'd like some tea, please.
10:56 < mensi> :au cu'i do jai gau bredi fai lo cidja — You prepare the food or not ... I don't have any preferences.
10:56 < mensi> :au nai do cliva — I don't want you to leave.
10:56 < mensi> :Related words: djica
10:56 < gleki> as you can see in La Bangu i just made everything explicit because these dashes made brains of newbies explode
10:56 < gleki> how can one word have three meanings </quote>
10:57 < durka42> ie
10:59 < gleki> business =  a commercial or industrial enterprise and the people who constitute it
10:59 < gleki> kagni?
10:59 < gleki> business2 = the activity of providing goods and services involving financial and commercial and industrial aspects
10:59 < gleki> cuntu?
11:00 < durka42> yeah one of those
11:00 < gleki> no, there are two words
11:01 < gleki> business 
11:01 < gleki> business2
11:01 < gleki> i need translations of both
11:01 < durka42> oh I thought you were making a place structure
11:01 < durka42> first one seems like kagni
11:01 < gleki> no, those are definitions from WordNet
11:02 < gleki> 1. a commercial or industrial enterprise and the people who constitute it (Freq. 35)
11:02 < durka42> second one seems like terkagni or cuntu
11:02 < gleki> 2. the activity of providing goods and services involving financial and commercial and industrial aspects (Freq. 20)
11:04 < gleki> so how do we say "better" using tags only?
11:07 < durka42> mau ko'a tema'u lo ni xamgu :p
11:07 < gleki> {semau seva'u} seems fine, no?
11:08 < ctefaho> there we go, ie'i added
11:08 < durka42> x
11:08 < durka42> xm
11:08 < gleki> {seva'u semau} - good which is more
11:08 < ctefaho> ...even if only I will be using them at least I will feel more comfortable using them now;o
11:08 < durka42> semau zo'e seva'u ko'a => more than something, good for A
11:08 < gleki> {semau seva'u} = more of something that is well
11:09  * ctefaho co'o uai
11:09 < durka42> co'o ctefa'o
11:09 < gleki> en: uai
11:09 < mensi> uai = [UI1] attitudinal: friendly/friendishly/amicably/companionship/compatriotship/comradeship - antagonistically/
11:09 < mensi> enemyishly |>>> See also: ai, au, iu, o'e, ua, ui, kansa, pendo, prami |>>> krtisfranks
11:10 < durka42> this needs to be defined as "amicably; uainai: antagonistically" with a list of synonyms in the notes
11:10 < durka42> it is impossible to read
11:10 < gleki> if you have a plan on how to mass fix that ...
11:10 < gleki> btw xml dumps have id for each entry
11:11 < gleki> and this id corresponds to the url of the edit page
11:11 < gleki> then you send a post request ...
11:12 < durka42> mass fix is hard because (a) you have to choose which slash variant to keep in the main def, and (b) in english you can't determine the scope of a slash connective, which is part of the problem
11:12 < gleki> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/blob/master/bin/upload <-- algorithm on how to mass upload words
12:12 < zipcpi> doi durka42 mi mo'u jmina lo mupli poi pilno ro te sumti pe zo gimy'inda
12:13 < durka42> .u'i
12:14 < durka42> .i'e
12:38 < zipcpi> durka42: Actually it could probably use another place in the x2; for the proposed gismu. It might actually be used :p
12:39 < zipcpi> Parallels {lo se inda}
12:39 < durka42> yeah maybe
12:40 < zipcpi> That way I can put {zo ginda} there to make the "clash" more obvious (yeah I know {kinda} is not a real gismu, but whatever :p)
12:42 < durka42> fine
12:42 < zipcpi> Funnily la gleki canonized {sorta}, but not {kinda} in la bangu
12:42 < durka42> done
12:42 < durka42> jb: kidna
12:42 < zipcpi> Yay
12:42 < durka42> jb: kinda
12:42 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
12:42 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
12:42 < durka42> jb: sorta
12:42 < mensi> sorta = sorta — x1(entity)  sorta is/does  x2(property of x1)
12:42 < mensi> :lo sorta — sorta, sort of.
12:42 < mensi> :mi sorta lo ka gleki — I'm sort of happy.
12:42 < mensi> :Related words: simsa, klesi
12:43 < zipcpi> {milxe ja simlu} I think :p
12:51  * nuzba @selpahi: Žaţûssa ti albwaţ. | Random #Ithkuil phrases http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/random-phrases-i-like-whales-very-much (gloss + audio)  (obligatory #lojban) [http://bit.ly/1FUEZcv]
12:55 < durka42> wat .u'i
12:57 < zipcpi> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4274082 Hm another example of anaphoric weakness, though I don't know how to fix it
12:57 < zipcpi> I wanted to include {lo ka lifri}, but that would mean having to include it twice
12:57 < zipcpi> And then closing it with {kei kei}
12:58 < zipcpi> Technically I could make it a tanru: {mi lifri zmanei}
12:58 < zipcpi> But then I thought I'd just drop it altogether
12:58 < durka42> include it where?
12:58 < zipcpi> mi zmanei lo ka lifri lo ka pindi je panpi ...
12:59 < durka42> oh I see
12:59 < zipcpi> mi zmanei lo ka lifri lo ka pindi je panpi kei kei lo ka lifri lo ka ricfu je terpa
12:59 < zipcpi> Yeah... ugly
13:00 < zipcpi> Of course I might just use the little-used NU {li'i}...
13:00 < durka42> mi maudji lo ka pindi je panpi kei lo ka ricfu je terpa kei lo ka mi lifri ce'u
13:00 < durka42> oh yeah could just replace {nu} with {li'i}
13:01 < durka42> or put {lifri} at the end of both tanru
13:07 < fleimbo> coi ro do
13:09 < zipcpi> coi
13:13 < fleimbo> .i do mo pei
13:14 < zipcpi> mi tatpi ru'e .i ei mi bazico'a sipna
13:18 < fleimbo> ma stuzi le vimku'a
13:19 < zipcpi> ta'ima mi djuno le danfu i'au zo'o .i ti se irci jecu kibro virtu'ale
13:21 < fleimbo> le mi varkiclaflo'i cu culno lo angila
13:22 < zipcpi> le~~~ mi~~~ var~~~kic~~~laflo~~~'i~~~
13:22 < zipcpi> cu~~~~ cul~~~no lo angi~~~la .i je'e~~~pei
13:23 < fleimbo> .i zoi gy. I didn
13:23 < fleimbo> .u'u
13:25 < fleimbo> .i zoi gy. I didn't know what lojban was five days ago gy. xe fanva ma la lojban
13:27 < durka42> pu zi lo djedi be li mu mi na sanji la .lojban.
13:27 < zipcpi> mi na djuno lo du'u lo jbobau cu mokau kei ca le prulamdei efku be li mu
13:27 < zipcpi> oi
13:28 < durka42> ask two lojbanists for a translation, get two answers
13:28 < durka42> but one of them will use a higher-order predicate :p
13:28 < zipcpi> mi pu na sanji zo sanji
13:28 < durka42> .u'i
13:29 < zipcpi> What's a higher order predicate? You mean my {du'u} clause?
13:29 < durka42> I mean {efku}
13:29 < zipcpi> xa'a'a'a'a'a
13:30 < zipcpi> mi du'eva'e nelci zo efku
13:31 < zipcpi> jai cfipu ro le nintadni
13:31 < fleimbo> is ".i mi djuno muno valsi" a grammatically correct sentence?
13:32 < zipcpi> Yes, though you probably want a {fi} before {muno valsi}. Or use {se slabu} or {sanji}
13:33 < fleimbo> ki'e
17:29 < mi_fengu> ok
17:31 < fleimbo> coi ro do
17:43 < phma> coi
19:13 < rutytar> coi
19:32 < phma> coi .rutytar. i mo
19:33 < rutytar> cilre lo lojban
19:33 < rutytar> mi go'i
19:33 < phma> la lojban .i lo lojbo
19:34 < rutytar> go'i ja'e mi cilre i zo'o
19:34 < phma> .i mi zvati la .ber.karolinas .i do zvati ma
19:34 < rutytar> grute tarci
19:34 < rutytar> .au mi zenba prenu
19:35 < phma> do zvati lo grute tarci .ianai
19:35 < phma> .i ma grute tarci
19:37 < rutytar> .a'o ba mi xaksu lo ro tarci
19:37 < rutytar> ma'a go'i
19:37 < phma> do xaksu lo tarci ta'i ma
19:38 < rutytar> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting
19:40 < rutytar> ta ca na fanva zo'o
19:43 < phma> lo babzba ba zbasu lo jbazbabu lo babjba
19:45 < rutytar> lo babzba jbazbabu
19:45 < rutytar> ja'o go'i
19:46 < phma> le xruki le ginxre xrixruba xu xrula cu xrani
19:47 < rutytar> zo'o do kusru
19:47 < phma> I don't mean to be mean
19:48 < phma> mi na'o kusru lo fadni
19:49 < phma> .i lo'e rikteropu na fadni mabru ki'u lo nu na'o se jbena re sovda
19:49 < phma> rikteropu si ornitorinku
19:50 < rutytar> zoi .min. malglico
19:50 < phma> ki'a?
19:51 < phma> .i zoi .min. malglico .min. na glico
19:51 < rutytar> "mean"
19:52 < rutytar> ti mintu ciska
19:52 < rutytar> ti mintu ciska
19:52 < rutytar> *mintu sance
19:52 < rutytar> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homograph
19:53 < rutytar> mabla rarna bangu
19:55 < rutytar> opu valsi ma
19:55 < phma> lo'u opu le'u na gendra
19:56 < rutytar> rikteropu valsi ma
19:58 < phma> zo rikteropu cu basti zo .ornitorinku lo nu mi se cfipu
19:59 < phma> .i lo rikteropu .e lo .ornitorinku cu mabru
19:59 < phma> .i lo rikteropu cu friko gi'e citka lo cinki gi'e se jbena lo cifnu
20:00 < phma> .i lo .ornitorinku cu se moklu lo datka simsa gi'e se jbena lo sovda
20:04 < rutytar> .i'a
20:08 < rutytar> xu lo cmene do cu vlasi lo ta danlu
20:09 < rutytar> e'u mi cfipu
20:09 < rutytar> e'unai
20:10 < rutytar> mi masno tcidu
20:10 < phma> ki'a .i lo danlu na te valsi
20:12 < rutytar> mi na djuno lo nu lo rikteropu cu vajni
20:13 < rutytar> srana
20:14 < rutytar> mi na jimpe lo nu lo rikteropu cu srana
20:14 < phma> lo'e se rikteropu cu frejutsi pamei porjutsi
20:19 < rutytar> xu frejutsi pamei
20:19 < rutytar> ma pamei
20:19 < phma> xu ma frejutsi pamei
20:21 < phma> .i loi solri cu pamei .i loi terdi cu pamei .i loi mi stedu cu pamei
20:22 < phma> .i loi mi kanla cu remei .i loi mi degji cu renomei
20:23 < rutytar> ki'a lo pamei cu na selbri
20:24 < rutytar> ro jutsi cu ferti
20:24 < phma> lu pamei li'u cu ja'a selbri
20:25 < rutytar> .e'o ca sampu
20:25 < rutytar> do cusku lo danlu
20:26 < rutytar> ti rikteropu
20:26 < phma> na ka'e cusku lo danlu .i ka'e cusku lo valsi
20:26 < phma> ti ki'a .i mi na viska lo se jarco be do
20:26 < rutytar> go'i
20:27 < rutytar> lo danlu cu selsnu
20:27 < rutytar> malglixlu
20:27 < rutytar> casnu lo danlu
20:27 < phma> go'i
20:29 < rutytar> xa zo ferjutsi ca gletu
20:29 < rutytar> xu zo ferjutsi ca gletu
20:30 < rutytar> ...
20:30 < rutytar> xu zo ferjutsi valsi lo gletu danlu
20:30 < rutytar> xu zo ferjutsi valsi lo cu gletu danlu
20:31 < phma> frejutsi
20:32 < rutytar> mi cfipu
20:32 < phma> .i zo ferjutsi cu lujvo fo lu fenra jutsi li'u
20:32 < rutytar> .ua zo'o
20:34 < phma> .i la'o ly. Oricteropus afer .ly. frejutsi .i la'o ly. Oricteropus .ly. jijyjutsi
20:34 < rutytar> pu lo ferti cu smuni fi mi
20:34 < phma> .i la'o ly. Cucurbitaceae .ly. lazyjutsi gi'e du lo'e se guzme
20:35 < phma> ma cu smuni fi do pu lo ferti
20:35 < rutytar> e'o masno tavla
20:40 < rutytar> pu lo ferti jutsi cu smuni lo frejutsi
20:40 < rutytar> go'i fi mi
20:42 < rutytar> e'u zo ferjutsi valsi lo fenra jutsi
20:44 < phma> mi na djuno lo du'u makau ferjutsi
20:44 < rutytar> zo makau valsi ma
20:45 < phma> di'u cizra
20:46 < rutytar> xu lu makau valsi ma li'u zenba
20:46 < phma> .i zo ma valsi .iku'i zo kau cu dandu lu zo ma li'u
20:47 < phma> .i zenba ki'a
20:47 < rutytar> mi mutce cfipu
20:48 < rutytar> mi djuno lo valsi zo ma
20:48 < phma> do cfipu je'i se cfipu
20:48 < rutytar> zo'o
20:49 < phma> .i lu ma li'u valsi pamei .i lu kau li'u valsi pamei .i lu makau li'u valsi remei
20:50 < rutytar> http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/gismu.txt zo fer rafsi zo fenra i zo fre rafsi zo ferti
20:52 < rutytar> lo ferti jutsi cu smuni zo frejutsi
20:52 < rutytar> xu do jimpe
20:52 < phma> zofre ki'a
20:52 < rutytar> rafsi
20:53 < rutytar> mi na kakne lo sitna
20:54 < phma> na sitybakfu lo rafsi zo zo
20:54 < phma> .i zoi ry. fre .ry rafsi zo ferti
20:55 < rutytar> go'i .ua
20:55 < rutytar> do cusku zo frejutsi
20:56 < rutytar> pu go'i
20:56 < rutytar> zo ferti jutsi cu smuni fi mi
20:56 < rutytar> xu do jimpe
20:57 < phma> zo ferti na jutsi .i zo ferti cu valsi
20:57 < rutytar> lu ferti jutsi li'u
20:58 < rutytar> lu ferti jutsi li'u cu smuni zo frejutsi
20:58 < rutytar> xu ti xamgu
21:00 < phma> .i lo xirma joi lo xasli xu ferti .iku'i lo se ferti noi ginxre na ferti .iseni'ibo lo xirma na mintu lo xasli lo ka ce'u cmima makau poi frejutsi
21:00 < phma> .iku'i lo xirma ja'a mintu lo xasli lo ka ce'u cmima makau poi jijyjutsi
21:04 < rutytar> .e'enai
21:05 < phma> ma bangu do
21:09 < rutytar> glico ku'i mi na djica lo dicra
21:09 < rutytar> mi masno troci lo jimpe
21:10 < phma> do troci lo nu jimpe .i na ka'e troci lo jimpe
21:12 < rutytar> zo'o ji'a na ka'e troci lo nu jimpe
21:13 < rutytar> zo'o cu na ka'e troci lo nu jimpe
21:18 < rutytar> i need to finish reading the CLL :p
21:20 < phma> did you understand what I said about horses and donkeys?
21:22 < rutytar> i think so, but let me back up
21:23 < rutytar> "lo'e se rikteropu cu frejutsi pamei porjutsi"
21:23 < rutytar> frejutsi is a fertile species
21:24 < rutytar> like horses, but not donkeys?
21:25 < rutytar> later, you say ".i zo ferjutsi cu lujvo fo lu fenra jutsi li'u"
21:25 < rutytar> no wait, hold on
21:25 < rutytar> okay. that explains it
21:26 < phma> a horse and donkey are fertile, but what they produce, which is a hybrid, is not fertile, so a horse is not in the same species as a donkey
21:26 < phma> but a horse is in the same genus as a donkey
21:26 < rutytar> i had spelled it wrong when asking you what frejutsi meant
21:26 < rutytar> you did mean to say a fertile species, and i was being an idiot
21:26 < phma> I was not on crack :)
21:27 < phma> the aardvark taxon is a single-species order
21:28 < rutytar> that was my best guess as to what you were saying
21:28 < rutytar> are you translating the dictionary alphabetically or something?
21:29 < phma> no
21:30 < phma> I got the aardvark and the platypus mixed up, I'm not sure why.
21:33 < fleimbo> coi ro do
21:35 < rutytar> co'o
23:00 < gleki> Zatussa ti albwat to all of you
23:00 < gleki> http://tatoeba.org/jbo/sentences/show/4274464
23:00 < gleki> .title
23:00 < phenny> [ mupli lo uenzi be lo banjubu'o fa "zoi zoi da'i mi se ba'i renvi fau lo ka panpi pindi e nai lo ka ricfu gi'e fau bo terpa zoi" (to la'oi Tatoeba toi) ]
23:23 < gleki> just in case i removed {po} from La Bangu
--- Day changed Mon Jun 15 2015
01:21 < zipcpi> la'a ti xa'o laldo se slabu nuzba .iku'i mi cazi co'a sanji ri sei zoizoi http://www.mit.edu/~puzzle/2013/coinheist.com/rubik/lojicomix/index.html zoi
01:22 < dutchie> coi
01:22 < zipcpi> coi
01:22 < zipcpi> le danfu zo'u zoi zoi http://www.mit.edu/~puzzle/2013/coinheist.com/rubik/lojicomix/answer/index.html zoi
01:28 < zipcpi> Also an actual example of usage of {lo'i} for sets lol
01:28 < zipcpi> I don't know though. These days people typically just use {lo}
01:29 < zipcpi> {lo ro mulna'u} "All integers", typically interpreted as a set in the right context
01:33  * nuzba @uitki: jboske whitepapers - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Talk:jboske_whitepapers by Gleki - *"XS" means "Excellent Solution".    **[[And Rosta]]:    ***Or "Xorxes's Solution". [http://bit.ly/1fbVri9]
01:35  * nuzba @uitki: jboske whitepapers - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/jboske_whitepapers by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1fbVEBH]
01:37  * nuzba @uitki: xorxes on requantification - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/xorxes_on_requantification by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1FVRZys]
01:38 < zipcpi> What's this? More gadri stuff?
01:39 < gleki> fixing formatting
01:39 < gleki> old and's and xorxe's discussions
01:39 < gleki> but it's a lot of work
01:40 < zipcpi> {lo ro mulna'u}: "All integers, considered individually", as opposed to {loi ro mulna'u}: "All integers, considered as a single entity"
01:41 < zipcpi> So if {loi}:{joi}; {lo}:{jo'u}? Could it be {lo}:{ce}?
01:42 < zipcpi> Not to mention that {ce} got on the wrong side of CKTJ, while {jo'u} got on the right side :p
01:44 < gleki> wrong to whom
01:44 < zipcpi> "wrong" in the sense that it got reassigned to a longer cmavo
01:44 < zipcpi> {ce} and {ce'u} switch places in CKTJ
01:45 < zipcpi> It's what the C stands for
01:47 < zipcpi> If la gadganzu is too radical for standard Lojban, it might be suitable for CKTJ
01:51  * nuzba @uitki: ce ki tau jau - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ce_ki_tau_jau by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1fbXrqv]
01:52 < gocti> {le mamta be le ro ri}
01:52 < gocti> cinri
01:53 < gocti> .i xu ja'ai lo ku'antora cu tarti lo panra be lo me lo cmavrgo'a moi
01:53 < zipcpi> {ku'antora} = "quantifier"?
01:53 < gocti> go'i
01:54 < gocti> "ci prenu cu klama le zarci i muboi py stali le zdani" ==ti'e "ci prenu cu klama li'o .i mu prenu cu stali li'o"
01:54 < gocti> .i mo fa lu "ci prenu cu klama .i je py stali"
01:55 < gocti> li'u .i mo fa lu "ci prenu zo'u py klama .i je py stali"
01:55 < gocti> y
01:55 < gocti> li'u
01:56 < zipcpi> I always thought that pronouns also included the gadri and quantifiers... but that might cause other problems...
01:57 < gocti> .i la'a lo prosa poi se pagbu cu se finti pu zu sai lo nu lu "ci prenu" li'u di'a smufrica lu "ci lo prenu" li'u
01:59 < gocti> .i so'i roi ku mi djica tu'a lo noi li'a nonselsmu vau simsa be lu "xu da goi da'i bu zvati .i ga nai go'i gi ko'oi da'i bu cusku da" li'u
01:59 < zipcpi> da'i bu
02:00 < gocti> .i va'o lo logji zo'u ke'u nonselsmu .i ku'i xu nai va'o lo nu tolju'i tu'a lo logji cu ba'e simlu lo ka da smuni
02:00 < zipcpi> finti so'i cizra lerfu
02:01 < zipcpi> ei ma'a jmina cyly la .iunikod. i'au zo'o
02:01 < gocti> .u'i
02:01 < gocti> .i la'a lu "ro da zo'u ga nai da zvati gi ko'oi da cusku de" li'u logji kanro se ju kanrymau
02:08 < gocti> "no le ci prenu cu klama le zarci i re ra stali le zdani" -> da'i ro ma'a jimpe ro da pe di'u
02:08 < gocti> .i se va'o bo mo fa lu "su'oi le ci prenu cu klama le zarci i su'oi ra dasni lo mapku" li'u
02:09 < gocti> .i xu lo zo su'oi ku'antora ku ji'a se vimcu
02:10 < gocti> .i va'i xu lo dasni be lo mapku bi'ai me lo klama be lo zarci
02:11 < gocti> .y .i mi bebna
02:14 < zipcpi> "no le ci prenu cu klama le zarci i re ra stali le zdani" -> None of the three people went to the market. Two of them stayed at home.
02:15 < gleki> {vu'o} can't be used when splitting sentences using {i}
02:15 < gleki> ko dunda ti e ta vu'o noi barda
02:15 < gleki> ko dunda ti e ta i xai barda
02:15 < gleki> {lo se go'i} works though
02:16 < gleki> {ebu} zo'o
02:16 < zipcpi> & = {jebu}? :p
02:16 < gocti> xe'e'e
02:17 < gleki> {ebu} for {ti e ta}
02:17 < gleki> zipcpi: tat used to be joibu
02:17 < zipcpi> Or is it {joibu}? In practice it tends to be use more for {joi} than when spelled out as "and"
02:17 < gocti> "su'oi lo ci prenu cu klama lo zarci noi su'oi boi py cu .erve lo py. mapku zy"
02:18 < gocti> bu'a'a
02:18 < gocti> .i ma smuni lu "su'oi boi py" li'u .i ma go'i lu "lo py. mapku" li'u
02:19 < zipcpi> Someone really needs to write up a lesson plan for scope and quantification for heathens like me :p
02:19 < zipcpi> la .samyuan.
02:21 < gleki> ua la samyuan cu me'oi really bilga
02:21 < gleki> i ja'o la samyuan cu me'oi real
02:22 < gocti> xu la .samyuan. cu se me'oi language lo me'oi lojban++
02:22 < gleki> la samyuan cu omni
02:23 < zipcpi> la .samyuan. cu cevni lo'e lazni prenu
02:23 < gocti> .omni lo ka bilga .i .omni lo ka na zukte
02:23 < zipcpi> u'i
02:26 < zipcpi> ta'i ma cfagau lo cnino bridi ne'i lo me ma'oi nu moi
02:27 < gocti> zo ju'ei ja zo tu'e
02:27 < gocti> lo nu tu'e broda .i brode / lo nu broda ju'ei brode
02:27 < zipcpi> ua ki'e
02:28 < gocti> .i je'u no gentufa cu zanru zo ju'ei .i je pa fenki gentufa cu zanru tu'a zo tu'e
02:29 < gleki> en: ju'ei
02:29 < mensi> ju'ei = [JUhEI] Tight scope bridi separator; analogous to .i without  ending the abstractor or relative clause. |>>> "nu
02:29 < mensi> broda ju'ei brode" is equivalent to "nu ju'e gi broda gi brode". Similarly "ko'a noi broda ju'ei brode" is equivalent to
02:29 < mensi> "ko'a noi ju'e gi broda gi brode". |>>> latros
02:30 < gleki> zo i jai nabmi
02:32 < zipcpi> mi co'a nelci zo ju'ei mu'i lo nu na sarcu fa lo me'oi forethought
02:34 < gleki> zo ju'e mo
02:36 < gocti> "The referent of the resulting sumti is some function of the referents of both sumti" cu'u BPFK
02:36 < zipcpi> nitcu lo ka me'oi forethought
02:36 < gocti> .i lo na'e sumti zo'u ie mo
02:36 < zipcpi> mu'a lu <lo nu ju'e gi broda gi brode> li'u
02:38 < gleki> broda ju'e brode
02:38 < zipcpi> uinai ca na se zanru lo xe'e gentufa
02:38 < gleki> no gentufa ca se zanru do
02:39 < zipcpi> je'u mi ckaji lo ka pofygau ro gentufa
02:40 < zipcpi> finti ci'iba'u cmavo
02:40 < zipcpi> zo'ose'i
02:40 < zipcpi> mi zei'a kurti
02:41 < gocti> su'o se nibli be lo ka kurti na se ckaji do
02:41 < gocti> .i mu'a lo ka finti lo vlavelcki poi da'i se cukta lo brabra
02:41 < zipcpi> u'i je'u
02:45  * nuzba @uitki: bu'ai and xe'u - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bu%27ai_and_xe%27u by Cirko - fiksi lo linki [http://bit.ly/1GnASYK]
02:45 < zipcpi> mo'oi kurtykai cu fasnu
02:47 < gleki> oi la cirko cu glijbo
02:48 < gleki> i cikre lo judri
02:48 < zipcpi> u'i
02:48 < akmnlrse> fau'u
02:50 < zipcpi> mi so'oroi xarpei lo da'i glijbo noi pilno lo bridi logji ju'eiku'i ju'ocu'i zmadu fi lo ka jai frili fai lo ka se cilre lo'e se glibau
02:51 < gleki> en: xarpei
02:51 < mensi> xarpei [< xanri pensi ≈ Imaginary think] = p1 = x2 imagines / visualizes imaginary subject / concept p2 = x1. |>>> Not
02:51 < mensi> limited to visual imagination.  Made from xanri + pensi; technically should be selxarpei, but I can't see "xanri pensi"
02:51 < mensi> having any other meaning. |>>> rlpowell
02:51 < ctefaho> coi ro
02:51 < gleki> ma
02:53 < gleki> en: tolrinsa
02:53 < ctefaho> wtf, the coi doesn't take the ro?
02:53 < mensi> tolrinsa [< to'e rinsa ≈ Polar opposite greet] = r1 opposite of greets / offers goodbyes to r2 in manner r3 (action).
02:53 < mensi> |>>> Made from to'e + rinsa. |>>> rlpowell
02:53 < gleki> ctefaho: it's a vocative and takes only sumti (i.e. nouns/pronouns/names)
02:54 < zipcpi> It accepts a sumti or a selbri. {ro} can be part of the sumti {ro do}, but it's not a sumti or a selbri on its own
02:54 < ctefaho> ok
02:54 < gleki> opposite of greets O_0
02:54 < ctefaho> so
02:54 < ctefaho> coi ro do
02:55 < zipcpi> gleki: You mean like how {coinai} was coined in the absence of {di'ainai}? :p
02:55 < ctefaho> coi ro sofybakni
02:56 < gleki> zipcpi: uanai
02:57 < zipcpi> vei'iru'e nenri la'au lo jbobau cu mo li'u
02:57 < ctefaho> coi ro sofybakni noi citka lo burjuia rectu
02:58 < zipcpi> je'u lu coinai li'u ja'a nenri la'aubu
02:58 < akmnlrse> me'o la'au bu ! .i lo jbobau cu jmive
02:59 < zipcpi> je'u u'i
02:59 < gleki> en: burjuia
02:59 < mensi> burjuia = x1 is a bourgeois, a capitalist who engages in industrial commercial enterprise x2 |>>>
02:59 < mensi> glekizmiku
02:59 < ctefaho> coi ro do noi pinxe lo xekri rusku
03:00 < ctefaho> rusko*
03:00 < gleki> xu lo rectu be lo sofybakni cu xekri
03:00 < ctefaho> li'a go'i
03:12  * nuzba @selpahi: Pļ, an-nsužal akʰi. | Random #Ithkuil phrases http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/random-phrases-i-still-love-you-dont-you-get-it (gloss + audio) (#lojban) [http://bit.ly/1GnCxOf]
03:51 < gleki> still 75 issues in CC
04:12 < zipcpi> mi mo'u finti lo vlavelcki be fo zo sorta
04:12 < zipcpi> .y. jbobau vlavelcki
04:15 < zipcpi> u'enai zo do'oi na se zanru
04:15 < zipcpi> mi so'oroi pilno ri
04:18 < niftgfonxa> lo nu irci ra'u zo'u plixaumlu fa zy
04:19 < zipcpi> ie
04:21 < zipcpi> da'imu'a zo .niftyg. na jundygau do ma'i so'i irci samtci
04:22 < zipcpi> ku'i da'i mi pilno lu do'oi niftgfonxa li'u
04:23 < zipcpi> mi ka'e zanru co'e iku'i lo zanru se klani ba du li no
04:23 < zipcpi> na banzu
04:24 < zipcpi> ue lo na'ememi xa'o zanru co'e
04:25 < niftgfonxa> ta'o mi zo'oi nif po'o jmina lo liste pe lo se jundi co irci samtci
04:25 < zipcpi> je'e
04:25 < gleki> jbo: sorta
04:25 < mensi> sorta = x1 milxe ja simlu x2 va'o x3 |>>> malglikslu u'ivla |>>> spheniscine
04:26 < gleki> zo'oi malglikslu mo
04:26 < zipcpi> zo malglikslu ji'a se jbovlaste
04:27 < zipcpi> ku'i na se ciksi bau lo jbobau
04:27 < gleki> en: malglikslu
04:27 < mensi> malglikslu = x1 is an especially inappropriate anglicism made by x2, inappropriate according to x3 |>>> This is an
04:27 < mensi> u'ivla, made by applying a malglixlu-type pronunciation to malglixlu. |>>> spheniscine
04:28 < gleki> i noticed that in old english to lojban wordlist there were 4000 words. quite a work to do i'd say
04:36  * nuzba @Rodericus: @Carmina_Banana @Iulius @subetealanutria @janJulo La más usada/conocida es el lojban. Tiene artículo en Wikipedia (y una wikipedia propia). [http://bit.ly/1R04ZbN]
05:12 < zipcpi> Is there a word for "window" (computer jargon term) yet?
05:12 < zipcpi> If not that might be the first defined -zam- term
05:13 < gleki> i used just canko
05:13 < zipcpi> Yeah... {zai'e canko} -> {samzamca'o} -> {samca'o?} might be useful
05:14 < ctefaho> one could maybe put together a 10 syllable lujvo for it?:)
05:14 < zipcpi> lol
05:14 < zipcpi> Have you seen my new BAhE-UI pair, zai'e/zi'ai?
05:16 < zipcpi> It's made for these sorts of situations
05:16 < zipcpi> Where you want to borrow a simple term for a more technical context, perhaps narrowing its definition, perhaps shifting it entirely
05:18 < zipcpi> Or we can define {ca'anko}. This parallels Malay "tikus" = "mouse", "tetikus" = "computer mouse"
05:19 < zipcpi> Not a reliable way to jargonize words though
05:19 < zipcpi> Sometimes it doesn't make a valid zi'evla
05:19 < zipcpi> ra'atcu = srana nitcu
05:22 < zipcpi> Right... currently defined as {pevysmacu}
05:23 < zipcpi> Or {samxa'e}; for "computer pointing device", agnostic as to form
05:23 < zipcpi> Could be a traditional mouse, a trackball, or a graphics tablet
05:25 < zipcpi> {zai'e/zi'ai} is actually one of my older ideas... although back then I just thought of giving {-zam-} to {za'e}
05:25 < zipcpi> But {za'e} has a slightly different meaning
05:25 < zipcpi> It basically means "I am making up this word right now, or using it as a slang term defined by context"
05:26 < zipcpi> While a jargon word is meant to have a very specific meaning within its context
05:29 < gleki> for mouse i used {sazri tutci}
05:29 < gleki> in Vivaldi
05:29 < zipcpi> Acceptable, but vague
05:29 < gleki> tutci lo nu sazri
05:30 < zipcpi> lo lercu'aca'a ku ji'a tutci lo nu sazri
05:30 < gleki> interesting that semantic shift happens even within computer English
05:30 < gleki> "to click" is used even for touch screen devices
05:30 < gleki> where nothing clicks
05:31 < zipcpi> Yeah...
05:31 < gleki> so i couldnt use it
05:31 < gleki> just {cuxna} was enough
05:32 < zipcpi> I don't know; couldn't {iklki} or whatever mean that?
05:32 < zipcpi> But that's part of what I mean to fix with zai'e/zi'ai; reverting to basic gismu often comes at the cost of vagueness
05:37 < gleki> just try localizing something
05:37 < gleki> i tried Chromium but other tasks lowered its priority.
05:37 < gleki> someone wanted to localize firefox
05:38 < zipcpi> I'm pretty sure we can make {iklki/kli'iki/klikeia} specifically mean "click" in the computer context, and be agnostic as to how the action is performed
05:38 < gleki> en: klikeia
05:38 < mensi> klikeia = x1 clicks (press and release) button/switch x2 |>>> See also cuxna, batke, danre, kliki |>>>
05:38 < mensi> gleki
05:39 < zipcpi> Yeah it's currently defined in terms of a button
05:39 < zipcpi> But isn't there already another word for that?
05:39 < zipcpi> pe'isai the zi'evla is better used as a jargon term
05:40 < zipcpi> Also often x2 refers to the virtual "button" in the computer anyway, and not the actual mouse button
05:41 < zipcpi> Well {kli'iki} is *mine*. I could redefine it
05:48 < zipcpi> There http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/kli'iki
05:54 < gleki> neither switch nor button need be physical
05:55 < gleki> en: corner
05:55 < mensi> 6 da se tolcri: kojna, rokyko'a, fancysuksa, jganu, korfaipletomino, sarni
05:55 < gleki> en: kojna
05:55 < mensi> kojna = x1 is a corner/point/at-least-3-dimensional [solid] angle [shape/form] in/on x2, of material x3. |>>> Also apex;
05:55 < mensi> a corner exists on three dimensions but need not be limited to points; it suggests a discontinuity in slope in some
05:55 < mensi> direction; i.e. in some planar cross-section.  See also jipno, konju, bliku, fanmo, jganu, krasi. |>>>
05:55 < mensi> officialdata
05:55 < zipcpi> True... but a link isn't a "button"
05:55 < gleki> en: jganu
05:55 < mensi> jganu = x1 is an angle [2-dimensional shape/form] from vertex x2 subtended by lateral [segment] x3. |>>> Also
05:55 < mensi> (adjective:) x1 is angular; x2 corner; (segment x3 can be defined by interval).  See also kojna, linji, konju, mokca.
05:55 < mensi> |>>> officialdata
05:55 < gleki> zipcpi: link is a uidje
05:55 < zipcpi> Yeah well, now kli'iki means "click" within a computer context and doesn't care about all that
05:56 < gleki> heh, kojna encompasses esquina/rincon. malgli!
05:56 < zipcpi> So we don't have to argue over that anymore
05:56 < gleki> i dont know who argued.
05:56 < gleki> "button" in english can refer to virtual buttons
05:56 < zipcpi> It's not about the whole real vs virtual thing
05:57 < zipcpi> But you were nitpicking over the "press and release" definition
05:57 < zipcpi> And suggesting we use {cuxna} instead
06:00 < zipcpi> So now {ca'e zo kli'iki co'u jai nabmi}
06:01 < zipcpi> Also how to distinguish "mouse (cursor)" from "mouse (tool)"?
06:01 < zipcpi> I believe the former is {samxa'e}
06:03 < zipcpi> The latter should be either {samxa'etci} for the "I don't care what it looks like" form, or {pevysmacu / samzamsmacu / samsmacu} for the traditional mouse
06:04 < zipcpi> Oh but samxa'e is already defined as the device
06:04 < zipcpi> Darn
06:05 < zipcpi> Currently this is defined for "window" http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/pevyca%27o%20zei%20uidje?bg=1;langidarg=2
06:06 < zipcpi> k: ca'o'yuidje
06:06 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
06:07 < zipcpi> Why is that not allowed?
06:07 < gleki> yu
06:07 < zipcpi> k: cankyuidje
06:07 < mensi> (CU [L:cankyuidje VAU])
06:10 < gleki> they fixed it
06:10 < zipcpi> Fixed what?
06:11 < gleki> k:toly'akti
06:11 < mensi> (CU [L:toly'akti VAU])
06:11 < gleki> k:toly'uidje[3~
06:11 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "t" found.
06:12 < zipcpi> Right it's tolyuidje, not toly'uidje
06:12 < zipcpi> u here is a semivowel
06:12 < zipcpi> So treated like a consonant
06:12 < gleki> k:tolyakti
06:12 < mensi> (CU [L:tolyakti VAU])
06:12 < zipcpi> ... OK that should not be allowed
06:13 < zipcpi> JVS even allows it
06:14 < zipcpi> k: akti'yuidje
06:14 < mensi> (CU [L:akti'yuidje VAU])
06:16 < zipcpi> k: tolyuidje
06:16 < mensi> (CU [L:tolyuidje VAU])
06:22 < gocti> tolyakti uat uat
06:22 < gocti> off: tolyakti
06:22 < mensi> (tolyakti VAU)
06:22 < gocti> camxes: tolyakti
06:22 < camxes> (tolyakti VAU)
06:22 < zipcpi> Yeah that form should not be allowed
06:23 < gocti> .u'i fa ji'a sai la .vizuual. camxes. cu curmi
06:23 < zipcpi> Otherwise I want /ae/ and /eu/ to be valid diphthongs right now zo'o
06:23 < gleki> ca ma la samyaun cu zbasu lo se viska ilmentufa
06:23 < gocti> .ai mi go'i
06:24 < gocti> ba lo nu mo'u stika lo te pruce
06:25 < gocti> kei noi xa'o se ditcu lo bradu'u'e
06:25 < gleki> i ta'oru'e ma nuzba lo nu gloso
06:26 < gocti> za'o gunka .i .entangle lo te pruce nu xagzengau
06:30 < gleki> 甲  <-- those hanzi are used in dialogues to separate the first and the second speaker. very handy. im thinking how to do the same in CC
06:30 < gleki> 乙
06:30 < gleki> ^ the second
06:32 < gleki> selmaho: mai
06:32 < mensi> .i lu mai li'u cmavo zo'oi MAI
06:32 < mensi> http://lojban.github.io/cll/18/19/
06:32 < mensi> http://lojban.github.io/cll/19/1/
06:32 < mensi> cmavo: ba'ai, mai, mo'o, nomo'o, pamai, pamo'o, remai, romai, za'umai
06:32 < gleki> en: ba'ai
06:32 < mensi> ba'ai = [MAI] discursive suffix: attaches to number. "I expect with probability..." |>>> Takes a number before it. "pimu
06:32 < mensi> ba'ai" = "I expect with probability 0.5". See kanpe, ba'a, lakne, la'a |>>> spheniscine
06:32 < gleki> it should be in MAI
06:33 < gleki> very similar to mai/mo'o
06:33 < gleki> strange that ni'o isn't in MAI
06:33 < zipcpi> Can MAI stand alone?
06:34 < gleki> xo'emai
06:34 < zipcpi> I know; but I don't want to add {xo'e} to every {ni'o}
06:35 < zipcpi> It's funny. {xo'e} is probably the most useful cmavo that no one wants to use :p
06:35 < gleki> exp: i mai mo
06:35 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
06:35 < gleki> it could be made gendra but ni'o isnt xo'emai
06:36 < zipcpi> Well there is {mo'o}
06:36 < gleki> neither mo'o
06:36 < gleki> may be zo'e pi xo'e mo'o
06:36 < gleki> oops
06:36 < zipcpi> The numbers in {mo'o} can be subdivided however you wish
06:36 < gleki> may be xo'e pi xo'e mo'o
06:36 < zipcpi> Using {pi'e}
06:37 < gleki> xo'e pi'e xo'e mo'o
06:37 < zipcpi> I'm not gonna lerfu tcitygau that :p
06:37 < gleki> exp: ly mo'o
06:37 < mensi> ([ly BOI] mo'o)
06:37 < zipcpi> exp: ny xo'e ly xo'e dy xo'e mo'o
06:37 < mensi> ([{ny BOI} {<xo'e BOI> <ly BOI>} {xo'e BOI} {dy BOI <xo'e BOI> mo'o}] VAU)
06:38 < gleki> exp; li pa ny
06:38 < gleki> exp:[3~; li pa ny
06:38 < mensi> ([{<ci BOI> <li (¹pa BOI¹) LOhO>} {ny BOI}] VAU)
06:38 < zipcpi> exp: xo'e ly dy xo'e mo'o
06:38 < mensi> ([{xo'e BOI} {ly dy} BOI {xo'e BOI} mo'o] VAU)
06:38 < zipcpi> Right I must start with a namle'u and not a vlale'u
06:38 < zipcpi> nacle'u
06:39 < gleki> exp: li ny
06:39 < gocti> lo nacle'u cu namle'u sai
06:39 < mensi> ([li {ny BOI} LOhO] VAU)
06:40 < zipcpi> (li/me'o) accepts both letter strings and number strings
06:41 < zipcpi> Until {la .xorxes. nu sepli} happens, "letter strings" start with a letter, and "number strings" start with a number, but may mix nacle'u and vlale'u freely
06:41 < gleki> no longer
06:41 < gleki> exp: li pa ny
06:41 < mensi> ([{li <pa BOI> LOhO} {ny BOI}] VAU)
06:41 < zipcpi> Wait it's already happened?
06:41 < zipcpi> exp: li ny pa
06:41 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
06:41 < gleki> in exp yes
06:41 < gleki> exp: li ny
06:41 < mensi> ([li {ny BOI} LOhO] VAU)
06:42 < zipcpi> exp: li vu'u pa ny re
06:42 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "e" found.
06:42 < zipcpi> But not the pe'o
06:42 < zipcpi> pe'o detection
06:42 < gleki> not the pe'o. guskant did something in zantufa
06:42 < zipcpi> That's not good
06:42 < gleki> but she reworked a lot
06:43 < zipcpi> The auto-pe'o is the only way to save my date system. And character strings
06:43 < gocti> ia sarcu fa sa'u lo nu galfi zo'oi PEhO_clause zo'oi PEhO_clause?
06:44 < zipcpi> {li [pe'o] joi'i ry re dy re}
06:44 < gleki> mi pu troci i ku'i lo gentufa co'a se cfipu
06:45 < zipcpi> la .guskant. also wants to move {pi'e} to VUhU
06:47 < zipcpi> She has come up with a variant of my date system with VUhU-pi'e and auto-pe'o, post-xornunsep
06:47 < gocti> y
06:47 < gocti> (PEhO_clause free*)? sa'e
06:48 < gocti> .i ki'u bo lo nenri la'oi free ka'e se krasi lo mekso
06:48 < gocti> lo nenri *be* la'oi free
06:48 < zipcpi> Her system is {li pi'e renopamu xiny xa xily pamu xidy
06:49 < zipcpi> Without VUhU-pi'e we might substitute {joi'i} or {joi} for the time being
06:49 < zipcpi> But auto-pe'o is essential
06:50 < gocti> lu {li pi'e ny renopamu ly. xa dy. pamu} li'u si'a jai cumki
06:50 < zipcpi> ie
06:50 < gocti> gi'u smuni kanro sa'e nai
06:52 < zipcpi> Auto-pe'o iff the first word in LI...LOhO is in VUhU (merged with JOI in exp I believe)
06:53 < gocti> na'e mulno lo ka se pavmeigau
06:53 < gocti> exp: na se vu'u nai
06:53 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected ['h] but "i" found.
06:53 < gocti> exp: na se ja nai
06:53 < mensi> (na se [ja nai])
06:54 < durka42> what on earth does {pe'o} mean
06:54 < gleki> polish
06:54 < zipcpi> Polish notation
06:55 < durka42> oi
06:55 < gleki> Polish is not polished
06:55 < zipcpi> It's the only way to save my date system and arbitrary character strings, since now la .xornunsep. is in exp
06:56 < gleki> #savedetrisystem
06:56 < durka42> zo xornunsep mo
06:57 < zipcpi> I just made it up. Do you have a better term for it?
06:57 < zipcpi> Talking about his nacle'u-vlale'u separation
06:57 < zipcpi> exp: abu za'ure'u cusku
06:57 < mensi> ([{a bu} BOI] [CU {<za'u re'u> cusku} VAU])
06:57 < durka42> ua la xornomnunsep
06:57 < durka42> lujvo fo la xorxes jenai lo xorlo
06:57 < zipcpi> u'i
06:58 < durka42> mi ja'a pu se cfipu
06:59 < zipcpi> But now {li ny renopamu ly xa} and {li'ai ry re dy re} is wrecked. So the best solution we have now is {li'ai pe'o joi'i ry re dy re}, unless we want to add {bu} to every nacle'u
07:00 < zipcpi> I want to be able to drop the {pe'o}
07:00 < durka42> xu BPFK ca'o casnu la xornomnunsep fi'o nai tcidu mi
07:00 < durka42> mi na viska su'o selmri
07:01 < gleki> why {bu}? why not {xi}?
07:01 < zipcpi> Cause xi must attach to something
07:02 < zipcpi> And is properly "subscript", so would obscure the meaning of character strings
07:02 < durka42> exp: li pe'o vu'u ry re dy re
07:02 < mensi> ([li {pe'o vu'u <(¹ry BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹) (¹dy BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹)> KUhE} LOhO] VAU)
07:02 < durka42> exp: li pe'o vu'u ry re dy re ry re dy re
07:02 < mensi> ([li {pe'o vu'u <(¹ry BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹) (¹dy BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹) (¹ry BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹) (¹dy BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹)> KUhE} LOhO] VAU)
07:02 < durka42> ua
07:02 < zipcpi> ca sanji zo joi'i
07:02 < zipcpi> ku'i na sanji zo li'ai
07:02 < durka42> exp: li pe'o joi'i ry re dy re ry re dy re
07:02 < mensi> ([li {pe'o joi'i <(¹ry BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹) (¹dy BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹) (¹ry BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹) (¹dy BOI¹) (¹re BOI¹)> KUhE} LOhO] VAU)
07:03 < durka42> xu ka'e lo'u li pe'o joi'i le'u basti zo li'ai
07:03 < durka42> ja lo drata cipyma'o
07:03 < zipcpi> li'ai is "unevaluated mekso as name"
07:03 < zipcpi> We'd also need one for "arbitrary character string" without the "name" sense
07:04 < gleki> {bu} make symbols out of numbers
07:04 < durka42> yes
07:04 < durka42> li'ei is free :)
07:04 < durka42> well it isn't, but it's assigned to an unformalizable/useless meaning
07:04 < durka42> exp: li ry rebu dy rebu
07:04 < mensi> ([li {<ry (¹re bu¹) dy (¹re bu¹)> BOI} LOhO] VAU)
07:05 < durka42> the BPFK is gonna have a lot of explaining to do when it reveals this change...
07:07 < zipcpi> Yeah, we can move {li'ai} and "arbitrary character string" into a new selma'o
07:07 < zipcpi> Heck we might not even give it VUhU grammar
07:08 < zipcpi> Go ahead and talk about {li'ai cy su'i su'i} for all I care
07:10 < zipcpi> off: li cy su'i su'i
07:10 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [oO] or [uU] but "i" found.
07:10 < zipcpi> exp: li cy su'i su'i
07:10 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [oO] or [uU] but "i" found.
07:13 < zipcpi> Both {me'oi} and {mei'o} are taken
07:13 < durka42> .u'i
07:13 < durka42> you have only yourself to blame for the latter
07:13 < zipcpi> True
07:14 < zipcpi> Well about 10% of the blame can be given to la selpahi
07:14 < durka42> yeah but you took it upon yourself to rescue {mei'e}, which is of very questionable utility :)
07:14 < zipcpi> lol
07:16 < zipcpi> Would it cause problems if I gave LIhEI {lo'o} as the famyma'o? I don't think so...
07:17 < zipcpi> Don't think the two structures would ever cross paths
07:17 < durka42> I really need to write some flood protection for vlaste
07:18 < zipcpi> Accepts any arbitrary string of BY, bu-letterals, PA, VUhU
07:18 < zipcpi> PEhO?
07:18 < zipcpi> Is there anything else I should add?
07:19 < zipcpi> VEI
07:19 < zipcpi> Nah that'd be too much... vei... ve'o is supposed to be a structure
07:20 < zipcpi> I'll just start with those four first
07:20 < zipcpi> You can technically add {bu} to everything else
07:21 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/li'ei
07:24 <@xalbo> I don't understand from that definition what {li'ei} is, or what it's for.
07:25 < zipcpi> It's to "fix" what la xorxes "broke"
07:26 < durka42> xalbo: it's just like {li}, except that a new BPFK proposal would eliminate mixed number/letteral strings
07:26 < zipcpi> Technically closer to the way {me'o} was used
07:27 < zipcpi> It's already in exp grammar
07:27 < zipcpi> So now {me'o dy ubu ry ky abu vo re} isn't right anymore
07:28 < zipcpi> And I propose to move {li'ai} to LIhEI as well
07:29 < durka42> the BPFK thing hasn't even been voted on yet
07:29 < durka42> or explained to the general jbopre population
07:29 < zipcpi> Well it's already in exp, so I'm building my bomb shelters now
07:29 < durka42> I thinkt the gun is being jumped
07:29 < durka42> fair enough :)
07:30 < gleki> exp is nothing
07:31 < zipcpi> I'm not gonna go back to how sumtcita used to work :p
07:31 <@xalbo> Guns are better than sharks in property ka plipe ce'u
07:31 < zipcpi> Or try to remember the old question connectives
07:32 < zipcpi> I didn't invent {ze'oi} to "fix" the great BCM debate, but whatever
07:35 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/li'ai
07:49 < zipcpi> ... Wuzzy appears to be unfamiliar with zi'evlajvo
07:50 < tosmabryjde> zi'e vlajde
07:50 < zipcpi> oi
07:50 < tosmabryjde> .y
07:50 < tosmabryjde> sa .i zi'e vlajvo
07:56 < durka42> la uuzit cu na'e sanji so'i da
07:57 < zipcpi> ie
07:57 < durka42> ku'i .e'u ko xendo jenaicu pilno zo'oi "obvious"
07:57 < zipcpi> Oh...
07:57 < zipcpi> Sorry... x.x
07:57 < zipcpi> Wish I could edit posts
07:58 < durka42> sa'u la'a so'i srana be la .lojban. cu na'e se li'anmo .u'i
07:58 < zipcpi> u'i
07:59 < durka42> ku'i ji'a ko na du'eva'e co xenru .i la uuzit ta'e kusysku ...
07:59 < zipcpi> I meant to say "accepted and recognized by JVS" is obvious
07:59 < zipcpi> Not "obviously you should know about this proposal"
08:00 < durka42> la jbovlaste cu pilno la .camxes. .i la .camxes. jai na du CLL .i la'a krinu
08:00 < zipcpi> Although currently it accepts {lacyinda}
08:00 < zipcpi> Which is bad and should be fixed
08:01 < zipcpi> Well I was also a little annoyed because he downvoted my words :p
08:01 < durka42> erg
08:01 < durka42> yeah that's fair
08:01 < durka42> I'll go negate that :p
08:02 < durka42> camxes: +s lacyinda
08:02 < camxes> (L:lacyinda VAU)
08:02 < durka42> ue
08:02 < durka42> vlaste: lacyinda (components)
08:02 < vlaste> lacyinda (components) = lacri inda ≈ rely worthy
08:02 < durka42> that's... weird
08:02 < durka42> how do you even pronounce that
08:03 < durka42> seems like it should be against the morphology
08:03 < akmnlrse> h? => (&nucleus h)?
08:03 < akmnlrse> y
08:03 < akmnlrse> h? => (h &nucleus)?
08:03 < durka42> moar context plz
08:04 < akmnlrse> only rafsi themselves go through the syllable rules, the joints between them don't
08:04 < durka42> interesting
08:05 < durka42> perhaps they should
08:09 < zipcpi> Hey I just successfully pronounced {yi} as a diphthong :p
08:09 < zipcpi> Now to propose adding it to the language zo'osai
08:14 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: lacyinda
08:15 < zipcpi> la catnicipra cu oicli'a seja'eku za'a
08:16 < akmnlrse> lo nu jisygau la .ilmentufa ku noi .git. sorcu pu na mulno
08:16 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: lacyinda
08:16 < catnicipra> (lacyinda VAU)
08:16 < akmnlrse> oi
08:16 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: lacyinda
08:16 < catnicipra> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "l" found.
08:16 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: lacy'inda
08:16 < catnicipra> (lacy'inda VAU)
08:16 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: lacy'indyco'e
08:16 < catnicipra> (lacy'indyco'e VAU)
08:16 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: lacyindyco'e
08:16 < catnicipra> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "l" found.
08:17 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: indy'indyco'e
08:17 < catnicipra> (indy'indyco'e VAU)
08:17 < zipcpi> ui~~~~
08:17 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: indyindyco'e
08:17 < catnicipra> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "i" found.
08:17 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: indyinda
08:17 < catnicipra> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "i" found.
08:17 < akmnlrse> simlu co drani
08:17 < akmnlrse> catnicipra: inda'yinda
08:17 < catnicipra> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "i" found.
08:17 < zipcpi> catnicipra: inda'y'inda
08:17 < catnicipra> (inda'y'inda VAU)
08:18 < durka42> ua
08:26 < zipcpi> exp: la misr ku no'u le tutra pe lo ka bapse'u
08:26 < akmnlrse> si'au la mensi cu se nabmi
08:26 < akmnlrse> tu'a lo jbovlaste pesxu
08:27 < durka42> akmnlrse: if this fix doesn't break anything else it should probably be ported into camxes and camxes-exp
08:27 < akmnlrse> camxes: +exp la misr ku no'u le tutra pe lo ka bapse'u
08:27 < camxes> ([{la misr ku} {no'u <le (¹tutra [pe {lo <ka (²CU [bapse'u VAU]²) KEI> KU} GEhU]¹) KU> GEhU}] VAU)
08:27 < akmnlrse> .ai cpucpe ba lo nu lo mi vanbi cu jinsa
08:27 < durka42> je'e
08:29 < zipcpi> lol Why did I have to pick such a crazy passage that requires so many {ju'ei}s
08:30 < zipcpi> I was so tired of repeating {kei joi lo nu}
08:46 < zipcpi> "Can you please, for the future, mention this non-standard word formation in
08:46 < zipcpi> the notes or etymology? I don't like to see non-standard words mixed up
08:46 < zipcpi> with standard words, as jbovlaste does not make any sort of difference atm."
08:46 < zipcpi> Errm...
08:46 < zipcpi> HOW?
08:48 < zipcpi> Do we need a new class? "Experimental Lujvo"?
08:48 < zipcpi> But really it's in the off parser; I don't know how much more official you want to get
08:50 < zipcpi> Also I'm not sure I like how Wuzzy handles place keywords. It's a bit off to type in "service" and get {te bapse'u}
08:50 < zipcpi> {lo te bapse'u} perhaps
08:51 < zipcpi> I usually leave most of them blank unless there's a concept with a really useful gloss word
08:52 <@xalbo> That certainly should *not* be "service" with no sense variant.
08:52 < zipcpi> Exactly...
08:53 < zipcpi> I really don't think every place deserves a keyword
08:53 < zipcpi> Sometimes they have very specific meanings that just don't have a useful English gloss
08:55 <@xalbo> OTOH, I don't know that "service; in sense duties performed by a slave" is a bad keyword to have for that place.
08:55 < zipcpi> Perhaps
08:57 <@xalbo> In general, I don't look at the place keywords as a means of explaining the Lojban word. I see them as someone who has a particular concept in mind, and is trying to figure out how to convey that concept. So what searches might they do?
08:58 < zipcpi> The main problem is the reverse search
08:58 < zipcpi> I think trying to give a keyword to every single place complicates the reverse search
08:59 < zipcpi> To search for "service" and get a bunch of different "senses" each corresponding to a "service" within the context of every word that uses {selfu}
09:00 < zipcpi> This is the kind of construct that is actually much longer when translated to English than when used in Lojban
09:00 < zipcpi> So a single gloss word just ain't gonna cut it, no matter how you qualify its senses
09:01 <@xalbo> Yeah, that makes sense.
09:03 < gleki> durka42: xu do na mo'u tolmo'i tu'a la mupli
09:03 < zipcpi> Also I don't know how to comply with Wuzzy's request/demand. Do I also have to mark use of dotside as well? And {xa'o}?
09:03 < gleki> where?
09:03 < gleki> in Tatoeba?
09:04 < zipcpi> zipcpi> "Can you please, for the future, mention this non-standard word formation in
09:04 < zipcpi> <zipcpi> the notes or etymology? I don't like to see non-standard words mixed up
09:04 < zipcpi> <zipcpi> with standard words, as jbovlaste does not make any sort of difference atm."
09:04 < gleki> in jvs it's not possible
09:04 < zipcpi> On JVS
09:04 < durka42> gleki: mi na tolmo'i
09:04 < gleki> JVS db model doesnt provide that
09:04 < durka42> zipcpi: it's not nonstandard :p
09:04 < zipcpi> He doesn't like lujvo like {lacy'inda} and {cankyuidje}
09:05 < durka42> that's too bad
09:05 < gleki> why doesnt he? they are in CLL
09:05 < gleki> at least the first
09:05 < zipcpi> They are?
09:05 < durka42> CLL calls it a proposal though
09:05 < durka42> I guess it isn't the end of the world to put "Note: this uses fu'ivla rafsi. [link to wiki page]" at the end of the notes
09:05 < zipcpi> I thought that it was a ze'oi xorxes nu baspo :p
09:06 < zipcpi> Hmm... where is that Wiki page anyway?
09:06 < gleki> and it affects a part of the language (lujvo-making) that has long been stable, but is known to be fragile in the face of small changes. (Many attempts were made to add general mechanisms for making lujvo that contained fu'ivla, but all failed on obvious or obscure counterexamples; finally the general “zei” mechanism was devised instead.)
09:07 < gleki> If this proposal is workable and introduces no problems into Lojban morphology, it might become standard for all Type 4 fu'ivla, including those made for plants, animals, foodstuffs, and other things.
09:07 < durka42> turns out it is and it doesn't and so it did
09:07 < durka42> :)
09:09 < gleki> as for {lacyinda} i was surprised to see it
09:09 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=28919;natlangword=0;commentid=0;definition=0
09:09 < zipcpi> Yeah that needs to be killed
09:10 < zipcpi> I don't know about {indy'inda} though. That only works if we set up rules that ban all zi'evla that are identical except for the last vowel
09:11 < zipcpi> And I think that would break some of the ISO-zi'evla
09:11 < durka42> which we probably should
09:11 < Ilmen> What's wrong with lacy'inda?
09:11 < durka42> nothing
09:11 < Ilmen> coi
09:11 < zipcpi> Nothing ma'i mi
09:11 < zipcpi> But http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=28919;natlangword=0;commentid=0;definition=0
09:11 < durka42> la uuzit nalnei .i ja'o zabna valsi
09:11 < durka42> cu nalnei*
09:11 < Ilmen> ue nai doi la zipcpi
09:12 < Ilmen> la .ŭuzít. na'o simsa pante ba'u
09:14 < Ilmen> mi na sanji su'o da poi racli krinu lodu zo lacy'inda na ka'e jbovla
09:15 < zipcpi> Oh... *that* zi'evla rafsi
09:15 < zipcpi> A rather conservative approach though; it essentially only applies to CCVVCV
09:16 < zipcpi> Essentially making it an "para-gismu" space
09:16 < zipcpi> Specifically meant for cultural words
09:16 < zipcpi> Never really took off as far as I know
09:18 < Ilmen> camxes: tsa'au
09:18 < camxes> (tsa'au VAU)
09:18 < Ilmen> ua
09:18 < Ilmen> je'u pei
09:19 < Ilmen> cames: bla'u
09:19 < zipcpi> mo
09:19 < Ilmen> camxes: bla'u
09:19 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "b" found.
09:19 < Ilmen> camxes: bla'au
09:19 < camxes> (bla'au VAU)
09:19 < Ilmen> ua nai
09:19 < zipcpi> zo'oi bla'u valslinku'i
09:20 < zipcpi> pa bla'u -> pabla'u
09:20 < Ilmen> Why {bla'au} is not?
09:20 < zipcpi> Because {la'au} is not a rafsi
09:20 < akmnlrse> zo la'au na ka'e rafsi
09:20 < akmnlrse> .u'i
09:20 < Ilmen> je'e
09:20 < Ilmen> .i malge'a zo'o
09:20 < akmnlrse> zo'o nai .i ku'i so'i da malmau
09:21 < Ilmen> At any rate this CCV'VV space looks appealing
09:24 < Ilmen> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nice_fu%27ivla_forms | http://mw.lojban.org/papri/exhaustive_list_of_short_fu%27ivla_forms
09:24 < Ilmen> zipcpi: Do you know those pages?
09:24 < zipcpi> Nah, I take a trial-and-error approach to zi'evla making
09:24 < Ilmen> ua CCVVV is among the nice forms
09:25 < Ilmen> zipcpi: Yeah, but sometimes there are forms that do not come to mind at all, like this bla'au one
09:25 < zipcpi> Right
09:26 < zipcpi> I did make {briii} though :p
09:26 < Ilmen> :)
09:26 < zipcpi> Though whether that is "nice" is up in the air :p
09:26 < zipcpi> I like the sound of it. It's just the weird semivowel resolution might turn off some folks :p
09:27 < Ilmen> camxes: stsmla'u
09:27 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "s" found.
09:27 < Ilmen> .o'u ro'e
09:28 < zipcpi> Yeah outdated. I think there was something somewhere that listed all possible CCC initial clusters
09:28 < Ilmen> en: eskrima
09:28 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
09:28 < zipcpi> And CCCC is just right out
09:28 < akmnlrse> en: /full skrima
09:28 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
09:28 < akmnlrse> en: fencing
09:28 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
09:29 < zipcpi> camxes. tstmlen
09:29 < zipcpi> camxes: tstmlen
09:29 < camxes> tstmlen
09:29 < zipcpi> exp: tstmlen
09:29 < mensi> (CU [tstmlen VAU])
09:30 < zipcpi> So still allowed in cmevla. Not allowed in zi'evla
09:30 < akmnlrse> cmevla are just strings of phonemes
09:30 < akmnlrse> camxes: rktkrktkrktkrktkrk
09:30 < camxes> rktkrktkrktkrktkrk
09:30 < zipcpi> They did ban CGV in cmevla though
09:30 < Ilmen> exp: rktkrktk
09:30 < mensi> (CU [rktkrktk VAU])
09:31 < zipcpi> exp: ia'uex
09:31 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "i" found.
09:31 < akmnlrse> all consonants have !h after them, and h has &nucleus after it
09:32 < zipcpi> Ugh can't find the initial consonant triplet document
09:32 < akmnlrse> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/informal_description_of_the_PEG_morphology_algorithm/condensed#Syllables
09:33 < zipcpi> Ah OK
09:33 < zipcpi> I think it's like for an initial consonant triple [CFR]
09:34 < zipcpi> Both CF and FR must be a permissible initial consonant pair
09:34 < zipcpi> And the third consonant must be a sonorant
09:34 < akmnlrse> also CF can't be an affricate
09:34 < zipcpi> Er no... just {l/r} apparently
09:34 < zipcpi> Right
09:42 < zipcpi> Ugh really? He downvoted {jifpedvla} too?
09:42 < akmnlrse> pls
09:42  * akmnlrse cu blozausku
10:01 < durka42> ...he added etymology and downvoted?
10:02 < zipcpi> Maybe it isn't him... dunno
10:02 < zipcpi> I'm just a little tetchy at the moment
10:02 < durka42> could have been someone else
10:02 < durka42> someone who's a... false friend
10:02 < durka42> :p
10:02 < zipcpi> He did add pevjifpedvla though
10:02 < durka42> I assume he changed the notes in {jifpedvla} too then
10:03 < zipcpi> Yes
10:03 < zipcpi> Right so it must be him because when you edit a note you automatically upvote it
10:03 < zipcpi> Then you must downvote to negate it
10:03 < durka42> IMO downvoting and changing notes are both things you shouldn't do without an explanatory comment
10:03 < zipcpi> General you again. I really need to make a drinking game out of this :p
10:04 <@xalbo> What is the consensus (if any) on general you? I think I'm out of date.
10:05 < zipcpi> I don't know if there is any consensus
10:05 < zipcpi> I think {da} is generally acceptable
10:05 < zipcpi> Or {do} if it's within a {da'i} clause
10:06 < zipcpi> ganai da'i do broda gi do brode
10:06 < zipcpi> Or ganai da broda gi da brode
10:07 <@xalbo> Has anyone proposed creating a brivla? "sumbodi" : x1 is somebody/one/"you"/etc. Then {lo sumbodi}, with all the tools available.
10:07 < zipcpi> u'i
10:07 <@xalbo> (Yes, that spelling is *horrible*, but divorce that from the idea)
10:07 <@xalbo> The nice thing is that brivla-space is wide-open, so nothing experimental needed.
10:07 < zipcpi> I've also added a new UI3b, {xe'e}
10:08 < zipcpi> I based its meaning on {na'e itca}
10:08 < zipcpi> So daxe'e becomes "Something/someone nonspecific"
10:09 < zipcpi> It's meant to be similar to {po'o} and {ji'a}
10:09 < akmnlrse> zipcpi: {ganai da broda gi da brode} quantifies a separate {da} in each branch; you probably want {ro da zo'u} before the ga
10:09 <@xalbo> I don't understand how {itca} works/what it means.
10:10 < zipcpi> itca has both an English and a Lojban explanation now
10:10 <@xalbo> jbo: itca
10:10 < mensi> itca = x1 cu su'o mei x2 gi'e jai se djuno su'o da fai lo kamdu'o gi'e co'e .i lo du'u ma kau cmene x1 cu na'e se djuno
10:10 < mensi> ja na'e se jungau |>>> sa'u sa'enairu'e «zi'o x1 steci x2» .i srana fa zo co'e .e zo du .e zo djuno .e zo kamdu'o |>>>
10:10 < mensi> selpahi
10:11 < zipcpi> Basically, $x_1$ is a certain/specific/particular member of set $x_2$
10:11 < zipcpi> So yeah, roughly zilsteci, with all the caveats of zi'o
10:12 < zipcpi> So for example
10:12 < zipcpi> Sorry, example of {xe'e}
10:13 < zipcpi> {paxe'e le mu prenu} = One non-specific person of the five people; any one person of the five people
10:13 < gleki> i think it's mostly {lo}, not even {da} for general you
10:14 < zipcpi> lo what? lo prenu?
10:14 < zipcpi> lo'e prenu?
10:14 < gleki> no, just {lo}
10:14 < zipcpi> You must include something
10:14 < zipcpi> Or it'd be ungrammatical
10:14 < zipcpi> Or you mean between {lo} and {lo'e}.... well I think both work fine here
10:15 < gleki> when you are alive you move = lo jmive cu muvdu
10:16 < zipcpi> Hmm... not sure I like it; I'd back-translate that as "something alive moves"
10:16 < gleki> yes, now translate {su'o jmive cu mvdu}
10:17 < zipcpi> Some number of things that are alive moves
10:17 < gleki> eh, ok what about {pa jmive cu muvdu}
10:17 < zipcpi> One thing that is alive moves
10:18 < gleki> it translates as "There is someone alive who moves"
10:19 < gleki> as opposed to "Alive move".
10:19 < zipcpi> Erm... sorry, that's just syntactic ambiguity
10:19 < zipcpi> (One thing that is alive) moves
10:20 < zipcpi> pa da poi jmive cu muvdu
10:21 < gleki> remember how is {pa jmive} expanded?
10:21 < zipcpi> Is it the dapoi expansion or something else?
10:21 < zipcpi> I don't remember which way the wind is blowing
10:21 < gleki> yes
10:21 < zipcpi> Ah k
10:21 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri#Formal_definitions
10:22 < zipcpi> je'e
10:23 < gleki> i think the lack of understanding and usage of {le jmive/lo jmive} in prexorlo led to xorlo.
10:24 < zipcpi> Well I've now defined le broda as {lo broda poi itca}
10:24 < gleki> no, i mean prexorlo le.
10:24 < zipcpi> Right
10:24 < gleki> this was a good system but they broke it
10:24 < zipcpi> I blame veridicality
10:25 < gleki> most likely. if they more relied on such term as UoD then xorlo might have never happened
10:25 < v4hn> zipcpi: itca?
10:25 < zipcpi> Also {lo'e} is the key I believe
10:25 < zipcpi> {lo'e} is to talk about generalities
10:26 < zipcpi> And is something like the opposite of {le}
10:26 < zipcpi> mi nelci lo'e draci = I like plays
10:27 < zipcpi> Says nothing about which plays I like, or exactly how many I like (probably I don't like all of them; even the greatest fan of plays would probably hate some plays, and may hate them all the more due to their interest in plays in general!)
10:27 < zipcpi> Just that I like plays, in general, in the abstract
10:27 < gleki> la mukti had to ask several questions until he finally found out that {da poi => lo} and {zo'e voi => le}. but he had us. prexorlo-ers had nobody.
10:27 < zipcpi> So in that sense it's the polar opposite to {le}
10:28 < zipcpi> v4hn: It has both English and Lojban defs now
10:28 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/itca
10:30  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: gadri - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri by Gleki - /* Formal definitions */ [http://bit.ly/1IFAWUC]
10:30 < zipcpi> {lo'e} is like {le}'s long-lost twin brother
10:30 < zipcpi> Any attempt to distinguish {le} from {lo} without including {lo'e} in the discussion is doomed
10:31 < zipcpi> ba'uru'e
10:32 < zipcpi> I've also attempted to make a table: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Talk:zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
10:33 < zipcpi> About keywords, but it's rather incomplete
10:33 < gleki> Any attempt to distinguish {le} from {lo} without including {lo'e} in the discussion is doomed <-- depends on what you want from {le}
10:34 < zipcpi> The main problem is that le says the object is something specific
10:34 < zipcpi> But lo doesn't... say anything
10:34 < zipcpi> lo is magic. Never wrong
10:34 < zipcpi> Just converts a given selbri to a noun, no questions asked
10:35 < zipcpi> So {le} suffered because there is nothing to contrast it against
10:35 < zipcpi> You can't contrast it against {lo} because {lo} had nothing to contrast against!
10:36 < zipcpi> Yet the specific/general distinction is still important in some contexts
10:37 < zipcpi> I have that "play conversation" on my page to point to
10:37 < zipcpi> And also the "hunt of the broda"
10:38 < gleki> "Never wrong" is not precise. postxorlo {lo} is just a constantn that doesnt create any new scopes and UoDs. As contrasted from {da}
10:39 < zipcpi> Right
10:39 < zipcpi> But the main thing I'm pointing out {lo} can refer to both {le} and {lo'e}
10:39 < gleki> in prexorlo {lo} was not {da poi} but probably something like {da xi ra poi}
10:39 < gleki> sorry
10:39 < gleki> in prexorlo {lo} was not {da poi} but probably something like {da xi rau poi}
10:39 < gleki> or {da xi xo'e poi}
10:40 < gleki> and {le} was the constant.
10:40 < zipcpi> {mi nelci lo draci} can mean both "I like a play (a particular play)" or "I like plays"
10:40 < gleki> in postxorlo the situation somewhat reversed although lost understanding what {le} should be used for.
10:40 < zipcpi> Right
10:42 < zipcpi> I've created an "addendum" to my gadri proposal: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Talk:zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
10:42 < gleki> people should rather speak like {ni'o pa nolraitru pu ki zasti i y lo* nolraitru cu ricfu} = "one there was a king. and the king was rich." By lo* I mean referring to that {pa nolraitru}
10:42 < gleki> *once there was a king
10:42 < gleki> but xorlo reforms lost this useful {lo}.
10:42 < zipcpi> Mainly you'd want to pay attention to how I contrast {le} vs {lo'e}; as far as I'm aware any changes I've made to the definitions of {le}, {lo}, and {lo'e} do not break anything
10:43 < zipcpi> It's the others that might break some past usage
10:43 < gleki> there is only zo'e - constant and da - variable. people try to define those LE ignoring this obvious fact.
10:43 < zipcpi> Right
10:44 < zipcpi> Under my system it's {le} or {le'e}
10:44 < zipcpi> {le'e} is one of the zbusufukai reassignments though
10:44 < zipcpi> In standard Lojban it'd be something like {lo bi'unai} or {lo di'u nolraitru}
10:48 < zipcpi> {le} also being acceptable
10:52 < zipcpi> I included {po'o} and {ji'a} in my table just to contrast them with {xe'e}; I don't think we need gadri for those
10:57 < zipcpi> You may also want to look at some of the changes I've made to the main article: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
10:57 < zipcpi> Again, {le} vs {lo'e} is key
10:58 < zipcpi> {xe'e} and {itca} are also becoming pretty important characters, IMO
11:01 < durka42> indeed pivotal characters in people using english to debate about lojban
11:01 < durka42> in people using lojban? hmmmmm
11:01 < zipcpi> lol
11:01 < zipcpi> I mean in trying to figure out what the gadri mean, and how we are to move forward from here
11:03 < zipcpi> I still use {lo} a lot; but I like having the distinction between {le} and {lo'e}
11:04 < durka42> .i'u
11:18 < zipcpi> I'm just somewhat sad that I waited this long to add {zam}; because now we have to deal with {pevysmacu} :p
11:19 <@xalbo> What is {zam}?
11:19 < zipcpi> Rafsi of {zai'e}
11:19 < zipcpi> en: zai'e
11:19 < mensi> zai'e = [BAhE] jargon word indicator; indicates next word is a jargon word |>>> Jargon words are to have a single,
11:19 < mensi> defined, specialized meaning within one particular narrow context (e.g. a game, field of study, or industry), but may
11:19 < mensi> also be assigned to other meanings in other contexts. Proposed rafsi: -zam-. Afterthought variant: zi'ai |>>>
11:19 < mensi> spheniscine
11:20 < zipcpi> I've actually had this idea for a long time, but I thought of just proposing it as the rafsi of {za'e}
11:21 < zipcpi> My idea is that the hypothetical evolutionary chart could go {zai'e smacu} -> {samzamsmacu} -> {samsmacu}
11:22 < zipcpi> No need to deal with {pevysmacu} taking up the space of some other possible metaphorical interpretation of "mouse"
11:23 < zipcpi> Er, sorry, {samyzamsmacu}
11:23 < zipcpi> Forgot the mz ban
11:23 < akmnlrse> ta'o sai xo do se fanza da'i lo nu da .irci gi'e zmiku lo ka ca ro nu da co'a jorne la mumble cu jungau
11:25 < zipcpi> For an even more specialized context, take "flying" from Magic the Gathering
11:26 < zipcpi> Probably no one is ever going to build a lujvo or a zi'evla to refer specifically to this concept alone
11:26 < zipcpi> Except maybe as an u'ivla
11:28 < zipcpi> But this is an illustrative example, because
11:28 < zipcpi> We want this ward to have a verrrrrry specific meaning
11:28 < zipcpi> But we also want to tie it to the common concept of {vofli}
11:28 < zipcpi> Thus... zai'e
11:29 < zipcpi> {zai'e vofli}, thus, in the narrow context of MTG, refers to the defined concept of a "flying creature" in MTG
11:30 < zipcpi> It's meant to be part {pe'a}, part {za'e}, but without the inherent fuzziness of those two words
11:35 < zipcpi> I mean, if we really wanted to, we could define something like makfynunpenmi zei zamvofli or something
11:53 < gleki> these all discussions of LE now seem not so funny to me. they just denote a huge lack of understanding. even that selpa'is phrase in "any" thread that "any" is just {lo} didnt affect anything and discussing xorlo continued. 
11:53 < gleki> ja'o I need  to put more explanations of da/zo'e into CC.
11:53 < zipcpi> Exactly!
11:54 < zipcpi> The problem is that {lo} means everything ba'uru'e
11:54 < zipcpi> It could mean "any" but it could also mean something specific
11:54 < gleki> because currently people are ignoring da/zo'e and reworking the same although highly mutilated and probably not usable.
11:54 < zipcpi> So then it's worthless to say "Why do we need a word for "any"? Just use lo"
11:55 < gleki> "any" has several meanings if you look into theat linguistic paper i linked
11:55 < zipcpi> True, but I defined xe'e in terms of {na'e itca}
11:56 < gleki> i cant see why xe'e is needed. none of the test sentences require it
11:56 < zipcpi> mo'oi plise cu jai se djica do
11:56 < gleki> unless haspelmath found a new meaning
11:57 < zipcpi> Also... "Any five people can carry the piano"
11:58 < zipcpi> How do you translate that without {xe'e}?
11:58 < zipcpi> It's probably possible, but you'd have to use poi na'e itca or some other circumlocution
11:58 < zipcpi> Or ro se cmima or something
12:03 < gleki> mu prenu cu jai sarcu lo ka bevri lo pipno
12:03 < durka42> ro da poi mumei :p
12:04 < zipcpi> OK then what about {ma noi plise cu jai se djica do}
12:04 < zipcpi> "Any one apple"
12:04 < gleki> this isnt english
12:04 < zipcpi> I know
12:04 < zipcpi> So how would you answer that?
12:05 < gleki> i answer that this is neither "any" nor "some"
12:05 < zipcpi> No I mean the apple question
12:05 < gleki> with {xe'e}?
12:05 < zipcpi> I thought you thought xe'e wasn't needed
12:06 < gleki> i do
12:07 < zipcpi> Then how would you answer it without {xe'e}?
12:07 < gleki> i just dont understand you r question. let's say i will answer {ti}
12:07 < zipcpi> {ti} means you are pointing to a particular apple that you want
12:07 < zipcpi> Or otherwise signaling it
12:07 < durka42> mi djica tu'a pa plise
12:07 < durka42> assuming tu'a has scope :)
12:07 < zipcpi> Then I will give *that* apple to you
12:08 < zipcpi> But what if you don't care which apple?
12:08 < gleki> you want me to reply "any apple"? it's {lo se cuxna be do}
12:08 < zipcpi> So yeah that technically *works*, but brings in an entirely different context
12:09 < zipcpi> mu prenu cu jai sarcu lo ka bevri lo pipno - actually means "five people are needed to carry the piano"
12:09 < zipcpi> Which is actually agnostic whether those five people refer to specific people.... or... any five people
12:09 < zipcpi> So we're back to square one
12:09 < gocti> {mu prenu cu jai sarcu} and {tu'a mu prenu cu jai sarcu} have different scope
12:10 < gocti> sa .i
12:10 < gocti> {mu prenu cu jai sarcu} and {tu'a mu prenu cu sarcu} have different scope
12:10 < durka42> ie
12:10 < gocti> the second one is nonspecific
12:10 < zipcpi> Does tu'a really work that way? Seems it might cause some problems
12:10 < durka42> tu'a mu prenu cu sarcu => lo nu mu prenu cu co'e cu sarcu
12:10 < gocti> tu'a is syntactic sugar for lo su'u
12:10 < durka42> so there is an inner scope
12:11 < gleki> actually i just noticed that you used {djica} which leads to the only possible correct answer, {na'i}
12:11 < durka42> uh oh, gleki has godwinned the discussion
12:11 < zipcpi> But if it's {na'i}, what am I supposed to do?
12:11 < gleki> but indeed {ma noi} is simply incorrect here
12:11 < zipcpi> Not give you an apple?
12:12 < gleki> {na'i} doesnt negate that i dont want apples.
12:12 < gleki> it negates the whole clause
12:12 < zipcpi> I know, but I would not know what to do either
12:12 < durka42> gleki is saying something about djica2 being an abstraction
12:12 < gleki> when did you stop beating your wife - na'i. But I do have a wife.
12:12 < durka42> and thereby attempting to use a technicality to derail the whole question
12:12 < gocti> pe'i pei zo ma bi'ai sinxa lo konstanta
12:12 < durka42> (succeeding I might add)
12:12 < zipcpi> Yeah in this case you're allowing technicalities to completely cloud your intention rather than revealing it
12:13 < zipcpi> So then I'd probably just not give you any apples
12:13 < gleki> {ma noi plise cu jai se djica do - lo go'i na'i} to be more precise
12:13 < durka42> djica is fine as long as you have {jai} or {tu'a} though
12:13 < durka42> so I dunno what you're on about
12:13 < zipcpi> How am I suppose to know that you mean that I can just give you "any apple"?
12:14 < gocti> zo'o zo'o nai lu "la pa plise ku noi plise gi'e sucta" li'u .e'u
12:14 < gleki> another answer is {ro da poi du lo go'i zo'u i'a mi citka da}
12:15 < zipcpi> doi gocti u'i simsa le mi velcki be zo lo'e
12:15 < gleki> since the question is incorrectly asked we can only avoid those incorrect parts of it
12:16 < zipcpi> What is the correct way to ask that question then, given that I do not know your intention?
12:17 < zipcpi> Or is Lojban only meant to be used by gods?
12:19 < gleki> incorrectly asked doesnt mean that someon needs to blame the speaker.
12:19 < gleki> it's just that it cant be answered
12:19 < zipcpi> But {na'i} doesn't reveal anything
12:20 < gleki> extract parts of the clause using go'i and construct a new sentence out of them
12:21 < zipcpi> So then we really have to go around saying {ro da poi du lo go'i zo'u i'a mi citka da}
12:21 < zipcpi> ?
12:21 < zipcpi> THat is way too impractical
12:22 < fleimbo> coi
12:23 < gleki> {lo se cuxna be do} then
12:23 < gleki> or another appropriate brivla
12:23 < zipcpi> na'e itca?
12:23 < zipcpi> Or naly'itca if you really want one brivla :p
12:35 < zipcpi> I've skimmed the discussion you linked me to and someone toward the end invented {nalvaidza} for it
12:35 < zipcpi> ku'i na se jbovlaste
12:35 < zipcpi> And I don't even know if that's a good solution
12:36 < zipcpi> Of course, they didn't have {itca} either
12:37 < ciuak> hello?
12:37 < zipcpi> Hi
12:40 < dutchie> coi
12:51 < ciuak> a'oi
13:14 < ciuak> hello!
13:14 < zipcpi> Hi
13:17 < tsani> coi la ciuak
13:17 < ciuak> coi
13:17 < tsani> .i do mo
13:18 < ciuak> .i mi tavla do
13:19 < Ilmen> coi
13:21 < ciuak> coi
13:25 < niftg> coi coi
13:27 < ciuak> coi coi coi?
13:28 < Ilmen> coi coi coi coi
13:28 < Ilmen> :p
13:29 < Ilmen> na spaji fa lo nu zo coi me lo cafne traji valsi
13:29 < Ilmen> sezvi pilji valsi zo'o
13:33 < ciuak> ok, I'm out
13:33 < zipcpi> pilji pe'a u'i .i ku'i zo'onai xu nitcu lo valsi be lo si'o me'oi "replicate/multiply/reproduce"
13:34 < Ilmen> sezyfu'i
13:34 < Ilmen> er
13:34 < Ilmen> sezyfukygau
13:36 < zipcpi> I translated "When your livestock multiply" as {va'o lo nu lo cagda'u be do cu ferti se panzi}
13:37 < Ilmen> ciuak: If you want, we can add an English translation to what we say. I just jokingly said that it was no surprise that "coi" is one of the most common words, as it's a self-replicating word :p
13:37 < zipcpi> Also in some other contexts (that do not involve reproduction) I just use {zei'a sormei}. Which is identical in meaning to {memyze'a} I think
13:38 < ciuak> I read something like "It's not a surprise that often quick dictionary". (forget)
13:38 < ciuak> (that's a rubbish translation :) )
13:39 < zipcpi> ciuak: Then I got a little nitpicky (Lojbanists often are) and noted that the word "multiply" isn't quite used correctly (pe'a indicates metaphorical sense), so then I wanted to know what the correct word would look like :p
13:39 < Ilmen> "quick" is {sutra}, not {traji} :)
13:39 < ciuak> I know, it's 'superlative', but that's what my brain settled on :)
13:39 < Ilmen> zipcpi: actually I wanted to convey that cois don't add up but increase exponentially in number
13:39 < Ilmen> (joke)
13:40 < zipcpi> That's {tenfa} :p
13:40 < Ilmen> je'e je'e
13:40 < ciuak> we'll live in a world overloaded by greetings
13:40 < zipcpi> lo ka tenfa memyze'a
13:42 < zipcpi> {kurtenfa}? Really? What's wrong with {reltenfa} :p
13:43 < ciuak> I personally don't see anything in any of these words...
13:43 < Ilmen> ca lo nu mi viska zo'oi kur ne zo tenfa kei mi pensi zo .krtis.
13:44 < zipcpi> mi ji'a go'i u'i
13:44 < zipcpi> ku'i zo kurtenfa cu se jmina la vonxlu
13:46 < zipcpi> u'i la kurti na zanru
13:46 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=7990;definition=13750
13:48 < zipcpi> doi kurti mu'i ma do na zanru .i finti tezu'e lo nu zuksi'a do .i zo'o
14:29 < ctefaho> coi
14:46  * nuzba @selpahi: Ţkui’al żial in-nelal kʰo. | Random #Ithkuil phrases http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/random-phrases-you-and-i-talked-to-each-other-three-days-ago (gloss + audio) #lojban) [http://bit.ly/1LcAn4Y]
14:51 < zipcpi> coi
14:52 < zipcpi> Uh oh la selpa'i is getting suspicions about Ithkuil scope
14:53 < ctefaho> la selpa'i is into Ithkuil now huh
14:53 < zipcpi> Apparently
14:53 < ctefaho> "Random Phrases: "I like whales very much.""
14:54  * ctefaho shies away from Ithkuil
14:54 <@xalbo> Buncha whale-hugging hippies.
14:54 < ctefaho> it was only really interesting until I got the whole core-case thing
14:55 < ctefaho> LOL
14:55 < ctefaho> "Random Phrases: "There are butterflies in this container."
14:55 < ctefaho> Uq'al vlai'lukta fpçat.
14:55 <@xalbo> In my day, we hunted whales across the whole world and spat our last breath at them, for hate's sake.
14:56 < ctefaho> in case you ever need to make your fellow Ithkuil-ist aware of your container containing butterflies
14:56 < zipcpi> lol I wish someone would translate the "three wishes" in this comic I read (context: the protag gets three wishes from an obviously hostile faerie, and must word them unambiguously. The author just used a "fairy language" that is English chopped up in a blender and diacritics added; but I always thought about what it'd look like in a loglan. It could be Lojban.... but I think Ithkuil looks better as a "fairy language"
14:56 < ctefaho> Ithkuil looks best as a headache language
14:56 < zipcpi> lol
14:57 < ctefaho> I mostly looked at the core cases but by Odin's dick that shit is complex
14:58 < ctefaho> it is FA+BAI+tenses+DOI+possession stuffed together into one
14:58 < ctefaho> +more
14:58 < zipcpi> co'unaijeku'izei'acarvi
14:58 <@xalbo> "<ctefaho> in case you ever need to make your fellow Ithkuil-ist aware of your container containing butterflies" Now I'm reading that as clumsy foreshadowing (https://xkcd.com/1387/)
14:59 <@xalbo> Picturing myself in a situation where I'm trying, desperately, to communicate that I have a container of butterflies to someone who speaks only Ithkuil, and thinking "Why didn't I pay more attention?"
15:00  * ctefaho hopes his plan to create flesh-eating butterflies was discovered
15:00  * ctefaho hopes his plan to create flesh-eating butterflies was not discovered*
15:00 <@xalbo> Make up your mind!
15:00 < ctefaho> what if I wish both!
15:00 < ctefaho> I may have doubts about the whole thing
15:01 < ctefaho> which I have just dubbed Pandora's Box
15:01 <@xalbo> Schrödinger's butterfly, which flaps its wings and both does and does not cause a hurricane  pe ba zu vu ku.
15:01 < ctefaho> that too
15:02 < zipcpi> zai'e kalsa
15:02  * ctefaho checks at Ithkuil cases again just so he can be amazed at how insane it is
15:02 <@xalbo> .i mi cliva bilga co'o
15:02 < zipcpi> co'o
15:02 < durka42> co'o
15:02 < ctefaho> co'o
15:03 < ctefaho> an Ithkuil word is a freaking monster
15:03 < ctefaho> and if selpa'i is right, if the scope is a mess, that is pretty bad...
15:04 < zipcpi> Maybe those three wishes should be in Guaspi or Toaq Dzu :p
15:05 < ctefaho> in Ithkuil the fairy will just stare at you confused
15:05 < zipcpi> u'i
15:07 < ctefaho> uinai I made ithkuil quit:(
15:07 < ctefaho> I didn't mean it like that
15:07 < ctefaho> Ithkuil probably has its use too!
15:07 < ctefaho> (at least to give la selpa'i something to bite into;))
15:09 < ctefaho> this is how you make an Ithkuil verb for anyone interested: http://selpahi.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/0/8/860862/9568599_orig.jpg
15:10 < ctefaho> 13+2 pieces
15:10 < durka42> bleh
15:11 < zipcpi> I hear it's actually not that different from Hebrew or Arabic, but the difference is that those languages already have the vocab and idioms. But being natural languages, they have irregularities too :p
15:11 < durka42> seems a whole lot more complex and packed than those
15:12 < zipcpi> lol perhaps
15:12 < zipcpi> Yeah Ithkuil does have a lot more phonemes
15:12 < ctefaho> it even has a case that, in lojban terms, merges the fa and the fe
15:12 < zipcpi> lol
15:12 < ctefaho> "X mi prami" I love myself
15:13 < b_jonas> fee fie foe
15:13 < zipcpi> In Lojban we have {lo nei} or {vo'a} for when just repeating the sumti is too much work or ambiguous
15:14 < ctefaho> well this kinda consumes the fe in the process
15:14 < durka42> we have su'ai, or is it su'ei or zu'ai
15:14 < Spacenut42> coi
15:14 < ctefaho> so Ithkuil has as many cases as Lojban has case tags + tenses + the five fa + possession
15:14 < durka42> coi la kensa narge
15:14 < ctefaho> but still has verbs/nouns/adjectives
15:15 < durka42> vlaste: su'ai
15:15 < vlaste> su'ai = replaces first two places with one having reciprocal relation between its members
15:15 < Spacenut42> mi na xamgu tavla bau lo jbobau
15:15 < ctefaho> and the Ithkuil cases you put in the verb!
15:15 < zipcpi> durka: {zu'ai} is to make a mass {simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u broda}
15:15 < ctefaho> durka42: ua
15:15 < durka42> right
15:15 < durka42> Spacenut42: do xamgu tavla bau lo jbobau
15:15 < zipcpi> Erm, set rather
15:15 < Spacenut42> .ui
15:16 < ctefaho> well you don't have to speak in lojban
15:17 < Spacenut42> Ah, so cusku
15:18 < ctefaho> so well, if you want a *challenge*, Ithkuil is for you
15:18 < zipcpi> Huh su'ai is in SE
15:18 < zipcpi> And merges fa and fe
15:18 < ctefaho> that...doesn't fit in SE iepei
15:18 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
15:19 < durka42> it does fit in SE
15:19 < zipcpi> Yeah it's kinda... hackish
15:19 < durka42> since it moves places around
15:19 < ctefaho> well
15:19 < durka42> I mean {jai} is in SE
15:19 < ctefaho> in a way yes
15:19 < ctefaho> hmm
15:19 < ctefaho> right
15:19 < durka42> er
15:19 < durka42> jai+BAI is in SE
15:19 < zipcpi> I dunno, I think {zu'ai} gives me less of a headache :p
15:20 < zipcpi> This is beginning to look like {setevexese}
15:20 < durka42> zu'ai is {mi joi do cu prami zu'ai}?
15:20 < zipcpi> jo'u or ce actually
15:20 < zipcpi> Masses means that they are considered a single entity
15:21 < durka42> nah
15:21 < durka42> simxu can pull apart masses
15:21  * ctefaho goes back to his lojban heresy
15:21 < zipcpi> loi xunre ce loi blanu cu damba zu'ai
15:21  * ctefaho or as some may say, "ideolect"
15:21 < zipcpi> ?
15:21  * ctefaho idiolect*
15:22 < zipcpi> I'm not sure simxu should pull apart masses in this case
15:22 < zipcpi> By the way {jo'au} now works like {coi}. So your idiolect would be {jo'au ctefa'o}
15:22 < zipcpi> No more having to add {bu} to everything :p
15:23 < zipcpi> Though you can still add version numbers via {xi}
15:26 < zipcpi> ei mi sipna co'o
15:27 < durka42> co'o
16:01  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: Lojban (pt-br) - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban_(pt-br) by Guskant - dragau lo urli [http://bit.ly/1HMgwLh]
16:03  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: Lojban timeline - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban_timeline by Guskant - dragau lo urli [http://bit.ly/1HMgPFR]
16:05  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: 学習 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/%E5%AD%A6%E7%BF%92 by Guskant - dragau lo urli [http://bit.ly/1HMhgQz]
16:05  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: nuzba/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzba/en by Guskant - dragau lo urli [http://bit.ly/1HMhtTG]
20:19  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: corpora - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/corpora by Guskant - Redirected page to [[korpora zei sisku]] [http://bit.ly/1Ga20Yf]
20:19  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: corpus - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/corpus by Guskant - Redirected page to [[korpora zei sisku]] [http://bit.ly/1QA4rye]
20:24 < AndChat|320025> Would "nu xamgu kei" be "good game"
21:10  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: nuzba - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzba by Guskant [http://bit.ly/1fdWYnD]
22:59 < gleki> AndChat|320025: {lo xamgu se kelci} = good game
23:10 < gleki> mensi: doi zipcpi you should read haspelmath's paper to understand any/some better
23:10 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.zipcpi.gy. di'a cusku da
23:46 < ctefaho> coi
23:46 < gleki> coi
23:47 < ctefaho> coi la uincu
23:49 < gleki> ma smuni zo uincu
23:50 < ctefaho> simsa zo iancu
23:51 < gleki> en: iancu
23:51 < mensi> iancu = x1 should or ought to do x2 |>>> ahernai
--- Day changed Tue Jun 16 2015
00:13  * nuzba @uitki: Corpus - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Corpus by Guskant - Redirected page to [[korpora zei sisku]] [http://bit.ly/1JRprwC]
00:13  * nuzba @uitki: Corpora - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Corpora by Guskant - Redirected page to [[korpora zei sisku]] [http://bit.ly/1JRptV0]
00:37  * nuzba @uitki: Proposal: loi lerfu tcita detri; the final word on the problem of dates and times? - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Proposal:_loi_lerfu_tcita_detri;_the_final_word_on_the_problem_of_dates_and_times%3F by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1JRqKLV]
00:42 < gleki> how do we say "door"? gacri lo vorme?
00:44 <@Broca> vrogai, rather.
00:48 < gleki> a guy from Facebook wants a eng2jbo dictionary. as of now im desperately trying to use GDs (gismu deep structure) i.e. something like Basic English si Lojban.
00:52 <@Broca> I have to commend your zeal, but this really is a lot of effort, especially for one guy.
00:52 < zipcpi> Who are you talking to?
00:52 < mensi> zipcpi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: you should read haspelmath's paper to understand any/some better | 2015-06-16T06:10:03.
00:52 < mensi> 431Z
00:53 < gleki> https://www.facebook.com/groups/lojban/
00:53 < zipcpi> Which paper is that?
00:53 <@Broca> zipcpi: gleki.
00:53 < gleki> it's one of the latest threads in Facebook
00:54 < gleki> zipcpi: see the thread on "any" in the mriste. there are several links to linguistic papers there
00:54 < zipcpi> Erm, link it to me again? Search chaff...
00:55 < gleki> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/yh8-ChFLanM/discussion
00:55 < zipcpi> ki'e
00:55 < zipcpi> Sometimes though the number of "senses" a word may have only really differs based on how you count them
00:56 < zipcpi> Even Lojban words aren't necessarily defined to have as narrow a meaning as possible
00:56 <@Broca> Quite the opposite; Lojban words are defined to have as broad a meaning as possible.
00:56 < gleki> semantic categorization and perfect normalizations of meanings are impossible to achieve.
00:56 <@Broca> That's what the slashes are for.
00:57 < zipcpi> True
00:57 < zipcpi> And sometimes they end up being weirdly-broad, like {tirxu} and {jukni} for instance :p
00:58 < zipcpi> I also brought up gismu-broadness in my little debate about the utility of {zai'e}/{zi'ai}
00:59 < zipcpi> In that often they are broad enough that you can repurpose them for a technical context, but at the cost of vagueness
01:00 < gleki> jukni and tirzu are not more weird than others from independent point of reference. it's just that they dont match anything familiar to speakers of major languages. and since we arent going to reinvent Analytical Language of J.Wilkins they'd better be forgotten.
01:00 < gleki> *tirxu
01:00 < zipcpi> lol
01:01 < gleki> dont try to narrow meanings but try to narrow their form and border no matter how broad they are
01:02 < gleki> if fuzzy logic then clearly specify its level
01:05 < zipcpi> loi mu prenu ka'e bevri le pipno
01:05 < zipcpi> Yeah still ambiguous as to whether it's a specific five people or a nonspecific five people
01:06 < zipcpi> They also brought up {lo'e}
01:07 < gleki> in prexorlo the were two words for {loi}.
01:07 < gleki> in postxorlo it all got broken
01:08 < zipcpi> {lei mu prenu ka'e bevli le pipno} = "The five people can carry the piano" / "The specific five people can carry the piano"
01:08 < gleki> [3~ and {loi} was its {da} equivalent.
01:08 < zipcpi> {lo'ei* mu prenu ka'e bevri le pipno} = "Generally, five people can carry the piano"
01:08 < zipcpi> But is da specific or non-specific?
01:09 < gleki> le=> zo'e voi
01:09 < gleki> lo=>da poi
01:09 < gleki> lei = le gunma be
01:09 < gleki> loi = lo gunma be
01:09 < zipcpi> So da is non-speciifc?
01:09 < gleki> that's how it was supposed to be
01:09 < zipcpi> Before xorlo
01:09 < gleki> i dont know what you mean by "specific".
01:10 < gleki> that English terminology in CLL has been misused.
01:10 < zipcpi> specific = deictic
01:10 < zipcpi> That I have a particular thing I want to talk about
01:11 < zipcpi> I don't wish to specify it to the smallest detail, where context is already sufficient. That's what deictic means.
01:11 < gleki> it's about zo'e vs. da
01:11 < gleki> there isn't any deictic in CLL
01:11 < zipcpi> So zo'e is deictic
01:11 < gleki> zo'e is constant that one cannot define
01:11 < zipcpi> It doesn't use the word, but I think zo'e is deictic
01:12 < gleki> idk what is deictic. opinions differ
01:12 < zipcpi> "of, relating to, or denoting a word or expression whose meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used, e.g., here, you, me, that one there, or next Tuesday."
01:12 < zipcpi> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Deixis
01:13 < gleki> if linguists knew for sure what everything means then knowledge representation languages wouyld have long ago been created and successfully finished.
01:13 < zipcpi> lol
01:14 < gleki> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Deixis#Anaphoric_reference
01:14 < gleki> wth,. someone should rewrite this section.
01:14 < zipcpi> Funny that lo'ei didn't exist before then. {lo'ei = lo'e gunma be}
01:14 < gleki> otherwise it's just a short copy of "Anaphora" article
01:15 < gleki> zipcpi: for {lo'e} the same duad existed
01:15 < zipcpi> Anaphoric, etc, are subsets of deictic
01:16 < gleki> anaphora seems to be related to discourse then to {da}
01:16 < zipcpi> Deictic is like... specific but unspecified. zi'o steci. Or... itca
01:19 < zipcpi> So zo'e/co'e/xo'e; all deictic. Has a specific meaning in the context, but unspecified by the speaker
01:21 < gleki> maybe them. hard to reconcile.
01:21 < gleki> linguistics invent terms and we have to adapt Lojban to them? It won't be successful necessarily.
01:22 < zipcpi> As far as I know I'm not breaking {le}
01:22 < zipcpi> Just describing how it's already used
01:23 < zipcpi> Or we can go back to not knowing why {le} exists independent of malglikslu translation for "the". Your choice
01:23 < gleki> i dont like these deixises etc. since they dont explain anything in terms of parsing, i.e. formal language
01:24 < zipcpi> The problem is we can't. We can't formalize zo'e/co'e/xo'e either
01:24 < zipcpi> Otherwise we'd have to specify everything to the smallest detail
01:24 < zipcpi> le broda = zo'e poi broda / lo broda poi co'e
01:26  * nuzba @uitki: Обновилась страница Ложбан - наука о сознании – http://mw.lojban.org/papri/%D0%9B%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD_-_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8 автор — Gleki - /* Ложбан и самогоноварение. */ [http://bit.ly/1BfffuR]
01:27 < zipcpi> Or da poi broda je poi co'e
01:28 < zipcpi> I really wish we could discuss itca with selpahi. He's the one who entered the word; first in Lojban no less
01:32 < dutchie> coi rodo
01:34 < ctefaho> coi la'oi dutchie
01:35 < dutchie> do mo
01:35 < dutchie> .i mi puzi klama lo briju
01:35 < ctefaho> exposing camxes bugs with la gocti ;)
01:43 < zipcpi> Is there a word that specifically means "come here"?
01:43 < zipcpi> {vizykla} is undefined
01:44 < zipcpi> {tifkla} might also be another possibility
01:44 < zipcpi> coi .ilmen.
01:45 < Ilmen> coi
01:45 < ctefaho> la selpa'i proposed giving ko a rafsi
01:45 < zipcpi> Nah that's not the sense I mean
01:45 < zipcpi> I mean something to distinguish "come" from "go"
01:46 < ctefaho> tolklama? :d
01:46 < zipcpi> No, klama is agnostic
01:46 < ctefaho> stuff a zi'o in klama-3 then
01:46 < ctefaho> everyone loves zi'o right
01:47 < zipcpi> zi'o klama zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o
01:48 < zipcpi> zi'o besto zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o faxivomu zi'o
01:48 < Ilmen> <ctefaho> la selpa'i proposed giving ko a rafsi  —— where so?
01:48 < ctefaho> "poly-something lojban"
01:48 < ctefaho> lemme find it
01:49 < zipcpi> Well {cliva} specifically means "leave"
01:49 < zipcpi> {nerkla} means enter... but into a place
01:49 < zipcpi> There's no "come here"
01:50 < ctefaho> seems like he removed it
01:50 < ctefaho> it seems he has for some reason purged several of his blog entries
01:52 < zipcpi> Maybe you have to look in the archive
01:52 < ctefaho> I did
01:52 < ctefaho> it is removed
01:52 < zipcpi> Right
01:52 < ctefaho> he forgot to remove the category though;)
01:52 < ctefaho> http://selpahi.weebly.com/archive-pre-2014/category/polysynthetic%20lojban
01:53 < ctefaho> he also removed all denpa bu articles
01:53 < ctefaho> wtf
01:53 < ctefaho> perhaps they just got lost somehow
01:55 < ctefaho> I think it was "koz" for ko though
01:55 < ctefaho> faf for fa, etc
01:55 < Ilmen> je'e la ctefa'o
01:56 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/tsuku
01:56 < Ilmen> "come to..." is more "tolcliva"
01:56 < zipcpi> Yeah...
01:56 < zipcpi> And tsuku is an experimental gismu synonym
01:56 < zipcpi> Or darca is your variant
01:57 < Ilmen> Actually I added two variants, "darca" and "dardi" .u'i
01:58 < zipcpi> darca seems the most upvoted
01:58 < Ilmen> I mistranscripted the pronunciation of the Bengali source word for "darca"; however "darca" has already seen some uses
01:58 < zipcpi> Ah well
01:58 < zipcpi> gismu vs gicmu
01:59 < zipcpi> gerku vs gorku
01:59 < Ilmen> Exactly :)
01:59 < demize> The Lojban is a lie
01:59 < Ilmen> "dardi" was technically the right gismu I think, but that's nitpicking
01:59 < Ilmen> So use what sounds best to you
02:01 < Ilmen> At any rate, even "tolcliva" sounds better than the canonical lujvo {tolyli'a}
02:01 < zipcpi> lol yeah
02:02 < zipcpi> I think it's just nicer to be able to say {la .ilmen. cu darca}, rather than tolcliva, or klama ti
02:09 < zipcpi> Crazy idea: {zu'u} is on one hand, {zu'unai} is on the other hand. We just defined {zu'ucu'i} to be "on the gripping/third hands". If we need even more "hands" pe'a, perhaps we could use {zu'u mau'i} :p
02:10 < zipcpi> Of course at that point it might be better to just use {mai} instead
02:11 < Ilmen> pa mai, re mai, ci mai..; is an option too
02:11 < Ilmen> ie
02:17 < zipcpi> The Chinese in Lojban-verse must've gone through a weird sound shift where all o -> e
02:21 < zipcpi> Actually... hm
02:21 < zipcpi> What is the word for pixel?
02:21 < zipcpi> We might make one for voxel
02:22 < zipcpi> Then voxel + bliku would be a sufficient description for Minecraft blocks
02:22 < zipcpi> pe'i
02:23 < zipcpi> pixel = vidnysle
02:23 < zipcpi> Or it could just be slebli
02:24 < zipcpi> The "cellblock" back-calque is somewhat undesirable though, but meh :p
02:26 < zipcpi> calsle
02:26 < zipcpi> calslebli
02:31 < gleki> {tsuku} is "to arrive at"
02:32 < zipcpi> {fi'u re} is automatically {pa fi'u re}
02:32 < zipcpi> What about {pa fi'u}?
02:32 < zipcpi> I actually think it should be {pa fi'u xo'e}
02:33 < zipcpi> That way it's usable for {va'e} for things where there is a gradation of scale that is described with a particular number
02:34 < zipcpi> Or just "one part"
02:35 < zipcpi> Again, {xo'e} is probably the most useful cmavo that I want to avoid using :p
02:37 < zipcpi> Anyway, back to pe'o
02:37 < zipcpi> And {li'ei}
02:37 < zipcpi> We could formalize {li'ei}
02:37 < zipcpi> In terms of {li/me'o} + {pe'o} + {joi'i}; and also auto-{pe'o} on all subsequent VUhU
02:38 < zipcpi> li'ei cy su'i su'i = me'o pe'ojoi'i cy pe'osu'i pe'osu'i
02:38 < zipcpi> exp: me'o pe'ojoi'i cy pe'osu'i pe'osu'i
02:38 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "e" found.
02:38 < zipcpi> Oh crap
02:38 < zipcpi> me'o pe'ojoi'i cy pe'osu'i pe'osu'i nu'o nu'o nu'o
02:39 < zipcpi> Oops
02:39 < zipcpi> exp: me'o pe'ojoi'i cy pe'osu'i pe'osu'i nu'oboi nu'oboi nu'o
02:39 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "u" found.
02:39 < zipcpi> ... I don't know how mekso work li'a
02:39 < zipcpi> Which is probably why we need li'ei
02:40 < zipcpi> With or without xornunsep, because who has the time to deal with VUhU grammar when dealing with arbitrary character strings
02:41 < zipcpi> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Polish_notation
02:42 < zipcpi> Leave {me'o} for actual mekso
02:44 < gleki> en: va'ei
02:44 < mensi> va'ei = [ROI] converts number to scalar tag; specifies the value on fuzzy logic scale; to the degree (n) on scale ...
02:44 < mensi> |>>> gleki
02:44 < zipcpi> Hmm... yeah I've seen that
02:44 < zipcpi> Maybe that'd be better for the use-case I was thinking of
02:44 < zipcpi> Specifically, in games, where you can have a specific number of {lo ni malmi'o}
02:45 < gleki> probably turning va'e into ROI would be unnoticeable for usage
02:46 < zipcpi> do panofi'u va'ei malmi'o = "Your Notoriety is 10."
02:46 < zipcpi> Or something
02:47 < zipcpi> Not even sure the fi'u is needed
02:47 < gleki> pi
02:47 < zipcpi> pi doesn't work here because the scale is out of a certain number
02:48 < zipcpi> Or may not even have a limit
02:48 < gleki> we still kac a tag for "to the degree of"
02:48 < gleki> we still lack a tag for "to the degree of"
02:48 < zipcpi> Right
02:48 < gleki> {ji'e} specifies the limit but not the actual value
02:49 < zipcpi> "Your Strength is 18" = do pabi *vai'e? tsali
02:49 < zipcpi> tsali might need to be qualified; doesn't just refer to physical strength
02:50 < zipcpi> Actually just {va'e} might do
02:50 < zipcpi> {va'ei} is reserved for the fuzzy logic concept of a truth value between 0-1
02:51 < zipcpi> Similar to {jei}, but with a different grammar
02:51 < zipcpi> va'e seems to be defined in terms of {moi}
02:52 < zipcpi> So yeah I think {do pabi va'e tsali} is adequate for "Your Strength is 18"
02:52 < gleki> va'e is in MOI
02:52 < gleki> pabiva'e tsali is a tanru
02:52 < zipcpi> Yeah... that is a bit less convenient
02:53 < zipcpi> Technically it's pabiva'e be *the game system*
02:54 < zipcpi> Essentially we need a ROI that's {fi'o PA va'e} :p
02:55 < gleki> it's va'ei
02:55 < gleki> same for si'e
02:55 < zipcpi> Then is 18 an acceptable value for va'ei?
02:56 < zipcpi> "His power is over 9000!"
02:57 < gleki> you didnt specify the scale
02:57 < zipcpi> Maybe it's time to make {pi mu} different from {nopimu}
02:57 < zipcpi> Exactly
02:57 < gleki> it's gradu
02:57 < gleki> and fi'o gradu is needed
02:58 < zipcpi> Because right now there seems to be confusion as to what {pimu ko'a} is
02:58 < zipcpi> Is it half of the group/set assigned to ko'a
02:58 < zipcpi> Or half a ko'a?
02:58 < zipcpi> ... doesn't fix {fi'u} though x.x
02:59 < zipcpi> So forget my nopimu idea... new plan
02:59 < zipcpi> {lu'o}
03:00 < zipcpi> {lu'o} to bind them, {lu'a} to split them apart
03:01 < zipcpi> {lu'a pimu lu'o ko'a} = Half of those in ko'a, considered individually
03:02 < zipcpi> Something like {lo me pimu me loi ko'a} perhaps
03:03 < zipcpi> {lo me pimu loi ko'a}
03:03 < zipcpi> Maybe that's better. Hardly anyone remembers {lu'a} and {lu'o}
03:04 < zipcpi> Not sure me breaks up masses though
03:08 < zipcpi> Yeah you might be right about {va'ei}. Even 0-1 "fuzzy logic" has a scale
03:08 < zipcpi> A washing machine that relies on being able to recognize a 0.5 "truth value" for "hot", still has to have the scale defined in a semi-arbitrary manner
03:09 < zipcpi> So doesn't matter if the scale is 0-1, or 0-ci'i
03:09 < zipcpi> Or ni'uci'i - ci'i even
03:11  * nuzba @uitki: zipcpi: Yet another gadri article - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article by Spheniscine - /* mo'oi / moi'oi */ [http://bit.ly/1feiBV4]
03:12 < zipcpi> Heck, you can even throw in {ka'o} if it has meaning on that scale :p
03:17 < zipcpi> Where is guskant's zantufa again; I want to test it's pe'o system
03:17 < zipcpi> Hmm...
03:21 < zipcpi> I'm kinda suprised Curtis hasn't added variants of {ka'o} for quarternions and octonions yet
03:25 < phma> I'd just say {pa ka'o re ka'o ci ka'o vo} for quaternions, and I've never tried to understand octonions.
03:25 < zipcpi> u'i
03:26 < zipcpi> I never tried to understand quarternions x.x
03:26 < zipcpi> But I hear it has relevance in some 3d-modeling programs
03:29 < zipcpi> So in zantufa {li joi'i cy su'i su'i} is ungrammatical, but {li joi'i cy su'i su'i pa} is
03:29 < phma> A rotation of 3-space corresponds to a unit quaternion. An orientation corresponds to two unit quaternions; a 360° turn is (-1,0,0,0).
03:32 < zipcpi> It's just I'm really debating whether VUhU deserves to be in arbitrary character strings; on one hand it's convenient especially if pi'e is moved to VUhU
03:32 < zipcpi> So that you can represent weird ISO character strings like ---25T23:50
03:33 < zipcpi> On the other hand, joi'i is in VUhU
03:33 < zipcpi> And also there's that VUhU-JOI merge proposal, which I don't know the status of
04:09  * nuzba @uitki: L17-04 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-04 by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1JV4ZJq]
05:34 < zipcpi> On "general you" problem: I have half a mind to assign a new cmavo just to test it out. It's been noted that {da} has scope issues and doesn't stay assigned from one sentence to the next without logical connectives
05:35 < zipcpi> I don't know though. Do any natural languages avoid use of "general you", or have any other solutions for them?
05:36 < zipcpi> My initial thought is to base it off my chosen metaphore for {lo'e}
05:36 < zipcpi> So {*do'ei} = {lo'e prenu}, roughly
05:37 < zipcpi> There is only one "general you" in the universe. (He gets a lot of crap :p)
05:39 < zipcpi> I do have a sneakish suspicion that one of Curtis' zmico actually means "general you", but hidden behind the jargon
05:39 < gleki> not da but zo'e
05:40 < zipcpi> zo'e is even worse; zo'e does not stay assigned within the same sentence :p
05:42 < gleki> use GOhA
05:42 < zipcpi> Why GOhA? KOhA is much more convenient
05:42 < zipcpi> Doesn't need a gadri
05:43 < gleki> i dont think {da} can work for general you
05:43 < zipcpi> Yeah as I pointed out... it does have some problems...
05:45 < gleki> just {lo} + optionally {da'i} at top level can do the trick
05:45 < zipcpi> lo what?
05:46 < zipcpi> You must put something in there
05:48 < zipcpi> Quoth Dictionary.com
05:48 < zipcpi> one; anyone; people in general:
05:48 < zipcpi> a tiny animal you can't even see.
05:50 < zipcpi> {lo prenu}? Which then in context resolves to {lo'e prenu}?
05:52 < zipcpi> And for "one"
05:52 < zipcpi> any person indefinitely; anyone:
05:52 < zipcpi> as good as one would desire.
05:53 < gleki> no necessarily prenu
05:53 < gleki> not necessarily prenu
05:53 < zipcpi> Perhaps
05:53 < zipcpi> http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/on-and-the-general-you.301816/
05:53 < gleki> just {lo broda}. whatever fits the description
05:53 < zipcpi> Yeah that's why I want a KOhA
05:55 < zipcpi> http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/on/553284
05:57 < zipcpi> I'm not sure when general-you doesn't refer to a prenu though
05:57 < Ilmen> Yeah, in French we use "on", in German "man", and in Esperanto "oni"
05:57 < zipcpi> Which is a bit like English "one", right?
05:57 < Ilmen> Yeah
05:58 < zipcpi> As I brought up in the mriste, it's a lost art. It's too bad it has some mabla associations with snobby high-class people...
05:59 < zipcpi> "One shouldn't want to patronize such an establishment, you know. Tut tut"
06:01 < zipcpi> http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/man?showCookiePolicy=true
06:03 < zipcpi> Hm can't find many resources on the general-you
06:06 < zipcpi> Oh found it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
06:06 < zipcpi> Hm rather short article
06:08 < zipcpi> But yeah all those languages have something in common; they use a cmavo for it
06:08 < zipcpi> Not {lo prenu}, {lo broda} or whatever
06:09 < zipcpi> It's just too convenient.
06:09 < zipcpi> How do I search sutysisku for all KOhA?
06:10 < dutchie> just put KOhA in
06:10 < dutchie> oh, i suppose that doesn't show you KOhAn
06:10 < zipcpi> Yes
06:11 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/da'au Hahaha
06:11 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/kau'a
06:11 < zipcpi> "elephant thing"? What metaphor is that from?
06:12 < zipcpi> "elephant memory" la'a
06:12 < dutchie> "User beware: usage is tricky."
06:12 < zipcpi> Though I don't know who uses that term
06:12 < ctefaho> mensi: ko
06:12 < mensi> xu do so'i va'e cinmo fi lo nu casnu lo simsa
06:12 < ctefaho> uinai
06:13 < zipcpi> lol Good find, dutchie :p
06:13 < zipcpi> When a cmavo comes with a warning label... lol
06:14  * ctefaho discovers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_usage_controversies from zipcpi's link
06:14 < dutchie> u'i
06:14 < ctefaho> valsi aigne
06:14 < valsi> aigne = x1 is an eigenvalue (or zero) of linear transformation/square matrix x2, associated with/'owning' all vectors in generalized eigenspace x3 (implies neither nondegeneracy nor degeneracy; default includes the zero vector) with 'eigenspace-generalization' power/exponent x4 (typically and probably by cultural default will be 1), with algebraic multiplicity (of
06:14 < valsi> eigenvalue) x5
06:14 < zipcpi> Yes... apparently some people really hate general you
06:15 < zipcpi> And I can somewhat understand the sentiment. As I've said many times, I've accidentally insulted people with it quite often :p
06:15 < gocti> valsi aigne (notes)
06:15 < valsi> aigne (notes) = For any eigenvector v in generalized eigenspace x3 of linear transformation x2 for eigenvalue x1, where I is the identity matrix/transformation that works/makes sense in the context, the following equation is satisfied: (((x2)-(x1)I)(x4))v = 0.; When the argument of x4 is 1, the generalized eigenspace x3 is simply a strict/simple/basic eigenspace; this is
06:15 < valsi> the typical (and probable cultural default) meaning of this word. x4 will typically be restricted to integer values k > 0. x2 should always be specified (at least implicitly by context), for an eigenvalue does not mean much without the linear transformation being known.  However, since one usually knows the said linear transformation, and since the basic underlying
06:15 < valsi> relationship of this word is "eigen-ness", the eigenvalue is given the primary terbri (x1). When filling x3 and/or x4, x2 and x1 (in that order of importance) should already be (at least contextually implicitly) specified. x3 is the set of all eigenvectors of linear transformation x2, endowed with all of the typical operations of the vector space at hand.  The default
06:15 < valsi> includes the zero vector (else the x3 eigenspace is not actually a vector space); normally in the context of mathematics, the zero vector is not considered to be an eigenvector, but by this definition it is included.  Thus, a Lojban mathematician would consider the zero vector to be an (automatic) eigenvector of the given (in fact, any) linear transformation
06:15 < valsi> (particularly ones represented by a square matrix in a given basis).  This is the logically most basic definition, but is contrary to typical mathematical culture.; This word implies neither nondegeneracy nor degeneracy of eigenspace x3.; In other words there may or may not be more than one linearly independent vector in the eigenspace x3 for a given eigenvalue x1 of
06:15 < valsi> linear transformation x2. x3 is the unique generalized eigenspace of x2 for given values of x1 and x4. x1 is not necessarily the unique eigenvalue of linear transformation x2, nor is its multiplicity necessarily 1 for the same.  Beware when converting the terbri structure of this word.  In fact, the set of all eigenvalues for a given linear transformation x2 will include
06:15 < valsi> scalar zero (0); therefore, any linear transformation with a nontrivial set of eigenvalues will have at least two eigenvalues that may fill in terbri x1 of this word.  The 'eigenvalue' of zero for a proper/nice linear transformation will produce an 'eigenspace' that is equivalent to the entire vector space at hand. If x3 is specified by a set of vectors, the span of that
06:15 < valsi> set should fully yield the entire eigenspace of the linear transformation x2 associated with eigenvalue x1, however the set may be redundant (linearly dependent); the zero vector is automatically included in any vector space. A multidimensional eigenspace (that is to say a vector space of eigenvectors with dimension strictly greater than 1) for fixed eigenvalue and
06:15 < valsi> linear transformation (and generalization exponent) is degenerate by definition. The algebraic multiplicity x5 of the eigenvalue does not entail degeneracy (of eigenspace) if greater than 1; it is the integer number of occurrences of a given eigenvalue x1 in the multiset of eigenvalues (spectrum) of the given linear transformation/square matrix x2. In other words, the
06:15 < valsi> characteristic polynomial can be factored into linear polynomial primes (with root x1) which are exponentiated to the power x5 (the multiplicity; notably, not x4). For x4 > x5, the eigenspace is trivial. x2 may not be diagonalizable. The scalar zero (0) is a naturally permissible argument of x1 (unlike some cultural mathematical definitions in English). Eigenspaces
06:15 < valsi> retain the operations and properties endowing the vectorspaces to which they belong (as subspaces).  Thus, an eigenspace is more than a set of objects: it is a set of vectors such that that set is endowed with vectorspace operators and properties.  Thus {klesi} alone is insufficient.  But the set underlying eigenspace x3 is a type of {klesi}, with the property of being
06:15 < valsi> closed under linear transformation x2 (up to scalar multiplication). The vector space and basis being used are not specified by this word. Use this word as a seltau in constructions such as "eigenket", "eigenstate", etc.  (In such cases, {te aigne} is recommended for the typical English usages of such terms. Use {zei} in lujvo formed by these constructs.  The term
06:15 < dutchie> oiru'e
06:15 < zipcpi> oi
06:16 < ctefaho> aaand it didn't even finish
06:16  * gocti to'o lo fagri cu bajra
06:17 < ctefaho> xu mi aigne do
06:18 < gleki> mensi cuts at 200 symnbols i think
06:18 < ctefaho> so...how many times has this word been used?
06:19 < gleki> mostly ... when looking up what it means
06:19 < ctefaho> .u'i
06:23 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/do'ei
06:43 < zipcpi> do'ei djuno lodu'u do'ei jbopre kei .ijanai do'ei casnu lo du'u xukau zo do'ei cu jai sarcu kei ze'usai
06:47 < gleki> you mean the value of do'ei is copied without explicit declarations?
06:47 < zipcpi> There is only one do'ei in the world
06:49 < zipcpi> It's similar to {lo'e}. If {mi nelci lo'e draci}, and you say {mi ji'a nelci lo'e draci}, both {lo'e draci} refer to the same generalized, virtual, entity, that represents all plays
06:49 < zipcpi> Or Mr Draci
06:49 < zipcpi> So then this is Mr Do'ei
06:50 < gleki> do'ei xi re might be useful sometimes
06:50 < zipcpi> Hm
06:50 < zipcpi> By then you might be using da and de
06:50 < gleki> no
06:51 < zipcpi> What about kau'a? Just be sure to clean up after yourself with {da'o} :p
06:51 < gleki> two constants might be necessary to be used at the same time
06:52 < zipcpi> Hmm... some example? (Yeah I know I'm not too good at coming up with examples myself)
06:52 < zipcpi> "If you ask somebody why they are tired"... something like that?
06:52 < gleki> ie
06:53 < zipcpi> Hmm...
06:53 < zipcpi> doi'a is taken
06:53 < gleki> the whole idea of general you is malgli
06:54 < zipcpi> It might be but as Ilmen noted other languages have ways too
06:54 < zipcpi> Typically roughly based on "one"
06:55 < zipcpi> If we want more than one it might be worth assigning an {a-e-i} group
06:55 < zipcpi> dau'a is taken...
06:55 < zipcpi> dai'i is taken...
06:56 < gleki> just {goi ko'V} can be a solution
06:56 < zipcpi> dei'a and dei'i is taken
06:56 < zipcpi> lo'e prenu goi ko'a?
06:56 < zipcpi> Or lo xe'e prenu goi ko'a?
06:57 < zipcpi> Hm
06:57 < gleki> {lo prenu goi ko'a}
06:57 < zipcpi> Well {lo} resolves in context to one of those
06:58 < zipcpi> But impersonal pronouns are useful enough that they should have default KOhA, IMO
07:00  * nuzba @albertcardona: @katejjeffery Academics to use the syntactically unambiguous human language Lojban for the lectures henceforth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban [http://bit.ly/1FkA6I2]
07:00  * nuzba @albertcardona: @katejjeffery Academics to use the syntactically unambiguous human language Lojban for their lectures henceforth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban [http://bit.ly/1HOQp6f]
07:00 < zipcpi> {bo'a} {bo'e} {bo'i} then. *shot*
07:01 < gleki> have we really imporved the wikipedia article on Lojban? Please check if you dont like anything
07:02 < zipcpi> Or do we really want to save all five?
07:03 < zipcpi> Part of the problem would be their scope is a bit undefined isn't it?
07:03 < zipcpi> zoi'a zoi'e zoi'i?
07:04 < zipcpi> ganai zoi'a jbopre li'o
07:05 < zipcpi> ganai zoi'a retsku zoi'e
07:05 < zipcpi> Hmm, sounds like Alice, Bob, and Charlie :p
07:05 < zipcpi> If you are familiar with that reference
07:06 < zipcpi> Actually maybe we should assign all the bo'V lol
07:06 < Ilmen> en: zu'i
07:06 < mensi> zu'i = [KOhA7] pro-sumti: the typical sumti value for this place in this relationship; affects truth value. |>>>
07:06 < mensi> officialdata
07:06 < zipcpi> Yeah I know about zu'i
07:06 < zipcpi> But zu'i is like zo'e; unstickable
07:07 < Ilmen> then, poi'i
07:07 < zipcpi> That's taken
07:07 < zipcpi> And is quite popular too
07:07 < Ilmen> No, I mean
07:08 < Ilmen> {(zo'e/zu'i/lo'eprenu) poi'i ke'a...
07:08 < Ilmen> }
07:08 < zipcpi> lo poi'i ke'a djuno ke'a jbopre cu poi'i li'o?
07:08 < zipcpi> Er
07:08 < Ilmen> then ke'a always keeps the same referent
07:08 < zipcpi> ke'a djuno lo du'u ke'a jbopre
07:09 < zipcpi> zo'e poi'i ke'a djuno lo du'u ke'a jbopre ju'ei janai ke'a casnu lo du'u xukau zo do'ei cu jai sarcu ze'usai ?
07:10 < zipcpi> Hmm... would get ugly if you need more than one though
07:12 < Ilmen> there's goi too
07:13 < zipcpi> Part of the appeal of general you / on / man / whatever though is that you can just pull them out of the aether
07:13 < zipcpi> Hi Durka42. We're discussing generic-you lol
07:14 < durka42> coi
07:14 < zipcpi> I first tried to assign {do'ei} to it, but then Gleki said we might need more than one of them
07:15 < zipcpi> "When one asks someone else"... etc... though I don't know how to continue that sentence
07:15 < zipcpi> It would probably crash and burn horribly in English :p
07:16 < gleki> La Bangu Dictionary became so slow that I'm splitting it now into two files
07:16 < zipcpi> I'm thinking it might be a bit like Alice and Bob at this point lol
07:16 < durka42> la samyuan xi xo'e zo'o
07:16 < zipcpi> u'i
07:16 < gleki> the source and the printable versions
07:16 < durka42> zo'onai you can just use unassigned pronouns a'y and by, i.e. Alice and Bob
07:17 < zipcpi> Yes, but that might cause confusion if there is something that a'y or by might possibly refer to
07:18 < durka42> I guess if you're really worried about that you can assign them to {tolly'itca} in a prenex
07:18 < zipcpi> u'i
07:18 < durka42> re toly'itca goi abu fa'u by zo'u ca lo nu abu foncpe by ...
07:19 < durka42> zo'onai
07:19 < durka42> this is why predicates are more useful than cmavo
07:19 < durka42> because you can construct as many anaphora as you want if you have a good predicate for them to satisfy
07:20 < zipcpi> Hm...
07:20 < zipcpi> That would probably be great for real "Alice and Bob" contexts
07:20 < durka42> (not sure if that {fa'u} trick that I just pulled actually works)
07:20 < durka42> (but you got what I meant)
07:21 < zipcpi> But part of the appeal of the "generic you" (or in other languages that avoid overloading the second-person-pronoun with it, like French on, German man), is that you can just pull them out of the aether
07:22 < zipcpi> So I think there should be at least *one* KOhA for it
07:22 < durka42> maybe
07:22 < durka42> you could subscript it
07:25 < zipcpi> I think {goi} works when you need more than one actor. Or the prenex version
07:25 < zipcpi> It's the "generic do" that needs to die :p
07:25 < durka42> yeah {do} should always mean the audience
07:25 < zipcpi> So yeah I'm sticking with {do'ei} for now
07:26 < Ilmen> Well, the general "you" probably works in Lojban too provided there's an explicit conditional (e.g. {lo nu do mlatu da'i cu banzu lo nu do ka'e manku viska} etc)
07:27 < zipcpi> Yes, I don't mind the da'i case that much
07:27 < zipcpi> But sometimes general-you isn't wrapped in a da'i
07:27 < zipcpi> From stackexchange: "Does he use workout machines that tone your ass?"
07:28 < zipcpi> Though that pronoun can probably be dropped altogether in Lojban
07:29 < ctefaho> we surely need a "generic ass" do we not
07:29 < zipcpi> That's {lo'e} :p
07:29 < ctefaho> I mean a dedicated cmavo
07:29 < zipcpi> u'i
07:29 < ctefaho> for workout-machine questions
07:30 < zipcpi> We refer to "generic person" much more than anything else
07:30 < ctefaho> give zo'e a rafsi?
07:31 < zipcpi> lo'e has {lom}
07:31 < ctefaho> zo'e not lo'e
07:31 < Ilmen> It seems in Japanese the slot of the general you is just left empty
07:31 < ctefaho> zo'e doesn't seem to be assigned rafsi wise
07:32 < ctefaho> the rafsi zo'e*
07:32 < ctefaho> zo'epre
07:32 < Ilmen> Just use co'e
07:32 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Yeah I agree that Lojban allows you to drop pronouns more readily than English. But how do they translate "You know you're a Lojbanist if..."
07:32 < Ilmen> ctefaho: there isn't much difference between zo'e and lo co'e
07:32 < ctefaho> hmm yeah I realised
07:32 < Ilmen> I'd say there's no difference at all
07:32 < ctefaho> co'epre then
07:33 < durka42> bomcomnompre
07:33 < ctefaho> compre
07:33 < ctefaho> compreco'e
07:33 < gocti> This seems like a good use for jalge/rinka/... taking ka
07:34 < gocti> lo ka voi ki djuno lo du ki jbopre cu jalge lo ka ...
07:35 < Ilmen> Interesting idea
07:35 < zipcpi> u'i la .cekitaujaus. ca jarco lo ri jetnu terpli
07:36 < zipcpi> CKTJ voi = poi'i btw
07:40  * nuzba @tampoktsu: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lojban/Attitudinals     邏輯語很多擬態詞，應該可以方便讓女性表達纖細情感？ [http://bit.ly/1CbibUa]
07:41 < Ilmen> ua jugbau
07:41 < zipcpi> lo mi irci samtci na jarco lo jugbau lerfu i'au uinai
07:42 < Ilmen> la'a tsaipfeise se krinu
07:43 < zipcpi> ca co'e la .konsolas.
07:43 < Ilmen> ŭa
07:43 < zipcpi> de'a jundi .i mi citka
07:44 < Ilmen> di'ai pu'o se kukte .a'o
07:44 < gleki> we need to update those wikibooks tutorials
07:45 < gleki> they may come earlier than CLL 2.0
07:51 < zipcpi> u'i
07:53 < zipcpi> gleki: Oh if you're asking about the Wikipedia article on Lojban, my crazy opinion is to remove [e] as a possible realization of {e} :p
07:53 < zipcpi> die die die die die die
07:54 < gleki> zipcpi: where?
07:54 < zipcpi> "Phonology and orthography"
07:54 < durka42> agreed, it's [ɛ]
07:55 < gleki> okay change
07:55 < zipcpi> Hmm should I log in first
07:55 < gleki> wait it's in CLL
07:55 < zipcpi> Probably won't look good for an anonymous editor to make such a change
07:55 < Ilmen> Well, I do pronounce it as [e̝]
07:55 < zipcpi> Yes it is x.x
07:56 < zipcpi> My worry is that it's a bit too close to {ei}
07:56 < Ilmen> er, [e̞], I meant
07:57 < zipcpi> Yes, [e̞] does sometimes sound like {ei}
07:57 < Ilmen> So halfway between [e] and [ɛ]
07:57 < zipcpi> Hm
07:57 < zipcpi> Well that is that co'e pebu'u la jbogu'e
07:58 < gleki> na gendra
07:58 < zipcpi> u'i
07:58 < zipcpi> that -> {le} :p
07:59 < zipcpi> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio
07:59 < zipcpi> Yeah they have something between [e] and [ɛ]
08:00 < zipcpi> Which isn't too problematic
08:01 < tsani> coi ro do
08:01 < zipcpi> coi
08:03 < gocti> coi
08:04 < niftg> coi
08:05 < tsani> .i ma nuzba lo jbogu'e
08:05 < gocti> tsani: xu do morji lo du'u ma kau krinu lo nu lu «be broda» li'u gendra kei kei ja lo du'u ma kau selbri gi'e jai jalge lo nu pilno ri
08:05 < tsani> gocti: .i se pilno da'i fi tu'a lu lo be mi pendo li'u mu'a
08:06 < gocti> (to sa'e mi kucli tu'a lo be-zei-stura poi kunti toi)
08:07 < gocti> {be broda} => {kai'u ce'u broda fi ce'u li'o} ji {broda}
08:08 < niftg> ki'u tu'a zo bei zifre mleca tu'a zo fa mu'a vau ju'ocu'i
08:09 < zipcpi> k: zulkli'iki
08:09 < mensi> (CU [Z:zulkli'iki VAU])
08:10 < zipcpi> ue ki'u ma zo pritu na se rafsi
08:10 < gocti> k: pritkli'iki
08:10 < mensi> (CU [Z:pritkli'iki VAU])
08:10 < gocti> na nabmi
08:10 < niftg> te jinga fi lo drata gismu
08:10 < gocti> rafsi: pit
08:10 < mensi> zo plita se rafsi zo'oi pit
08:11 < durka42> zo zunle ja'a se rafsi .i zunle xance plimau ke turni prekle
08:11 < zipcpi> lo'e muslo cu krici lo du'u lo zunle cu mabla
08:12 < niftg> ro lo prityxa'epre cu se catra ba'o vau da'i
08:13 < gocti> lo jbobau cu jai rinka lo nu sruma lo simsa be la'e di'u
08:13 < gocti> zo .zul. zo zu'u
08:13 < niftg> puzi nitcu lo logji sumtcita
08:13 < zipcpi> But actually now I think about it I don't know if I want zulkli'iki and pritkli'iki to refer to "left click" and "right click"
08:14 < zipcpi> Because some people actually reverse the buttons
08:14 < zipcpi> Typically left-handers who use a mouse on their left hand
08:14 < zipcpi> Though many left-handers just learn to use the mouse with the right hand
08:15 < zipcpi> ralkli'iki?
08:15 < niftg> nu kli'iki sepi'o lo degji poi traji jibni lo tamji
08:15 < zipcpi> u'i
08:16 < niftg> lo cimoi batke ku ji'a zasti vau la'a
08:16 < zipcpi> Yes
08:17 < zipcpi> mijykli'iki
08:17 < zipcpi> la .uuzit. ba na nelci i'au la'a
08:17 < mensi> i ji'a mi na nelci mi'e la mensi
08:17 < gocti> .ei da valsi lo me lu to'e ralju moi gi'e tormau
08:18 < zipcpi> malkli'iki zo'o
08:18 < gocti> .i ja co'e lu na'e ralju li'u .i mi na djuno
08:19 < gocti> zankli'iki == zulkli'iki, malkli'iki == pritkli'iki
08:19 < gocti> .i .ei gasnu lo fatne be lo fadni
08:19 < zipcpi> u'i
08:19 < niftg> lo si'o lo zunle cu mabla cu ranji
08:20 < niftg> za'o akti
08:20 < gocti> ku'i .ei na bi'ai stali lo ka go'i
08:20 < niftg> .u'u fatne
08:20 < niftg> natfe
08:21 < niftg> lu lo pritu cu mabla li'u drani tu'a da'u
08:22 < gocti> ua zo da'u .i pa re'u ku mi ganse su'o nu pilno ri
08:23 < niftg> .u'u si'au mi ze'u fatne morji tu'a zo fatne jo'u zo natfe
08:24 < gocti> mi zo'u ro roi tolmo'i tu'a zo tisna jo'u zo tinsa
08:24 < niftg> zo do'i mu'a cu zmadu misno vau xu
08:24 < gocti> go'i milxe si'au
08:25 < niftg> zo tsani zo tsina zo tisna zo tinsa
08:26 < zipcpi> ji'a nitcu lo valsi be lo si'o la'ozoi <click-and-drag> zoi
08:27 < gocti> klikidraga si ju'i nai
08:27 < niftg> mi fi zo da'u cu zenba cilre ca lo nu sanji lo nu la bripre .a la guskant cu pilno dy vauvauvauba'anai
08:28 < gocti> la'a zo'u .ei mi xoi krefu cu kinzga la bripre jikca
08:28 < zipcpi> lo'u vau vau vau vau vau vau vau vau vau vau vau vau vau
08:28 < zipcpi> le'u
08:29 < niftg> .i'a so'omei krefu tu'a zo vau
08:29 < niftg> lo'u kuku vauvau le'u .u'i ba'anai
08:30 < zipcpi> zai'e lacpu
08:31 < gocti> ma zai'ervanbi
08:31 < zipcpi> skami zai'e lacpu
08:31 < gocti> ua
08:31 < niftg> lacpu lo pixra be lo proga
08:33 < zipcpi> "click, drag, and drop"
08:33 < niftg> so'ida ka'e se lacpu pe'a sei me'oi jargon
08:34 < niftg> satre ca lo nu ca'o danre
08:34 < zipcpi> ie .i pe'i lo skami cu fadni co dukse fi lo nu pilno zo zai'e
08:35 < niftg> lo skami co'e zo'u zo zai'e zo pe'a cu simsa vau ba'a
08:36 < zipcpi> zai'e smacu mu'a .i ca se valsi zo pevysmacu
08:36 < niftg> jargono metfora
08:37 < niftg> .u'i zo jargone cu jbovlastevla
08:37 < zipcpi> exp: sma'acu
08:37 < mensi> (CU [sma'acu VAU])
08:37 < zipcpi> ku'i zo la'acpu na zi'evla
08:40 < zipcpi> simsa lo mejbau tu'a lo nu zo'oi <tikus> valsi be lo si'o smacu bei my ju'ei zo'oi <tetikus> valsi be lo si'o pevysmacu bei my
08:40 < niftg> lo ka'e valsi pevystedu cu nenri
08:42 < zipcpi> k: la'apcu
08:42 < mensi> (CU [Z:la'apcu VAU])
08:43 < zipcpi> mi na birti
08:43 < gocti> lo nu da valsi cu xagmau lo nu no da valsi
08:44 < zipcpi> k: kli'ikco'a
08:44 < mensi> (CU [Z:kli'ikco'a VAU])
08:44 < zipcpi> k: kli'ikca'o
08:44 < mensi> (CU [Z:kli'ikca'o VAU])
08:44 < zipcpi> k: kli'ikco'u
08:44 < mensi> (CU [Z:kli'ikco'u VAU])
08:44 < zipcpi> pei
08:44 < gocti> banzuka ju'o
08:45 < niftg> dunli zo bazykai xu
08:45 < zipcpi> k: kli'ikcpu
08:45 < mensi> (CU [Z:kli'ikcpu VAU])
08:47 < gocti> mi na se slabu zo bazykai
08:47 < gocti> .i ku'i ru'a ru'e dunli
08:48 < niftg> sei veljvo se'u banzu ckaji
08:48 < zipcpi> kli'ikco'a = x1 click-grabs x2
08:48 < zipcpi> kli'ikco'u = x1 drops x2 at x3
08:49 < zipcpi> kli'ikca'o = x1 drags x2 over x3
08:49 < gocti> x1 ckaji x2 soi banzu x3
08:49 < gocti> xu dunli lo me do moi
08:50 < gocti> .i lo kli'iki valsi zo'u .i'e
08:50 < niftg> dunli ke tanru ciksi
08:50 < zipcpi> kli'ikmu'u = x1 drags x2 from x3 to x4
08:50 < zipcpi> kli'ikra'i = x1 holds x2
08:50 < zipcpi> And then we need left and right versions of all these :p
08:51 < gocti> .e'u zo klikmuga ja lo simsa
08:51 < niftg> lo nu bevri ku po'onai te pilno lo nu kli'iki vau vau la'a
08:51 < zipcpi> k: klikmuga
08:51 < mensi> (CU [Z:klikmuga VAU])
08:52 < gocti> .i je'u
08:52 < zipcpi> Oh right and middle version; don't forget that
08:52 < zipcpi> Then upscroll, downscroll lol
08:52 < niftg> .u'i nu nitcu ro lo re zunle jo'u pritu .i lo tanru cu banzu pe'i
08:53 < gocti> skrolfarvi skroltofa
08:54 < niftg> fu'inai cusku co fanva zo'oi both noi glico
08:54 < zipcpi> rore
08:54 < niftg> zo ro zo za'u mu'a simsa xu
08:55 < zipcpi> mi na birti
08:55 < gocti> mi pilno tai lo nu lu ro pa li'u dunli lu ro je fau bo pa li'u
08:56 < niftg> .ue .ua
08:56 < zipcpi> mu'i ma na zasti lo me'oi discursive tezu'e lo nu cusku lo sedu'u mi na djuno tu'a lo danfu
08:58 < zipcpi> za'a lo jbobau bi'ai bangu lo cevni i'au zo'o
08:58 < niftg> .u'i .i ba'anai mi pu'i simsa peisku tu'a lo sedu'u lo cusku ja'a djuno fi lo danfu
08:58 < la_kristan> coi rodo
08:59 < gocti> coi
08:59 < niftg> coi
09:00 < la_kristan> in the spirit of some previous conversations here...
09:00 < Mateon1> coi
09:01 < la_kristan> mi cusku lu le mlatu cu tacpe'u vo'a le ganxo li'u
09:01 < la_kristan> gross, but is it grammatically correct?
09:01 < zipcpi> ai mi stidi tu'a zo bei'a .i tcita la'e lu <mi bebna jecu na djuno le danfu> li'u zo'o
09:02 < gocti> .u'i
09:02 < gocti> la_kristan: looks fine
09:03 < niftg> nu lo danlu sedi'o lo ganxo cu sezlumci
09:03 < gocti> A: lo ka co'e [to ko pensi su da poi va'arga ro da toi] cu ka blabla blabla blabla blabla
09:03 < gocti> B: bei'a nai sai le'o
09:05 < zipcpi> rafsi: bla
09:05 < mensi> zo blanu se rafsi zo'oi bla
09:06 < niftg> comcomcomcomcomcomcomco'e
09:06 < gocti> ie .i smudramau do'a nai
09:06 < la_kristan> I saw the example "le gerku cu batci vo'a" in L4B, and was seized with a sudden desire to say "the cat licks itself" and then when I looked up "lick" and saw that there was a place for the locus of the licking, well, I couldn't resist...
09:07 < la_kristan> and it is true!
09:07 < dutchie> u'i
09:07 < niftg> .u'i .i'i
09:07 < gleki> mi nu'o jimpe
09:09 < niftg> lo mlatu lo vo'a ganxo ka'e tacpe'u .inaja lo vo'a plibu ri'enai ku ji'a ka'e se tacpe'u
09:09 < niftg> .u'u zo vo'e cu jai sarcu tu'a di'u
09:11 < la_kristan> I think I got the first part... but the rest kinda lost me.
09:12 < niftg> xu tavla fi lo mi jufra doi la kristan
09:13 < la_kristan> vlaste: jufra
09:13 < vlaste> jufra = x1 (text) is a sentence/statement about x2 [topic/subject/predicate/focus] in language x3.
09:13 < dutchie> vlaste: tacpe'u
09:13 < vlaste> tacpe'u = x1=p1 (agent) touches eir tongue to/licks x2=p2=t2 at x3=p4 [a locus on x2].
09:13 < dutchie> typo :(
09:14 < la_kristan> niftg : go'i
09:14 < gocti> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun la'a
09:15 < zipcpi> .y. e'u zo'oi their
09:15 < dutchie> .ua
09:15 < zipcpi> lo gasnu na bi'ai pamei
09:15 < gleki> la'a mi bebna i ki'u bo mi na jimpe tu'a lo ganxo ce lo plibu
09:16 < gocti> "[if] a cat its anus can lick, then its pubic area [tenseness] can also be licked"
09:16 < gocti> [by it]
09:16 < dutchie> mi na jimpe lo du'u lo prenu cu pilno zoi gy. singular they gy.
09:16 < niftg> ki'e fanva
09:16 < gocti> se ju glosyzba
09:16 < gleki> gocti: xu da sruma lonu xajmi
09:17 < la_kristan> a cat licks it's whole body...
09:17 < zipcpi> mi pilno la'ezoi gy singular they gy ki'u lo nu zo'oi he/she cu mutce fegli mi
09:17 < gocti> ru'a lo'u ko catlu lo du'u lo bangu cu kakne ma kau le'u zei xajmi
09:17 < la_kristan> */it's/its
09:17 < gocti> s/du'u/nu/
09:17 < phenny> gocti meant to say: ru'a lo'u ko catlu lo nu lo bangu cu kakne ma kau le'u zei xajmi
09:18 < gleki> wow, phenny talking
09:19 < la_kristan> I have a more serious question.
09:19 < zipcpi> mi so'uroi jeku'i su'oroi pilno lo .spivak. sumka'i
09:19 < zipcpi> exp: mi so'uroi jeku'i su'oroi pilno lo .spivak. sumka'i
09:19 < mensi> (mi [CU {<(¹so'u roi¹) (¹je ku'i¹) (¹su'o roi¹)> pilno} {lo <spivak sumka'i> KU} VAU])
09:20 < la_kristan> It pertains to a recent internal conflict; a sort of identity crisis, perhaps...
09:21 < zipcpi> Whose identity crisis?
09:21 < la_kristan> mine.
09:21 < zipcpi> OK, what about?
09:22 < la_kristan> To be brief, can one be a passionate, active Esperantist *and* a passionate, active Lojbanist?
09:23 < zipcpi> I won't know how to answer that
09:23 < gleki> la_kristan: can one be an Esperantist and a programmer at the same time or an Esperantist and a soccer player?
09:23 < la_kristan> I don't know why I feel like those two things are somehow incompatible...
09:24 < ctefaho> well, why not?
09:24 < la_kristan> but I couldn't shake the feeling.
09:24 < gleki> indeed, the two languages are incompatible which means they are orthogonal to each other.
09:24 < ctefaho> assuming you have the time for both
09:24 < la_kristan> maybe it's just my hormones out of whack :-D
09:25 < gocti> save the world from English domination by day, figure out just how to describe that difference in meaning by night!
09:25 < dutchie> u'i
09:26 < niftg> ta'o mi pu co'a cilre fi la esperanton
09:26 < la_kristan> All night...
09:28 < la_kristan> It struck me as somewhat amusing that the cmene for Esperanto is .esperanton.
09:28 < zipcpi> Well it might be incompatible if you think both languages should be the one world language. But we don't typically think that about Lojban
09:29 < zipcpi> Except maybe by fantasizing
09:29 < la_kristan> since -n is the accusative ending.
09:29 < gleki> la_kristan: mi parolas ge Esperanton gi Lojxbanon. ne estas problemo
09:30 < zipcpi> ... I automatically tried to parse {ge} and {gi} and {ne} as Lojban :p
09:30 < dutchie> mi ji'a
09:31 < gocti> .u'e xu zo ge je zo gi valsi pa da ge lo lojbo gi lo spero
09:31 < gleki> {ge} and {gi} were from Lojban
09:31 < gleki> it was jbospero
09:31 < gocti> ua
09:31 < dutchie> .i cfipu mi loka zoi zoi parolas zoi na selbri
09:31 < zipcpi> Also, <insert "horrible" punishment> for using {cmene} for {cmevla} again :p
09:32 < la_kristan> eble Wesley Wilson parolis tro multe pri Loĵbano kiel internacia lingvo, kaj tio zorgigis min...
09:32 < zipcpi> We really need to think of a suitable imaginary punishment for grammatical or semantic errors
09:32 < zipcpi> It should not be actually horrid, but played like it is :p
09:33 < gleki> la_kristan: sed li ne flue parolas Lojxbanon. simple li deziras internacian lingvon.
09:33 < gocti> nu zvastagau fi lo foldi pe lo xagji sofybakni
09:33 < zipcpi> ie xagji sofybakni
09:34 < dutchie> "staying in the field of a hungry soviet cow"?
09:34 < zipcpi> je'u
09:34 < gleki> "Fluantaj" (=spertuloj) parolantoj de Lojxbano kutime ne diras ke ili deziras ke Lojxbano igxus internacia lingvo.
09:34 < zipcpi> The "hungry soviet cow" is a Lojbanic meme
09:35 < zipcpi> As well as the idea of "Lojbanistan" being a former Soviet country
09:35 < zipcpi> (Cause Lojban does sound a bit like that kind of language :p)
09:36 < niftg> the 'newspeak' ?
09:36 < la_kristan> last Saturday I was talking to myself in Esperanto, and caught myself tacking "i" to the beginning of my sentences!
09:36 < zipcpi> No, not the "newspeak", the sound of it
09:36 < la_kristan> it's kinda addictive.
09:37 < gleki> Ecx mi cxiam diras ke Lojxbano ne pretas por ekdisvastiganta. ni simple ne havas risurcojn por fari gxin. ni ne havas normalajn librojn por lerni Lojxbanon. Jes, mi faris vortaron, libron sed nun ili ne ekzistas
09:37 < niftg> .u'i mi ji'a lifri lo simsa ca lo nu troci lo nu tavla fi mi la esperanton
09:37 < gleki> mi faris vortaron sed ne faris libron*
09:38 < zipcpi> Long live spoken punctuation
09:38 < la_kristan> \o/
09:38 < gleki> la_kristan: when i spoke toki pons i had to invent ". en la" and ". sin la" to get equivalents for {i} and {ni'o}
09:39 < gleki> *toki pona
09:39 < gleki> strangely enough short after that other people started using them too.
09:39 < la_kristan> .u'i
09:39 < gocti> (to xu do snada lo ka finti lo ka'e basti be ma'oi se toi)
09:39 < gleki> maybe those constructs are still alive, idk
09:39 < zipcpi> do zbusufukai
09:39 < gleki> gocti: mi xu
09:39 < gocti> go'i
09:40 < gleki> gocti: xu sarcu
09:40 < gocti> je'u na ku
09:40 < gleki> mi se prami do = > do prami mi
09:41 < gleki> i ji'a mi pu finti lo basti be lo sumtcita xau lo tokpona
09:41 < zipcpi> u'i
09:41 < la_kristan> AnySoftKeyboard is going unresponsive on me again :-(
09:41 < gleki> is it for Android?
09:42 < la_kristan> yeah
09:42 < zipcpi> ma jalge lo nu da'i lo itku'ile lo tokpona cu janli
09:42 < gleki> MultiLing has almost all languages including Lojban with autoprediction
09:45 < la_kristan> I use AnySoftKeyboard because many of my Esperantist friends do.
09:46 < zipcpi> lo jbobau xu
09:46 < la_kristan> but for some reason, on my phone it's glitchy.
09:50 < gocti> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban_vs_Esperanto <- ti banli
09:52  * la_kristan switches to default Android keyboard, which requires more effort to type '
09:52 < la_kristan> vlaste: banli
09:52 < vlaste> banli = x1 is great/grand in property x2 (ka) by standard x3.
09:56 < gocti> ku'i
09:56 < gocti> X traktas Y-n kiel Z-n. -> X kurji Y pe tai Z
09:56 < gocti> X traktas Y-n kiel Z. -> X pe tai Z kurji Y
09:57 < gleki> ie
09:57 < gleki> i xu ca na drani
09:57 < gocti> .i'e pei zo'u lo pa moi cu co'e lu X fartra Y boi Z li'u .i je lo re moi cu co'e lu X fartra Y soi me'au Z
09:57 < gleki> en: fartra
09:57 < mensi> fartra [< farna tarti ≈ Direction behave] = x1 treats x2 in way x3 (ka) |>>> selpahi
09:58 < gocti> .i va'o ro da zo'u pe'i zo ne basti .ei zo pe
09:58 < gleki> mi na tugni fi zo'ei zo me'au
09:58 < gleki> X pe tai Z kurji Y <-- ti a lo simsa cu jai banzu
09:58 < gocti> je'e
09:59 < gleki> i ku'i zo kurji ka'e na mapti
09:59 < gleki> i ji'a zo tai ka'e na mapti
09:59 < gleki> i ku'i zo pe a zo ne mapti
10:00 < gleki> mi cenba lo ka birti lo du'u zo ca'a ka'e basti zo tai
10:01 < gocti> .y ue ru'e zo ca'a
10:02 < gleki> zo ca'a ka'e sumtcita vau ju'o
10:02 < gleki> i ku'i na djuno lo tadji be lonupilno
10:03 < gocti> go'i ra'o
10:04 < gleki> zo ra'o pu na jai sarcu
10:04 < gocti> je'u
10:05 < gleki> jbo: ca'a
10:05 < mensi> ca'a = [CAhA] fi'o jai fatci |>>> fatci |>>> xorxes
10:05 < gleki> ma'i mi srana zo jarco
10:06 < zipcpi> exp: lo jaitai jipci
10:06 < mensi> ([lo {jai tai jipci} KU] VAU)
10:06 < zipcpi> .y.
10:06 < zipcpi> xu smudra
10:07 < gleki> a'u mi na djunolo du'u lo'u pe ca'a Z le'u jikau lo'u pe ba'e se ca'a Z le'u 
10:07 < gleki> zipcpi: smudra i simsa lu lo tarmi be lo jipci li'u to zo tai srana ge zo tarmi gi zo tasmi toi
10:09 < zipcpi> ua zo tasmi
10:10 < gleki> lo tasmi cu fasnu ije lo tarmi cu y dacti la'a i ku'i lo xo'i tai cu omni
10:11 < gleki> dacti ja mucti
10:13  * nuzba @uitki: Lojban vs Esperanto - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban_vs_Esperanto by Cirko - trakti: kurji->fartra, pe->ne [http://bit.ly/1cYDQIH]
10:17 < zipcpi> OK one last silly computer term... "point/hover"
10:17 < zipcpi> Without clicking
10:18 < gleki> gocti: xu do fanva la faglo'u
10:18 < zipcpi> lo lorxu cu melbi
10:18 < gocti> de'a sai
10:19 < gleki> idk, in Vivaldi there isn't any "hover" in strings
10:19 < zipcpi> au mi pamjai ly
10:20 < zipcpi> I did change my mind from some of the words I proposed here; just to distinguish them more
10:20 < zipcpi> kli'ikco'a, kli'ikru'i, kli'ikmo'u
10:20 < gleki> i might use something like {se ctino} for "to hover"
10:21 < gleki> zipcpi: why not {kliki} prefix instead. too many h sounds
10:21 < gleki> or {klike} to separate from{kliki} gismu
10:21 < zipcpi> lol
10:22 < zipcpi> I didn't know it was a gismu
10:22 < zipcpi> But yeah that would actually fit in my idea of making sma'acu another term for computer mouse :p
10:22 < gleki> en: kliki
10:22 < mensi> kliki = x1 makes a click sound x2 (text, sound) |>>> See sa'ei, mosra |>>> gleki
10:22 < gleki> limited to sounds
10:22 < zipcpi> Right
10:23 < gleki> hm, im not sure i like this {kliki}
10:23 < zipcpi> I know... seems out of place
10:23 < gleki> why not {kliki} = x1 is a click sound
10:24 < gleki> anyway it's just a kurtyvla although proposed by gleki. but as with all kurtyvla no usage so feel free so propose corrections
10:24 < zipcpi> lol
10:24 < gleki> en: click
10:24 < mensi> 4 da se tolcri: iklki, kli'iki, klikeia, kliki
10:25 < zipcpi> Hover can be kli'iknu'o :p
10:28 < zipcpi> Dunno. Closest word Lojban has for "point" is {degja'o}
10:28 < gleki> these {kli'ik-} look very weird
10:28 < zipcpi> There's also the kurtyvla {corci} but the explanation x.x
10:28 < gleki> en:corci
10:28 < mensi> corci = x1 is a gesture/facial expression/body part motion/body language/expressive (nonverbal or nonvocal) feature/
10:28 < mensi> microexpression/stature/posture/sign/body signal [nonverbal expression made using only one's body parts and items on
10:28 < mensi> one's immediate person as extensions of the body in order to communicate; possibly nonlinguistic/extralinguistic] that
10:28 < mensi> conveys/expresses thought/emotion/command/idea x2 (nu/si'o; possibly text and other types) made using body part/utensil/
10:28 < mensi> object/at locus x3 in/by motion/action/means x4
10:28 < zipcpi> Do you want to change them to kliki-?
10:28 < gleki> and that's only the definition
10:29 < gleki> zipcpi: maybe {klike-} even to reserve this prefix for computer terms
10:29 < gleki> and yes, i think {kliki} should have one place.
10:29 < zipcpi> But what about the base term {kli'iki}?
10:29 < gleki> I clicked = mi pu cupra lo kliki
10:30 < zipcpi> Eh I wish I could just move words
10:30 < zipcpi> Or copy them
10:31 < gleki> dont use JVS then
10:31 < gleki> as i do
10:31 < zipcpi> lol
10:32 < zipcpi> What program do you use?
10:32 < zipcpi> Did you make one for yourself?
10:33 < gleki> it's called Google Spreadsheet. Write down its name now in order not to forget
10:33 < zipcpi> Erm how does that help entry into JVS
10:33 < gleki> but zo'onai i use a lot of formulae and even Google Query language in orer to produce those dictionaries
10:34 < gleki> zipcpi: i just dont use JVS. And you can't move words. The only close tool is a script mass uploading words onto JVS
10:34 < zipcpi> Right... but I'm not the one building a dictionary
10:35 < gleki> if JVS API appears and issue 131 are fixed then we can talk.
11:11 < ciuak> hello
11:12 < dutchie> coi
11:12 < ciuak> coi
11:14 < zipcpi> ... about people adding .i to Esperanto; I think I might also suffer from maljboxlu if I tried to pick up Malay again lol
11:15 < Eogan> Hello
11:15 < ciuak> hello
11:15 < zipcpi> Somehow when you feel the languages are similar phonetically, you can get crosswired sometimes
11:15 < zipcpi> Hi
11:15 < ciuak>  hi, indeed
11:15 < Eogan> I have joined this IRC channel after learning about lojban
11:16 < ciuak> learning lojban or learning about lojban?
11:17 < Eogan> I speak 4 languages fluently, 4 in the process of learning, another 2 learned as a tourist and now I came across the most unambiguous language (or so it is claimed to be)
11:17 < Eogan> Both: I want to learn it, and learn about it
11:17 < ciuak> well, don't let me stop you! :)
11:18 < ciuak> it surely is ambiguous if you want it to be ambiguous
11:18 < ciuak> but if you use the constructs very carefully you can make it super precise
11:19 < Eogan> I intend to make a universal translator that could juggle the meanings instead of plain dictionary "markov chains", which lead to "hydraulic ram" being translated to "water sheep"
11:19 < zipcpi> lol
11:19 < ciuak> that's surely a very hard task
11:21 < Eogan> The Idea is to have 1word=1meaning in the library, and have a lojban based language that would retain the meaning in the most unambiguous way possible
11:21 < ciuak> well, grammar can be unambiguous
11:21 < ciuak> but I'm not sure about the meaning
11:21 < ciuak> since compound verbs don't have a precise meaning
11:22 < ciuak> (for example)
11:22 < Eogan> From that, using the grammar formula for each given language such translator could translate the contained meaning into something a native speaker can understand
11:22 < zipcpi> Well one advantage Lojban has regarding meaning is that there is encourgement of using the right word for the right job, instead of relying too heavily on natural-language metaphors
11:22 < ciuak> oh yes
11:23 < zipcpi> e.g. English see, in the most literal sense, means "perceive with the eyes; discern visually." -> {viska}
11:23 < zipcpi> But it could also mean "discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand." -> {jimpe}
11:24 < zipcpi> Or "meet (someone one knows) socially or by chance." -> {penmi}
11:24 < Eogan> I need to learn lojban to create "computer ultra-lojban" that will have purely mechanical structure, primitive, dissected to the smallest denominator parts
11:24 < ciuak> it surely isn't impossible
11:24 < ciuak>   but still very hard
11:25 < Eogan> I know it might be a task that will exceed my life span, but it is worth a shot
11:25 < ciuak> what would you start with?
11:26 < ciuak> I think that's the hardest question
11:26 < ciuak> You surely could make a program that'd respond to your question in Lojban by looking into a database
11:26 < Eogan> I want to deconstruct language grammar structure into formulae, words into most basic meanings (also classified in the library on what they are), and use unambiguous language at the core of it as a transitional element from one language to another
11:27 < zipcpi> Er why is this xy zei kantu: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/xy%20zei%20kantu
11:27 < zipcpi> Shouldn't it be xy zei gusni or something
11:28 < zipcpi> I'm not sure how it's related to kantu at all
11:29 < ciuak> it may be
11:29 < zipcpi> Oh kantu has "ray" among its definitions... but I'm... really suspicious
11:29 < ciuak> *anyway, I have to go, bye, whatever
11:29 < zipcpi> Bye
11:29 < ciuak> bye
11:29 < zipcpi> X-ray has too many senses as is
11:30 < zipcpi> I think it's better to start from gusni and go from there
11:37 < gleki> Eogan: you mean you want RBMT, not SMT?
11:38 < zipcpi> ki'a
11:38 < Eogan> I am not sure what those abbreviations mean, can you please elaborate?
11:39 < gocti> rule-based or statistical machine translation
11:39 < gleki> Lojban as a machine interlingua is better since one can control what happens at this intermediate stage when translating from A to B via this intermediate stage I. If I=Lojban then the control is easy since Lojban can be spoken unlike other interlinguas
11:39 < gleki> that look more like formulae
11:40 < gleki> another advantage is that when translating from e.g. English to Chinese one person can translate from English to Lojban and stop. From Lojban to Chinese is a task for another person. So no polyglots are needed.
11:42 < gleki> But the 3 immediate problems are: 1. retain as much info as possible when encoding to Lojban. 2. Reconstruct the tree so it now matches Chinese 3. how are you going to resolve what English omits but Chinese forces you to utter like not just "uncle" but "uncle = my mother's, not my father's brother"
11:43 < Eogan> I think it would be rule based at it's core, but a meaning-to-word for each language would need to be based on a statistical survey, to accomodate for the drift in the word use and change of meanings.
11:43 < gleki> and i havent even mentioned syntactical ambiguity in the source language.
11:43 < zipcpi> "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"
11:44 < gleki> Lojbanist raced past the garden path fell.
11:44 < Eogan> Good points gleki
11:44 < gleki> Eogan: have you looked at Apertium? It's a shallow based RBMT. But maybe Lojban can inspire it.
11:44 < gleki> *shallow RBMT
11:45 < Eogan> No. It's the first time I hear about it
11:45 < Eogan> I will look into it, thank you
11:45 < gleki> open source but fine when translating froom Spanish to Portuguese or from Turkish to Kazakh. Fails when more distant languages are chosen.
11:47 < gleki> hint: there is #apertium IRC channel
11:47 < zipcpi> {lo'e temci cu vofli pe'a pa'a lo'e celga'a .ije lo'e drosofila cu nelci lo'e badna}
11:47 < Ilmen> I think an ideal translating tool should show more than one result if there's ambiguity (maybe selecting the most likely as the default, but letting an intelligent agent looking at the other alternatives)
11:47 < gleki> en: drosofila
11:47 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
11:47 < zipcpi> .y. ze'oi za'e zi'evla
11:48 < zipcpi> ei mi se tacpe'u lo xagji sofybakni
11:49 < zipcpi> lo'e grute sfani ta'unai
11:51 < Eogan> Ilmen, yes, such translator would have to ask author to specify the intended meaning and/or methaphorical ambiguity
11:52 < zipcpi> rutsfani
11:52 < gleki> the most likely <-- corpus needed
11:52 < zipcpi> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_fly
11:52 < zipcpi> Yeah I think {rutsfani} should be just "fruit fly"
11:53 < gleki> i think it's better to start from translating from controlled natural languages to controlled nat.languages via Lojban.
11:53 < Eogan> Yes
11:54 < gleki> Start from Simple English Wikipedia although it's not a very controlled natlang.
11:56 < Eogan> I hope I can spark an interest of a linguistic institute of my university to get more suggestions on how it can be done without much of the useless junk
12:02  * nuzba @oka_iu_tcan: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/lojban/wvLz7Ew6bzI/discussion        pe SUMSMI にも対応したpeのformal definition の考案。 [http://bit.ly/1el9nGk]
12:02 < zipcpi> https://www.reddit.com/r/Ithkuil/comments/3a1x0q/nulono_in_ithkuil/ {li'ai fi'u no} :p
12:03 < zipcpi> ma dilcu li vo / li no
12:04 < zipcpi> sa'ei .bu~~~~m.
12:04 < zipcpi> coi .y. selpa'i ju'ocu'i
12:05 < gocti> lo kibjudri cu luksemburu soi nibli so'u da ku'i
12:08 < cflep> coi mi cilre lojban
12:08 < Ilmen> coi
12:08 < gocti> coi
12:10 < gocti> .i do pilno ma lo nu cilre
12:11 < zipcpi> ua mi srera
12:12 < ldlework> coi
12:12 < mensi> ldlework: cu'u la'o gy.rakmaak.gy.: Here, for you and zipcpi: http://selpahi.de/ZAHO_Explanation.txt |
12:12 < mensi> 2015-06-12T22:20:45.158Z
12:12 < ldlework> je'e
12:12 < AndChat|320025> Whats a good name for a steampunk airship
12:13 < ldlework> in lojban?
12:13 < cflep> I'm to slow...
12:13 < zipcpi> la xumske fanza ku zo'o
12:13 < AndChat|320025> Yeah
12:14 < gocti> coi la mo kau
12:16 < ldlework> ue do morji lo mi remoi cmene
12:18 < ldlework> cflep: I hear you're in the market for a lojban introductory lesson?
12:19 < gocti> le cmene cu pagbu lo citri be tu'a lo bangu .i ba'a no roi te tolmo'i
12:20 < cflep> Idlework: Yes, you're right
12:20 < ldlework> cflep: do you have 45 minutes of focus in you?
12:21 < ldlework> I think I'm in the mood, if you are.
12:21 < ldlework> I was at a family reunion this weekend
12:21 < ldlework> And there was this girl from Amsterdam who knew 7 languages
12:22 < zipcpi> So how do we translate "Nemo" ("no one")? {la me no da}? :p
12:22 < ldlework> I cornered her and told her about lojban
12:22 < Ilmen> ĭo
12:22 < cflep> Well, normaly I go to bed at 10, but I think it works
12:22 < ldlework> I taught her all the way up to abstractions in about 15 minutes
12:22 < ldlework> no joke
12:22 < ldlework> she just knew all the parts of speech I was talking about I didn't have to explain anything but merely mention its existence
12:22 < zipcpi> Or {la no mei} to avoid embedding {da} within a name
12:22 < ldlework> "You know that language is very easy. Its like the average of all languages"
12:23 < ldlework> I think we can all be proud about that.
12:23 < Ilmen> zabna doi la cadgu'a
12:23 < cflep> ok
12:23 < niftg> la'a {la no da} banzu
12:23 < zipcpi> u'i
12:23 < ldlework> cflep: lets head over to #ckule so we don't get lost in other conversations
12:24 < Ilmen> la me no mi be fa ro ko
12:24 < Ilmen> zo'o
12:24 < zipcpi> u'i
12:24 < durka42> coi ru'e
12:24 < gocti> condi pruce
12:25 < durka42> za'a do rolrafcre
12:26 < gocti> na go'i
12:26 < ldlework> no da rolrafcre la'a
12:26 < gocti> ie
12:27 < zipcpi> le ranmi be le rolrafcre
12:27 < niftg> ba'anai la rolrafcre selkei cu xalbo te tavla bu'u la redydit
12:27 < gocti> go'i gi'e se kelci bu'u lo se .irci
12:28 < ldlework> zipcpi: u'i
12:28 < ldlework> ji'a coi
12:28 < zipcpi> coi
12:28 < niftg> co'oi
12:28 < ldlework> u'inai co'o ny
12:29 < gocti> xu da djuno lo du'u ma kau lojbo xe fanva lo me la no da jo'u la su'o da moi pe la .alis.
12:29 < gocti> .i mi za'o fliba lo ka facki
12:29 < niftg> .u'u zo co'oi jai nibli noda poi nu to'e rinsa
12:30 < gocti> mi ji'a ca lo tolfa'o cu pilno zo co'oi tai lo nu na nibli .i lo se kanpe be lo drata jbopre cu jai fanta lo nu nalsti
12:34 < durka42> zipcpi: btw you can have fu'ivla y-rafsi without mandating the uniquess of final consonants _if_ you drop the requirement of unambiguously identifying a lujvo with its veljvo
12:34 < durka42> which some crazy folks like selpa'i (jenai mi) are in favor of doing :)
12:34 < zipcpi> Right...
12:35 < zipcpi> Probably depends on the zi'evla too
12:35 < durka42> just a thought that ocurred to me
12:35 < durka42> and that I wanted to express in #lojban and not in #ckule :p
12:36 < zipcpi> Longer ones may not have too much problems with keeping distinctness (except for special cases like the ISO zi'evla)
12:36 < zipcpi> The VCCV ones though...
12:37 < durka42> yeah
12:37 < durka42> vlaste: filsofo
12:37 < vlaste> filsofo = x1 is a philosopher
12:37 < durka42> vlaste: filsofu
12:37 < vlaste> filsofu = x1 is a philosopher
12:37 < durka42> ...
12:37 < zipcpi> u'i
12:37 < durka42> filsofa = x1 frili be x2 sfofa
12:37 < durka42> li'a
12:37 < zipcpi> u'i
12:38 < durka42> also somehow I broke vlaste's globbing
12:38 < durka42> vlaste: filsof*
12:38 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/filsof%2A
12:38 < durka42> :(
12:39 < durka42> vlaste: brod*
12:39 < vlaste> 5 results: broda, brode, brodi, brodo, brodu
12:39 < durka42> vlaste: filsof*
12:39 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/filsof%2A
12:39 < durka42> very curious...
12:40 < durka42> oh it's searching by long rafsi
12:40 < zipcpi> ... huh palgau is somewhat... poorly defined
12:40 < durka42> not globbing the word itself
12:40 < durka42> clever
12:40 < durka42> is it a noralujv?
12:40 < durka42> vlaste: palgau
12:40 < vlaste> palgau = x1 promotes x2 to x3 (object, state).
12:40 < durka42> what's wrong with that
12:41 < zipcpi> We once used it to mean "promote an idea" but the rafsi implies that it's not meant to be used that way
12:41 < durka42> nah that would be more like gubyzu'e or something
12:42 < durka42> ta'o ta'o ta'o you should add a note to {zu'ucu'i} explaining what it means
12:42 < durka42> I never heard "on the gripping hand" before you said it
12:42 < zipcpi> lol
12:42 < durka42> not even sure I would understand "on the third hand" without priming
12:43 < durka42> what's the scifi reference, out of curiosity
12:43 < durka42> also palgau should really be {x1 causes x2 to profit x3 from x4}...
12:43 < zipcpi> "Used after {zu'u} and {zu'unai}, to refer to a third case not covered by two opposing viewpoints."
12:44 < zipcpi> pei
12:44 < durka42> i'e
12:45 < zipcpi> And the reference is "The Gripping Hand" by Larry Niven
12:45 < durka42> ah
12:45 < zipcpi> Wait I got the krasi wrong
12:45 < zipcpi> http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/O/on-the-gripping-hand.html
12:45 < durka42> .wik The Gripping Hand
12:45 < phenny> "The Gripping Hand is a 1993 novel by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gripping_Hand
12:45 < zipcpi> Idiom already existed before the work
12:45 < durka42> oh
12:45 < durka42> "most people don't have three hands" .u'i
12:46 < zipcpi> lol
12:46 < durka42> okay but where did it come from...
12:46 < durka42> gripping what? a mouse?
12:46 < zipcpi> I dunno... but apparently it did start from SF fandom
12:46 < durka42> urbandictionary says it's from a different book
12:47 < durka42> .wik The Mote in God's Eye
12:47 < phenny> "The Mote in God's Eye is a science fiction novel by American writers Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, first published in 1974." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God's_Eye
12:47 < zipcpi> That's a prequel
12:47 < zipcpi> So maybe the idiom was first introduced there
12:47 < durka42> I mean, truly, when has urbandictionary been untrustworthy
12:49 < durka42> de'a
12:49 < zipcpi> u'i
12:52 < zipcpi> Actually I don't know how to gloss {palgau}
12:52 < zipcpi> I don't think "promote" is right
12:53 < zipcpi> Erm... under the x1 brodygau x2 x3 -> gau x1 x2 broda x3... I'm not even sure how useful it is
12:53 < gocti> ie
12:53 < zipcpi> Agent makes something a profit
12:53 < zipcpi> ?!?!?!ki'asai
12:54 < gocti> .i zo selpalgau ku'i ka'e te prali
12:54 < gocti> co jai
12:56 < zipcpi> I think I'm gonna have to downvote it x.x
12:56 < durka42_> di'a
12:56 < durka42> oi mabla linji
12:56 < durka42> ua la .kolokyuix. cu banli jecu zmiku dragau lo mi cmene
13:06 < zipcpi> jbojevysofkemsuzgugje'ake'eborkemfaipaltrusi'oke'ekemgubyseltru is a great verb to start with! :p
13:07 < gocti> ralju lo te xamgu fa lo ka se pi'o ce'u cilre lo du'u ta'i ma kau bacru lo jbovla
13:11 < rutytar> coi
13:11 < zipcpi> coi
13:11 < gocti> coi
13:31 < Ilmen> coi
13:32 < Mateon1> coi
13:33 < Mateon1> How would I say 'Goodnight'? co'o, but implying I'm going to sleep and won't be coming back anytime soon (high probability, not certainty :P)
13:34 < dutchie> Mateon1: traditionally the phrase is {pluka nicte di'ai}
13:35 < Mateon1> en:pluka
13:35 < mensi> pluka = x1 (event/state) seems pleasant to/pleases x2 under conditions x3.
13:35 < dutchie> which isn't quite the same thing
13:35 < dutchie> en:di'ai
13:35 < mensi> di'ai = [COI] vocative: well-wish - curse
13:35 < Mateon1> en:di'ai
13:35 < mensi> di'ai = [COI] vocative: well-wish - curse
13:35 < dutchie> :)#
13:35 < Mateon1> Well, that is literally "I wish good night"
13:36 < Mateon1> remove the I, actually
13:36 < dutchie> .ie
13:47 < zipcpi> Oh if you mean *you're* going to sleep, it typically is just {mi ba sipna co'o}
13:47 < zipcpi> Or something like that
13:47 < zipcpi> {ei mi sipna co'o}
13:48 < zipcpi> {ai mi sipna co'o}
13:50 < dutchie> also that
13:54 < Mateon1> en:sipna
13:54 < mensi> sipna = x1 is asleep (adjective); x1 sleeps/is sleeping.
13:54 < Mateon1> en:ba
13:54 < mensi> ba = [PU] time tense relation/direction: will [selbri]; after [sumti]; default future tense.
13:54 < Mateon1> Ah, cool
13:54 < Mateon1> Any way to specify "shortly" or is it implied in this case?
13:55 < Mateon1> or "soon"
13:56 < dutchie> en:zi
13:56 < mensi> zi = [ZI] time tense distance: instantaneous-to-short distance in time.
13:56 < dutchie> e.g. {.ei mi bazi sipna co'o}
13:56 < Ilmen> "ba zi"
13:57 < Mateon1> Ah, I see, distance and direction, nice!
13:57 < Mateon1> en:ei
13:57 < mensi> ei = [UI1] attitudinal: obligation - freedom.
14:02 < zipcpi> Some "attitudinals" are somewhat misplaced and act more like discursives :p
14:02 < zipcpi> {ei} is something like "I should..."
14:03 < zipcpi> Or "This should happen..."
14:03 < ldlework> iesai
14:07 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Realis_Attitudinals#cmavo:_.i.27i_.28UI1.29
14:07 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Irrealis_Attitudinals#cmavo:_.ei_.28UI1.29
14:50 < Mateon1> mi ba zi sipna
14:50 < Mateon1> co'o
14:50 < Mateon1> :)
14:50 < Ilmen> co'o my
14:51 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/nai'o Not absolutely needed, but I was always bothered that if you answer {ti mo} with {na djuno}, technically you are saying {ti na djuno} :p
14:52 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:57  * nuzba @selpahi: Oi igrat qo snau'leffa. | Random #Ithkuil phrases http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/random-phrases-she-ate-everything-in-one-go-despite-the-unpleasant-taste (gloss + audio) (#lojban) [http://bit.ly/1GrBCw0]
14:57  * nuzba @selpahi: Oi igrat qo snau'leffa. | Random #Ithkuil phrases http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/random-phrases-she-ate-everything-in-one-go-despite-the-unpleasant-taste (gloss + audio) ( #lojban ) [http://bit.ly/1JWp1Dt]
15:14 < rutytar> maybe they're trying to say {do na djuno}
15:14 < durka42> that problem does not merit yet another cmavo :p
15:16 < rutytar> is there a list of cmavo by the cll chapter which discusses it?
15:17 < durka42> there is a cmavo index near the end of the CLL
15:17 < durka42> http://alexburka.com/lojban/cll/lojban.html#20
15:35 < BenLubar> would "high contrast mode" be translated as {viska drata zmadu}?
15:41 < BenLubar> that would be "seeing-visually type-of thing-that-is-not-the-same type-of is-more-than"
15:43  * nuzba @kaleidic: I doubt there's better nerd-cred for my house than the fact that the kids script new Dinosaur Comics in and about lojban. [http://bit.ly/1GLNSJm]
15:44 < durka42> BenLubar: I'm not sure {zmadu} is a good tertau for "mode"
15:45 < BenLubar> well, I basically translated it to "more visual contrast"
15:45 < durka42> oh I see
15:45 < durka42> that could make sense
15:45 < durka42> x1 has more visual contrast than x2
15:46 < BenLubar> this is for a label in a settings screen next to a checkbox
15:51 < durka42> I might use {mutce} instead of {zmadu} still
15:51 < durka42> it seems unclear what x2 of zmadu is :)
15:51 < durka42> viska drata mutce
15:51 < durka42> skari drata mutce
15:51 < durka42> mi na djuno
16:21 < ctefaho> co'o
22:16  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: mi ca'o cinmo lo ka nalmukti gleki .i uisai       #lojban [http://bit.ly/1SmO5Xa]
23:31 < gleki> there was a gismu for "immobilized". what was it?
23:35  * nuzba @uitki: Lojban kontraŭ Esperanto - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban_kontra%C5%AD_Esperanto by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1cZNcUH]
23:57 < gleki> haha, they want me to translate "it" to Lojban.
23:58 <@Broca> Who?
--- Day changed Wed Jun 17 2015
00:00 < gleki> in Facebook
00:00 < gleki> dukti: xutla
00:00 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
00:00 < gleki> jbo: xutla
00:00 < mensi> xutla = x1 se tengu lo manfo .i x1 to'e rufsu |>>> manfo; tengu; rufsu |>>> xorxes
00:00 < gleki> jbo:/full xutla
00:00 < mensi> 6 da se tolcri: xutla, kruji, pesxu, rufsu, sakli, spali
00:01 < ciuak> 'it' has got 314159265 meanings
00:01 < gleki> dukti: ranti
00:01 < mensi> ranti = jdari (dubious)
00:01 < gleki> jbo: ranti
00:01 < mensi> ranti = x1 kakne lo ka randa x2 .i x1 jai frili x2 fai lo ka ce'u randa ce'u .i x1 to'e jdari x2 |>>> kakne; randa;
00:01 < mensi> frili; jdari |>>> xorxes
00:02 < gleki> figure (form), to form, former, forth (forwards), to gain, gentleman, glass (drinking glass), to go up, to grant (to agree to give), great (huge), ground (the solid surface of the earth), to guard, to have (to possess), to concern (to have to do, be about), higher (superior), honor (great respect), interest (percent)
00:02 < gleki> ^ this is what i have to translate
00:02 < ciuak> good luck?
00:03 < gleki> ki'e
00:06 < ciuak> yes?
00:06 < gleki> you wanna help me?
00:07 < ciuak> no, I'm a total beginner
00:08 < ciuak> I know a single translation out of these
00:08 < ciuak> only
00:11 < ciuak> I think you get the picture
00:11 <@Broca> figure - tarmi; form - zbasu; former - pu; forth - mo'i ca'u; gentleman - nanmu; glass - kabri; great - brabra; ground - loldi; have - ponse; concern - srana; higher - te vipsi; honor - sinma
00:16 < gleki> honor is not sinma
00:16 < gleki> hnor is more like {lo ni sinma}
00:17 <@Broca> I read that as a verb.
00:18 < gleki> even {lo ni mutce lo ka sinma}
00:18 < gleki> or maybe sometimes {lo nu mutce lo ka sinma}
00:18 < gleki> (one again gleki is reminded of the need in a tag for mutce)
00:19 < gleki> higher = superior. even if in rank then vipsi doesnt match.
00:19 < gleki> higher =  advanced in complexity or elaboration
00:21 < gleki> btw, interesting that {lo mo'u farvi} = {lo se farvi}
00:29 < ciuak> btw, how do I use {va'o}
00:29 < ciuak> ?
00:34 < ciuak> hello?
00:35 < ciuak> whatever
00:35 < gleki> va'o ~= under conditions
00:35 < gleki> just a preposition
00:35 < ciuak> a preposition?
00:35 < ciuak> how do I use it then?
00:37 < gleki> ko cusku fi mi va'o lo nu mi srera
00:37 < gleki> Correct me if I am wrong.
00:39 < ciuak> aha, thank you!
00:40 < gleki> well, literally it means "Say to me under the conditions that I err"
00:41 < ciuak> yeah, that's whst I qctua
00:41 < ciuak> *actually read
00:41 < ciuak> thanks anyway
00:59 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/erpi
01:00 < gleki> mensi: ko cnino
01:01 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
01:01 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
01:02 < zipcpi> I usually use {mo'u} when I'm focusing on completion :p
01:02 < zipcpi> {ba'o} is more like "ex"
01:03 < gleki> en: erpi
01:03 < mensi> erpi = x1 (abstraction) is the purpose of x2 (object or event) |>>> See terpli, terzu'e. Note that this word is
01:03 < mensi> agent-less. (≈ te pilno be fi zi'o) |>>> spheniscine
01:03 < gleki> what would be a good tag for {mutce}?
01:03 < zipcpi> What should it tag?
01:04 < zipcpi> I was thinking the other day of making NAhE variants of {sai}, {cai}, and {ru'e}
01:04 < gleki> {lo TAG certu} => lo mutce be lo ka certu
01:04 < zipcpi> I mean the sumti
01:04 < zipcpi> If it's not gonna tag a sumti it's better in NAhE pe'i
01:05 < zipcpi> Yeah {te mutce} is useless
01:05 < zipcpi> So there's nothing for it to tag
01:05 < gleki> mutce1 - mutce2
01:06 < zipcpi> So yeah, NAhE
01:07 < gleki> it's like {rai}
01:07 < zipcpi> That deserves another modal
01:07 < zipcpi> {rai} means superlative
01:07 < zipcpi> Oh {rai} already exists
01:08 < zipcpi> But {traji} implies a set
01:09 < zipcpi> The reworked definition deleted the useless {te mutce} like x3 plase, and made {te traji} the set
01:10 < gleki> not useless but seldom used
01:10 < zipcpi> So {xamgu terai lo ro broda} means "best out of the broda"
01:10 < zipcpi> Well it's useless because the default is always upward, and it's counterintuitive to reassign it
01:10 < zipcpi> There's always to'e
01:11 < zipcpi> {to'e traji}
01:12 < zipcpi> While mutce is not "out of anything"
01:13 < zipcpi> ti mei'u*ci'ai broda => ti mutce lo ka broda
01:13 < zipcpi> Both useful places of mutce are already filled
01:13 < zipcpi> So the sumtcita has nothing to tcita
01:14 < zipcpi> ja'o it's better in NAhE
01:14 < gleki> compare {ti vi zvati}
01:15 < zipcpi> {vi} is a sumtcita
01:15 < zipcpi> {ti zvati vi ta} means something
01:15 < zipcpi> But what would {ti broda mei'u ko'a} mean?
01:17 < gleki> what does {ti vi zvati} mean?
01:17 < zipcpi> {ti vi zvati} = {ti zvati vi zo'e}
01:17 < zipcpi> zo'e in this context usually means {lo zva'ati}
01:18 < gleki> what ko'a in {se vi ko'a} refers to?
01:18 < zipcpi> I don't know how se works with some tags
01:19 < gocti> gleki: mo'u rejgau lo cnino ke voksna mupli https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mezohe/glekitufa/master/cirkotci.html
01:19 < gocti> (to ki'u lo na se djuno la gitxadba na curmi lo nu mi cpucpe toi)
01:22 < gleki> gocti: mi na tugni fi tu'a zo y pe do
01:22 < gocti> je'e .i ko va'o basygau lo laldo
01:23 < zipcpi> lo depsna na ka'e co'e zo zo
01:23 < gocti> oi
01:24 < gleki> mi lazni lo ka jai gau basti
01:24 < zipcpi> nitcu zo zo'oi ja lu lo depsna li'u
01:24 < gocti> .u'i
01:24 < gocti> (to ku'i do tugni fi lo laldo vau ie pei toi)
01:24 < mensi> ei mi tugni
01:24 < gleki> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mid-central_vowel.ogg <-- mi tugni
01:25 < gocti> jetce vitno
01:25 < gleki> lo do sance cu simsa zo o
01:25 < gocti> za'a bu'o
01:26 < gleki> i la'oi shwa cu simsa zo i e zo o e lo drata la'a
01:29 < zipcpi> lo si'o ce'u te mutce cu se erpi no da
01:30 < dutchie> cerni coi rodo
01:30 < zipcpi> coi
01:30 < gocti> coi
01:30 < gocti> gleki: mo'u stika
01:31 < gleki> zipcpi: the answer to {vi} is that it refers either to x1 of the bridi it is in or to the whole bridi.
01:31 < gleki> darn, we lack good terminology here.
01:32 < gleki> incita = x1 is a sumtcita tagging x2 and with its reverse place referring to x3 (e.g. the current bridi)
01:32 < gleki> i forgot what it is called in linguistics
01:34 < zipcpi> So {broda vi lo nu brode} = Broda happens near where Brode happens
01:34 < zipcpi> But {broda sevi lo nu brode} = Broda happens, nearby, Brode happens?
01:35 < zipcpi> The problem though is that our {mutce} tag as nothing to tag. It is {fi'o me'au no da}
01:36 < gocti> ma'i BPFK lo sumti pe zo vi cu ba'ei *ni* zvada'o
01:40 < gleki> yeah, lo se incita be zo vi tags the distance like e.g. mitre1
01:49 < zipcpi> That's strange. I always thought it acted like pu/ca/ba
01:50 < zipcpi> I thought that'd be better as {tevi} or something
01:50 < gleki> there is {ne'a} for what you want
01:51 < zipcpi> Right...
01:51 < gleki> anyway i cant find what incita3 is called in English
01:51 < zipcpi> Then what is the va/vu variants?
01:52 < zipcpi> And thus {vima} for "where" is deprecated
01:53 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/vi%20ma Yeah still in
01:53 < zipcpi> BPFK really needs to clean up JVS
01:53 < gleki> where is {bu'u ma}.
01:54 < zipcpi> I know
01:54 < gleki> not even {ne'a ma}
01:54  * zipcpi nods
01:54 < gleki> that {vi ma} sounds more like loglan legacy
01:54 < gleki> that lacked {bu'u}
01:54 < gleki> en: vi ma
01:54 < mensi> vi ma = [VA*] sumti question asking for a location: at/near what?. |>>> officialdata
01:54 < gleki> what
01:54 < zipcpi> lol Maybe. I think it was in the CLL
01:54 < gleki> oh, right.
01:54 < zipcpi> Or the wave lessons pepuzuku
01:54 < gleki> "near what"
01:54 < gleki> en: bu'u ma
01:54 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
01:55 < gleki> heh
01:55 < gleki> in Link Grammar there are just plus and minus links but no normal English terms for that. very strange.
01:55 < gleki> mensi: ko cnino
01:56 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
01:56 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
01:56 < gleki> en: incita
01:56 < mensi> incita = x1 is an adposition linking its complement (argument) x2 with x3 |>>> x2 can sometimes be called 'noun phrase
01:56 < mensi> of adposition'. x3 can be the current clause (lo bridi). |>>> gleki
01:57 < gleki> much better. than nothing
01:58 < zipcpi> Doesn't it need "by relation x4" or something?
02:00 < gleki> jb: bridi
02:00 < gleki> wow
02:00 < zipcpi> la mensi za'ure'u oicli'a
02:00 < gleki> yeah, i lost La Bangu
02:02  * nuzba @selpahi: @danmo_rozgu ŭaki'edoji'a .ixula.itkui'le do cinri .imidi'ajinvi lodu so'etaula.itkui'le cufrili ja sampu .iku'inandu fatauloleksiko #lojban [http://bit.ly/1KYjZqW]
02:05 < gleki> jb: bridi
02:05 < mensi> bridi = bridi — x1(text)  is a clause with the main verb  x2(property of nonce place, has places for ce'u referring to
02:05 < mensi> x3)  and having places  x3(ordered plural of entity)
02:05 < mensi> :lo bridi — grammatical clause. lo se bridi — main verb of a clause. lo te bridi — place of a grammatical clause.
02:05 < mensi> :lu ma nuzba li'u bridi — &quot;What's up?&quot; is a clause.
02:05 < mensi> :lu mi dunda ti do li'u bridi lo ka dunda vau mi ce'o ti ce'o do — &quot;I give this to you&quot; is a clause with the
02:05 < mensi> main verb &quot;give&quot; and sequential places &quot;I&quot;,&quot;this&quot;,&quot;you&quot;.
02:05 < mensi> :lu mi prami do li'u bridi lo ka ce'u prami ce'u vau mi ce'o do — &quot;I love you&quot; is a clause with the main verb
02:06 < mensi> &quot;someone loves so...
02:06 < mensi> [mo'u se katna] http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/bridi
02:17 < zipcpi> Where is that place where la selpa'i ranted about {lo te batke} while not having a general word for purpose/telos? I want to compare notes with {erpi}
02:18 < zipcpi> Hm I think {se erpi} is quite useful; most of the time when we say {cu se pilno fi ko'a} we really mean {cu se erpi ko'a}
02:20 < zipcpi> Now do we need a {fi'o erpi}... :p
02:21 < gleki> tefi'e
02:21 < zipcpi> Perhaps so
02:21 < zipcpi> Yeah sounds right
02:21 < gleki> jbo: vi
02:21 < mensi> vi = [VA] fi'o cmalu tersei be le fasnu bei le manri |>>> cmalu tersei |>>> xorxes
02:22 < gleki> jbo: ca
02:22 < mensi> ca = [PU] fi'o se cabna |>>> xorxes
02:23 < niftg> .u'i pu tcica viska zo serpi gi'esemu'ibo pensi zo sepfi noi li'anairu'edai se krasi lu se pilno fi ko'a li'u
02:23 < gleki> something like bridi but for sumtcita might be needed
02:47 < zipcpi> lo ka erpi cu ka sa'enai te pilno be fi zi'o
02:49 < zipcpi> simsa le laldo xelso sidbo be la'e zo .telos.
02:52 < zipcpi> lol I joked the other day about {atci} being the possible inverse of {itca}; but now I found {atcu}
02:56 < zipcpi> Tom was here before I was. -> {la .tom. pu zva'ati pu lo nu mi nei} ? Does nei work here or does it cause an infinite-loop?
03:04 < ctefaho> coi rodo
03:04 < dutchie> coi
03:05 < ctefaho> coi la'oi .dutchie.
03:05 < zipcpi> coi
03:05 < zipcpi> mi puzi finti zo na'oi je zo erpi
03:06 < zipcpi> .y.
03:06 < ctefaho> coi zipcpi
03:06 < zipcpi> zo nai'o
03:06 < ctefaho> I had an idea
03:06 < zipcpi> jenai zo na'oi
03:06 < ctefaho> for your iau
03:06 < zipcpi> ... Does it involve making /eu/ a diphthong?
03:06 < ctefaho> What do you get if you combine "vau" and "fa'o"?
03:06 < zipcpi> {vau'u} was my first suggested form
03:07 < ctefaho> well I was thinking vau'o
03:07 < zipcpi> The problem is that I really want it to be monosyllabic to basically act as a "I don't care how many {vau}s I need" thing
03:08 < zipcpi> I even use it when a single {vau} would suffice
03:08 < ctefaho> and vau'o doesn't do that?
03:08 < zipcpi> It does, but there's a reason I am pushing for monosyllabicity
03:09 < zipcpi> There's no use arguing now about what else it could be. Like I said, this idea started out as {vau'u}
03:09 < ctefaho> ma krinu
03:09 < zipcpi> I already told you why
03:09 < ctefaho> .i mi na jimpe
03:10 < zipcpi> zipcpi> The problem is that I really want it to be monosyllabic to basically act as a "I don't care how many {vau}s I need" thing
03:10 < zipcpi> {vau'u} or {vau'o} are disyllabic
03:10 < dutchie> why does it have to be monosyllabic for that purpose?
03:10 < ctefaho> go'i
03:10 < zipcpi> I want it to supersede {vau} for that purpose
03:11 < zipcpi> Cause right now many materials teach you to use {vau}; but the problem is that it only closes one bridi tail
03:11 < zipcpi> And I use it a /lot/
03:13 < dutchie> but surely you are at least breaking even even if you are only closing two bridi tails
03:13 < zipcpi> I started out suggesting {vau'u}, but then I started using it a lot
03:13 < ctefaho> and a disyllabic cmavo that resembles vau+fa'o won't do that job because...?
03:13 < zipcpi> The problem is that I don't want to think about whether I'm closing one or two
03:13 < dutchie> there's {i'au} also
03:13 < dutchie> for some purposes
03:14 < zipcpi> {i'au} is its current form
03:14 < zipcpi> {iau} is what I want to shorten it to
03:15 < dutchie> .ua i see how {vau'u} (or whatever) could generalise and supersede {i'au}/{iau}
03:15 < dutchie> but i'm not so convinced of the necessity of monosyllabicity (is that even a word)
03:15 < zipcpi> {vau'u}/{i'au}/{iau} are all the same thing (at least in this context)
03:16 < zipcpi> The idea has gone through many iterations
03:16 < zipcpi> It first was suggested as its own selma'o, then moved to UI, then moved to TOIhE
03:16 < dutchie> oh, i guess the definition on sutysisku/jbovlaste is out of date then
03:16 < zipcpi> And now there is talk about making it its own selma'o again
03:16 < zipcpi> vau'u isn't on JVS
03:17 < zipcpi> Unless someone else entered it while I wasn't looking
03:17 < dutchie> en:i'au
03:17 < mensi> i'au = [TOIhE] attitudinal scope modifier: marks following attitudinal/UI-cluster as applying to the entire sentence or
03:17 < mensi> statement
03:17 < dutchie> that's not quite the same as a "super-vau"
03:17 < dutchie> pe'i
03:17 < zipcpi> The idea *started* out as a super vau
03:17 < zipcpi> And now there is talk about making it supervau again
03:17 < ctefaho> so it will be like putting the UI behind the cu?
03:18 < zipcpi> So that it can be used for {xoi}
03:18 < ctefaho> Would you use a super-vau for anything besides putting UI after it?
03:18 < zipcpi> Like putting the UI at the start of the sentence
03:19 < ctefaho> speaking of xoi, has anyone proposed a xoi-based fi'o?
03:19  * ctefaho has and loves it
03:19 < zipcpi> Erm, xoi is already a way of expanding fi'o
03:19 < ctefaho> I mean defining fi'o as xoi
03:19  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa cipra fa
03:19  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa cipra fa
03:20 < zipcpi> Like I said; gone through many iterations. Most of these arguments have been hashed over already
03:20  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
03:20  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
03:20  * ctefaho slaps mumble around a bit with a large trout
03:21 < zipcpi> It started out as a super-vau but they questioned whether a new selma'o was necessary
03:21 < zipcpi> So I moved it to UI as just a general marker
03:21 < zipcpi> Then I discovered {toi'e}
03:21 < zipcpi> So I thought, why not
03:22 < zipcpi> But now they want to move it back to super-vau for {xoi}
03:22 < zipcpi> Doesn't make much difference for the attitudinal usage though
03:23 < ctefaho> make it xoi-s terminator?
03:23 < zipcpi> xoi already has a terminator; se'u
03:24 < zipcpi> No they want to put it *before* xoi
03:24 < ctefaho> .i mi djuno
03:24 < ctefaho> what
03:24 < ctefaho> the
03:24 < ctefaho> quack?
03:24 < zipcpi> To attach xoi to the main bridi instead of a sub bridi
03:24 < gocti> {.i mi djuno lo du'u mo kau lo nu broda fa lo nu broda .i'au xoi brodi
03:24 < gocti> }
03:25 < ctefaho> >_>
03:25 < ctefaho> coi la gocti
03:25 < gocti> coi la ctefa
03:25 < ctefaho> gocti, what zipcpi just said, is that basically new-zi'e?
03:26 < gocti> nah, with new-zi'e it would still attach to the innermost currently open bridi
03:26 < ctefaho> ua
03:26 < gocti> (and xoi zi'e is just soi)
03:26 < ctefaho> yeah, that I grasped
03:26 < ctefaho> :p
03:27 < ctefaho> but ok, different then
03:28 < gleki> zipcpi: la tom pu zvati ti pu lo nu mi no'a
03:28 < zipcpi> ki'e gleki
03:31 < zipcpi> Yeah I haven't bothered to reupdate the definition for the "super-vau-again for xoi" because we need to think about how that should be formalized.
03:32 < zipcpi> Also I wasn't the one who brought up the potential for use with xoi
03:33 < gleki> i think this xoi is just not needed. {ibo} will do the trick. although {lo nu go'i} might be too lengthy
03:33 < zipcpi> And what, you will put {ke'a} in the {ibo} sentence?
03:34 < gleki> lo nu go'i as i just said
03:34 < zipcpi> Also what if you *don't* want to close the entire sentence?
03:34 < gleki> en: xoi
03:34 < mensi> xoi = [XOI] Right-scoping adverbial clause: encloses a bridi and turns it into an adverbial term; the antecedent (ke'a)
03:34 < mensi> of the enclosed bridi stands for the outer bridi lo su'u no'a ku (the bridi in which this xoi term appears), including
03:34 < mensi> all the other adverbial terms (tags...) within this bridi located on the right of this xoi term (rightward scope). |>>>
03:34 < mensi> Terminator: se'u |>>> Ilmen
03:34 < zipcpi> xoi works even within a {nu} clause
03:34 < gleki> maybe i meant the new soi
03:34 < Ilmen> xoi si coi
03:35 < zipcpi> I'm not too familiar with the new soi
03:35 < gleki> Ilmen: what shifts to {.i} level, soi or xoi?
03:35 < Ilmen> None of them
03:36 < Ilmen> .i+tag is a good way to go back to the .i level
03:37 < gleki> what is the difference then again?
03:39 < Ilmen> The difference between soi and xoi is whether they're under the scope of the adverbials/quantifiers on their left
03:39 < Ilmen> broda naku soi brode != broda naku xoi brode
03:39 < zipcpi> Which one's which?
03:40 < Ilmen> {broda naku soi brode} = {broda xoi brode vau naku}
03:40 < zipcpi> So soi takes the scope, while xoi ignores it
03:40 < Ilmen> soi has topmost scope within its bridi, regardless of its position relatively to the other tags/quantifiers
03:41 < zipcpi> Huh...
03:41 < Ilmen> xoi has the same scope behavior as regular tags/quantifiers, it's under the scope of whatever is on its left
03:41 < zipcpi> Right
03:41 < zipcpi> So opposite of what I said
03:42  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
03:42  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
03:44 < ctefaho> ^bot should maybe wait a little before announcing, to avoid that when someone drops for a split second?
03:44 < gocti> ie
03:44 < Ilmen> ua
03:45 < Ilmen> cnino zmiku
03:45 < Ilmen> banli
03:47 < Mateon2> coi
03:47 < Ilmen> coi
03:47 < gocti> coi
03:47 < Mateon2> Why do we have 3/4 words for "enjoys"?
03:47 < Ilmen> Because people enjoy making words, li'a
03:47 < Ilmen> zo'o
03:48 < gocti> maybe the inventors had some toki pona spirit in them
03:48 < Ilmen> en: enjoy
03:48 < gleki> en: enjoy
03:48 < Mateon2> {pukfri}, {selpu'a} {zanfri} {datxlakempukfri}, though the last one is a bit different
03:48 < mensi> 5 da se tolcri: pukfri, selpu'a, zanfri, datxlakempukfri, zabna
03:48 < mensi> 5 da se tolcri: pukfri, selpu'a, zanfri, datxlakempukfri, zabna
03:49 < Mateon2> en: zabna
03:49 < mensi> zabna = x1 is favorable/great/superb/fabulous/dandy/outstanding/swell/admirable/nice/commendable/delightful/desirable/
03:49 < mensi> enjoyable/laudable/likable/lovable/wonderful/praiseworthy/high-quality/cool in property x2 by standard x3; x1 rocks in
03:49 < mensi> aspect x2 according to x3 |>>> See also mabla, xamgu, funca, vrude, banli. |>>> officialdata
03:49 < zipcpi> Yeah that last one is more like "schadenfreude" :p
03:50 < Ilmen> en:pluka
03:50 < mensi> pluka = x1 (event/state) seems pleasant to/pleases x2 under conditions x3.
03:50 < Ilmen> pukfri and selpu'a are based on {pluka}
03:51 < Ilmen> so, basically, x1 feels pleasure at doing x2
03:51 < niftg> za'a tavla fi la'oi gloss
03:51 < Ilmen> zanfri is zabna+lifri, so "x1 is having a great time/experience at doing x2", or something like that
03:52 < Ilmen> but I'm unsure whether there's really a difference between pukfri and zanfri
03:52 < niftg> ju'ocu'i gy ka'e na'e srana
03:53 < gleki> en: selpu'a
03:53 < mensi> selpu'a [< se pluka ≈ 2nd conversion please] = p2 enjoys p1 under condition p3. |>>> Cf. pluka, gleki. |>>>
03:53 < mensi> tijlan
03:53 < Ilmen> こんにちは、ニフさん！
03:54 < Ilmen> coi la .nif.
03:54 < niftg> .u'i suksa ponbau fa'o こんにちは、イルメンさん
03:54 < gleki> coi nif nif i coi naf naf i mi'e nuf nuf
03:55 < zipcpi> Mateon: You should see what I did with "purpose" or "love"
03:55 < niftg> .a'o su'o lo me zo nif jo'u zo naf jo'u nuf cu rafsi da
03:56 < gleki> rafsi:naf
03:56 < mensi> zo natfe se rafsi zo'oi naf
03:56 < gleki> rafsi:nuf
03:56 < mensi> y no da se tolcri
03:56 < gocti> zo .nif. rafsi lo kurtyvla
03:56 < gleki> rafsi:nif
03:56 < niftg> .uenai
03:56 < mensi> zo nicfa se rafsi zo'oi nif
03:56 < gleki> en: nicfa
03:56 < mensi> nicfa = x1 (vector) is the displacement of x2 (object/point) relative to x3 (object/point; contextless default: origin)
03:56 < mensi> in coordinate system/frame of reference/as measured by x4 according to definition/standard/(meta)physics x5 |>>> x1 is
03:56 < mensi> (four-)vector-valued; it is a function that maps to a tensor (probably a vector or scalar) to a (four-)vector. Units are
03:56 < mensi> handled in x1, which will be a (four-)vector of mitre or the like. Time of measurement is just «ca» or the argument of
03:56 < mensi> the function(s) in x1, or can be defined instantaneously by x4. Proposed short rafsi: -nif-. See also: nifkemtemsalri.
03:56 < mensi> |>>> krtisfranks
03:56 < gleki> tordu e
03:56 < gleki> si ue
03:57 < niftg> cmaci valsi vau xu
03:57 < zipcpi> karbi tordu jenai cu tordu
03:57 < zipcpi> .y.
03:57 < zipcpi> ja'a doi niftyg
03:58 < niftg> mi'e co'a nicfa .i'unai
04:04 < niftg> .a'inai banzu jimpe fi la'oi displacement
04:15 < mibadna> coi do.
04:15 < mibadna> coi do
04:15 < zipcpi> coi badna
04:15 < zipcpi> kukte badna
04:16 < zipcpi> aule'o
04:18 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/scope_of_na lol yeah I agree with the proposed better solution
04:18 < zipcpi> I mean why keep {ro da poi te gusni na solji}
04:19 < dutchie> mi ralte pa lo badna .i mi bazi citka by.
04:19 < zipcpi> When {naku ro da poi te gusni cu solji} is much clearer
04:19 < zipcpi> It's just a logical garden path
04:21 < mibadna> are we allowed to talk in English if we are still new to lojban?
04:21 < zipcpi> Yes
04:21 < phma> coi
04:21 < mibadna> coi
04:21 < zipcpi> #jbosnu is for pure Lojban, while #ckule is specifically for learning
04:22 < mibadna> thanks, i'll head to #ckule
05:09  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Gleki - /* Lesson 6. Time, space, situation */ [http://bit.ly/1SnHzQa]
05:19 < Rodericus> h
05:20  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
05:23 < ciuak-afk> ?
05:25  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa eqil fa
05:26 < nifyfonx> .u'i lo za'u zo fa lo na'e se slabu be ri cu jai cfipu ja'a
05:27 < nifyfonx> mi ji'a me lo se go'i
05:30 < nifyfonx> secau la xorlo ma dunli lu re lo ci mi li'u mu'a
05:30 < Ilmen> sei stace mi na djuno
05:31 < akmnlrse> simlu lo ka funsi lo du'u xu kau zo mi sinxa lo gunma kei noi na se djuno mi
05:31 < Ilmen> .i .e'u ru'e lu re cmima be lo'i ci mi li'u .i ku'i mi na sai birti
05:32 < Ilmen> .i mi se fange lo xorlo claxu jbobau
05:32 < nifyfonx> sei kanpe su'o lo sumgadri cu plixau vau ju'ocu'i
05:41  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa niftyg fa
05:44 < zipcpi> zei: mumble
05:44 < zipcpi> oi
05:44 < niftg> .ua re lo ci zo fa cu sinxa lo re fanmo pe lo sitna ke fange valsi vau po'o
05:44 < zipcpi> lu <ze'oi mu ruble> li'u
05:46 < zipcpi> .y.
05:46 < zipcpi> exp: jorne co'a fa la'o fa niftyg fa
05:46 < zipcpi> oi
05:46 < niftg> zo ze'oi zo'u nitcu lo fa'orma'o vau xu
05:46 < Eogan> Lu -li'u is related to lo-ku structure I presume?
05:46 < zipcpi> la mensi ba'o oicli'a
05:46 < dutchie> {lu}/{li'u} quote text
05:46 < Eogan> Ah...
05:46 < zipcpi> na nitcu .i galfi lo papo'o valsi
05:46 < niftg> .uenai .ua je'e
05:48 < niftg> lu me la'e zo mu ruble li'u dunli .ua
05:48 < zipcpi> do'a go'i
05:51 < zipcpi> zo ze'oi na mutce satci .i lu <ko'a ze'oi coi> li'u ka'e se smuni lo du'u <ko'a cu cusku zo coi> jo'u lo du'u <ko'a cu me zo coi> jo'u lo du'u <ko'a cu rinsa ko'e> li'o
05:51 < zipcpi> eye
05:51 < zipcpi> .i lu <ko'a ze'oi coi> li'u ka'e se smuni lo du'u <ko'a cu cusku zo coi> kei jo'u lo du'u <ko'a cu me zo coi> kei jo'u lo du'u <ko'a cu rinsa ko'e> li'o
05:53 < niftg> la'a simsa lo seltau noi zvati lo stuzi be lo tertau
05:56 < zipcpi> .ie sa'u sa'enai simsa za'e lu coi zei co'e li'u
05:57 < niftg> .u'a
06:13 < ruaim> saluton ĉiuj
06:13 < Ilmen> Saluton
06:16 < gleki> ue
06:16 < ruaim> saluton Ilmen. Mi pardon petas por mia esperanton, sed mi ankoraŭ ne parolas lojban. mi volas lerni
06:17 < dutchie> "for discussion ... about Lojban in any language"
06:17 < egrep> Hah.
06:17 < zipcpi> xcuaxoe &%(UGKh uahaxk23 uieoih zxau
06:17 < zipcpi> u
06:17 < Ilmen> dutchie: They're discussing Lojban, so it's fine :)
06:18 < dutchie> Ilmen: i assumed as much
06:18 < gleki> kio estas "pardon petas"?
06:19 < gleki> kaj "por mia esperanto". ne bezonas akuzativon post prepozicioj.
06:19 < Ilmen> ruaim: Bone; mi ja povas paroli Esperanton; tamen ne estas multe da lerniloj helpantaj Esperantparolantojn lerni Loĵbanon, bedaŭrinde
06:19 < Mateon1> coi
06:19 < niftg> {cpedu lo nu fraxu}?
06:19 < Ilmen> gleki: "pardonpetas", "peti pardonon"
06:19 < Ilmen> niftg: Jes
06:20 < gleki> ah, unu vorto
06:20 < Mateon1> So, does this mean that in this channel we can't speak Lojban unless we're speaking about lojban? :P
06:20 < Mateon1> Remove the capital*
06:20 < gleki> yes, either in Lojban or about Lojban
06:20 < ruaim> jes, unu vorto!
06:20 < Ilmen> Or both
06:20 < Ilmen> :p
06:20 < gleki> gi'a sa'e
06:20 < Ilmen> ruaim: Kiu estas via unua lingvo?
06:21 < Mateon1> Anyways, is anybody willing to help me with pronounciation? When I read texts and compare with other readings I often don't catch some errors on my part, probably making them worse.
06:21 < Ilmen> Se ne malĝentilas tio, ke mi demandas.
06:22 < gleki> Mateon1: feel fee to ask or send your recordings
06:22 < gleki> *free
06:22 < Mateon1> There is a difference between these two :P Anyways, understood
06:22 < Ilmen> Mateon1: Several lojbanists are currently connected to the Lojban Mumble server
06:23 < Ilmen> there people can voice chat in Lojban
06:23 < Mateon1> Been thinking about that, I need to set up my phone since I don't have a mic, I'll need to fumble a bit with the settings as well
06:24 < Ilmen> the "push to talk" option is nice for avoiding fiddling with loudness thresholds
06:24 < ruaim> mia patro parolos esperanton ekde anfanaĝo
06:24 < cflep> Coi
06:24 < Ux> Does lojban has its own pronunciation and enunciation quirks (like frnch) or is it a limited set of sounds (italian, spanish)
06:25 < Ilmen> Ux: It has a transparent/phonological spelling
06:25 < cflep> every lettes makes a sound, it doesn't change when combined
06:25  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
06:25 < Ilmen> The rule is: only one letter per sound, only one sound per letter
06:25 < Ilmen> @ Ux
06:25 < ruaim> mia patrino ofte japanon parolos
06:26 < Ilmen> ruaim: Imprese!
06:26 < Ux> Eogan=Ux (different device as I am too dumb to set up any bouncers or servers for IRC)
06:26 < Ilmen> Mi parolas Japanlinvon ankaŭe, sed mi ne tre lertas
06:26 < Ux> I like this rule
06:26 < Ilmen> @ ruaim
06:26  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon's mic fa
06:27 < cflep> Is there somebody who want's to teach me? I've just learned the SE-words
06:27 < Ilmen> coi
06:27 < ruaim> lertas?
06:28 < ruaim> @Ilmen
06:28 < zipcpi> I don't quite have a lesson plan like Idlework did... you can try this though : http://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_Crash_Course_(a_draft)
06:28 < gleki> lernas versxajne
06:29 < gleki> cflep: yeah, just ask questions, try to construct sentences
06:29 < Ilmen> ruaim: hmmm, mi pu kredis, ke tiu vorto ja ekzistas, mi estas konfuza
06:29 < gleki> you may also search for good or bad translations in tatoeba.org database e.g. here and repot them mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/muplis/index.html
06:29 < Ilmen> ruaim: eble estas hispana vorto
06:29 < Ilmen> eo: certu
06:29 < mensi> certu = x1 estas spertulo/profesiulo pri x2 (okazo/ago) laŭ normo x3 |>>> Ankaŭ: kompetenta, lerta.  Vidu ankaŭ djuno,
06:29 < mensi> stati, kakne. |>>> xorxes
06:29 < gleki> Ilmen: do ba'e pu kredis xu
06:30 < Ux> Btw, goodsports, how many languages and to what depth each of you know?
06:30 < Ilmen> "sperti" estas la vorto, ke mi volis uzi
06:30 < gleki> ie
06:30 < gleki> x1 spertas ...
06:30 < cflep> Luxembourgsih, French, German and English I'm learning Swedish and I understand Dutch
06:31 < Ilmen> Do, mi ne tre spertas, ĉar mi jam vorton mankas
06:31 < cflep> Luxembourgish*
06:31 < Ux> My list would be Ru[101%], Lt[98], Ger[88], Eng[89], Fr[30], It[30], Swe[1], Gr[2], Esp[5], Jap[12], Pl[30-50], lojban[1]
06:31 < ruaim> Ilmen: hispana lingvo parolas?
06:31 < mindszenty> Luxembourgish! That's so cool.
06:31 < Ux> My subjective percentages of learning
06:31 < cflep> wow that's a lot
06:31 < zipcpi> Hm CKTJ zo'u: How about {jei} for {jo'u} instead? I know hex digits are hardly used, but it's desirable to keep them monosyllabic
06:32 < Ilmen> I speak French, English, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto, Lojban and am learning German
06:32 < cflep> Luxembourgish has a lot in commun with German
06:32 < Ux> I live in Europe and hold it for a lack of respect to not be able to express yourself in a given country
06:32 < cflep> Oh German, das freut mich
06:33 < gleki> mi rusko
06:33 < cflep> How old are you?
06:33 < zipcpi> But then we'd have to call it "cekitaujei" instead :p
06:33 < Mateon1> Oh god, I think this is the same effect that you can't speak clearly if you listen to what you just said with slight delay. I think I'll just use my phone
06:34 < Ux> So I can get around and understand a reply in Greek and Spanish, but no more than that
06:34 < Ux> But it is already a foundation to move forward with it
06:34 < cflep> yeah but that's already enough
06:34 < ruaim> mi ĉiam forgesas "ĉu", mi pardonpetas. Mi provos memori ĝin!
06:35  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon's mic fa
06:35 < Ilmen> ruaim: ĉu vi bone parolas Japanlingvon?
06:35 < gleki> ruaim: cxu vi tute ne parolas la anglan?
06:35 < Ilmen> ruaim: Estas pli multe da Japanlingvaj Loĵban-kursoj ol Esperantlinvaj kursoj, ŝajne
06:36 < Ux> I am actively learning french, italian, swedish, japanese, polish and lojban (since yesterday), soon I'll get my german and english backed by an official paper
06:36 < ruaim> En japanon, "ĉu" vorto ne estas...
06:36 < Ux> swedish was just a dare
06:36 < demize> Sounds like a boring dare. ;p
06:37 < cflep> Oh I love Swedish ( Jag älskar svenska)
06:37 < ruaim> gleki: Ne multo...
06:37 < ctefaho> swedish
06:37 < ctefaho> Swedish?
06:37 < Ux> To get proficient in Swe in 5 weeks?
06:37 < ctefaho> who
06:37 < ctefaho> what
06:37 < Ux> Not very boring
06:37 < Ilmen> ruaim: La simplaj Loĵbanaj vortoj estas tradukitaj al Esperanto, sed mi ne konscias pri ajna bona gramatika kurso
06:37 < Ilmen> Tamen oni povas lerni per IRC
06:37 < demize> mi na nelci lo sfe'ero
06:37 < mensi> sei mi stace mi bi'u na mutce nelci
06:38 < Ilmen> pluraj Loĵbanistoj ja kapablas je Esperanto
06:38 < cflep> It's a bit confusing with the en anka -> ankan
06:38 < Ux> I wonder now if there are other lang learning IRC channels out there
06:38 < Ux> That would help me a lot
06:38 < gleki> Ux: i usually use whatsapp
06:38 < gleki> ive seen only ##espanol
06:38 < ruaim> mi parolas japanon bone!
06:38 < cflep> Well, I could help you in French, German or Luxembourgish
06:39 < Ilmen> 順調！
06:39 < Ux> Hmm I need to check that out
06:40 < ruaim> みんなも日本語話せる？
06:40 < niftg> うん
06:40 < dutchie> now i feel rather inadequate only being able to speak English, French and German
06:40 < Ux> The trouble is that french and espagnol fight, because they have so many similar words
06:40 < dutchie> I can do some Latin too
06:40 < niftg> .u'i nau bangu vrici
06:40 < cflep> dutchie, du you speak Dutch?
06:40 < ruaim> mein deutsch ist nicht so gut...
06:40 < Ux> I learned Japanese by ear
06:40 < cflep> Deutsch ist doch einfach
06:41 < ruaim> Deutsch ist sehr schwer
06:41 < Ux> Still bad with my hiragana/katakana, and haven't even started with kanji
06:41 < dutchie> dutch i vaguely understand only by comparison with english/german
06:41 < dutchie> <-- mi glico
06:41 < cflep> Nein, viel einfacher als Französisch
06:41 < Ilmen> Ux: Oh, I've experienced that with Spanish and Esperanto
06:41 < gleki> Ux: i stopped learning spanish exactly for this reason since i tried to portugalize it in my head
06:41 < Ux> Nö doch, Deutch ist einfach relativ
06:41 < zipcpi> I know some Chinese and Malay but I'm a lot less fluent than I used to be. Lack of exposure T.T
06:41  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon2 fa
06:42 < ruaim> Aber ich spräche(?) gern Deutsch
06:42 < cflep> dutchi: oh, it's just because of your name...
06:42 < cflep> dutchie: oh, it's just because of your name...
06:42 < dutchie> i get that a lot :)
06:42 < gleki> ue la'oi dutchie cu dotco
06:42 < Ilmen> Yay, many languages at work \o/
06:43 < cflep> Das beste ist, dass man einfach Wörter zusammensetzen kann
06:43 < Ux> I'd rather use "wurde/würde gern sprechen" much less room for error with this one
06:43 < cflep> yeah, that would be better
06:43 < Ilmen> ruaim: https://ja.wikibooks.org/wiki/%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B8%E3%83%90%E3%83%B3
06:44 < dutchie> i am dutchie because my surname is "Holland"
06:44 < dutchie> nothing to do with nationality
06:44 < Ux> Ok it is "würde"
06:44 < gleki> ua na dotco
06:44  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon2 fa
06:44 < Ux> wurde is passive form
06:44 < cflep> That's cool
06:44 < Ux> I tend to mix these up
06:44 < Ilmen> あなたに役立つと思います
06:44 < Ilmen> @ ruaim
06:45  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon2 fa
06:45 < Ux> Japanese lojban... I am impressed
06:45 < Ux> Is mumble a bot?
06:45 < Ilmen> It is
06:45 < cflep> The thing is, most Luxembourgish people learned German by watching TV. It's so near for example: Das Auto ist rot.   would be     Den Auto ass rout.
06:46 < Ilmen> Ux: Mumble is a voice chat program
06:46 < Ilmen> this IRC bot tells who joins and leaves the Mumble server
06:46  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon2 fa
06:46 < gleki> who made this bot btw?
06:46 < Ilmen> I don't know; Cirko, I think
06:47 < Mateon1> I'm having trouble with mumble
06:47 < Mateon1> It keeps crashing on my phone
06:47 < Ilmen> ruaim: http://mw.lojban.org/lmw/lojban_wavelessons_%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E7%89%88
06:47 < Ilmen> Tio ankaŭe estas bona kurso
06:48 < niftg> lo ponbau uitkicukta pe lo jbobau zo'u stika nitcu ki'u lo nu laldo
06:48 < Ilmen> ŭa
06:48 < ruaim> Ilmen: Kio estas via favorata(j) lingvo(j)?
06:48 < Ux> Esperanto is oddly comprehensible to me
06:48 < ruaim> あー、ありがとう、Ilmen!
06:48 < Ilmen> ruaim: Malfacila demando
06:49 < gleki> Ux: можно еще русский добавить
06:49 < niftg> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/%E5%AD%A6%E7%BF%92 日本語での教材リスト
06:50 < ruaim> みんなありがとうね
06:50 < Ilmen> どういたしまして
06:50 < cflep> Mi baupli lojbau
06:50 < niftg> .ua pu'iku tu'a la'oi wavelesson cu se stidi
06:51 < Ilmen> ̂̂̂̂̂^^
06:51 < cflep> that's to compilquated
06:51 < ruaim> en loĵban, kio estas "."
06:51 < niftg> .u'i'i
06:52  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
06:52 < zipcpi> mi baupli lo jbobau
06:52 < Ux> В смысле, куда добавить?
06:52 < Ux> @gleki
06:52 < zipcpi> mi baupli jbobau = "I am a language-user-ish Lojban-language"
06:52 < gleki> сюда, в чат для разнообразия.
06:53 < gleki> В Ложбанистане сегодня день полиглотов
06:53 < Ilmen> ruaim: la litero [.] signas etan pauzon aŭ glota halto
06:53 < Ilmen> *glotan halton
06:53 < zipcpi> Or just {mi se jbobau} would do :p
06:53 < cflep> ehm....
06:53 < gleki> that would do too doi zipcpi
06:53 < Ux> Праздник
06:54 < ruaim> kie la frazo finas?
06:54 < Ux> I need to use translit.ru as I have no russian keyboard on my PC
06:54 < zipcpi> cflep: Remember the lesson about {lo ... ku}? Except this time I left out the {ku}; in many places, but not all, {ku} can be left out; at the end of a sentence is one example
06:54 < gleki> для русскоязычных тоже почти ничего нет. лень переводить
06:54 < gleki> словарь только
06:54 < ruaim> estas malfelica, ne ĝi estas...
06:55 < Ilmen> kio ne estas kia
06:55 < Ilmen> ?
06:55 < gleki> и это http://mw.lojban.org/papri/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%9B%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0
06:55 < cflep> Do I have to leave them out or is it an option?
06:55 < Ilmen> cflep: Learn what?
06:55 < zipcpi> It's optional
06:55 < gleki> alguem fala portugues aqui ? :)
06:56 < cflep> ok, then i'll not do it ;D
06:56 < zipcpi> lol You'll learn in time when they could and couldn't be left out
06:57 < zipcpi> Hmm... I can think of some things to tell you in #ckule
06:57 < cflep> but for now it's to compilquated
06:57 < cflep> ok
06:57 < Ilmen> cflep: You can see lo...ku as a circumposition
06:57 < Ilmen> although the "ku" is most of the time elidible
06:57 < ruaim> Ilmen: Mi ne povas vidi la finon de la frazon
06:58 < Ilmen> ruaim: Kiun frazon?
06:59  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa eqil fa
06:59 < Ilmen> Malfacilas atenti unutempe multajn aferojn; kutime la aktiveco ne estas tiom intensa tie ĉi :)
06:59 < ruaim> ajna loĵban frazon Ilmen
06:59 < Ilmen> okej
07:00  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa akti fa
07:00  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa akti fa
07:00 < gleki> mi'e la akti
07:00 < Ilmen> ŭa
07:01 < gleki> ca da ma'a pu tende tu'a zo'oi VCCV
07:03 < niftg> la'a la'oi ruaim nu'o jimpe fi zo .i noi jufra krasi
07:03 < ruaim> Ĉu ni devus privatbabili?
07:03 < ruaim> @Ilmen
07:07 < ruaim> niftgわかんないよ
07:08 < ruaim> English is confusing
07:09 < ruaim> I do not understand how do you speak it...
07:09 < niftg> ごめん。自分はまだエスペラントは上手くないので。
07:10 < ruaim> いいよ！このlojbanわかんないよ！
07:13 < ruaim> あんたは日本語話すのがいいだ！
07:13 < niftg> Mi pensas, ke vi ankoraux ne scias pri {i} lojxbana
07:15 < ruaim> うん
07:17 < ruaim> lojban学んでみたいよ
07:18 < niftg> Mi vidas, ke Ilmen nun instruas alian homon, kiu ankaux volas scii pri lojxbano
07:18 < Ilmen> Jes
07:18 < Ilmen> Mi bedaŭras, mi ne vidis tion, ke vi estis diskutantaj
07:21 < ruaim> mi baldaŭ revenos
07:29 < Ilmen> Okej
07:33 < niftg> zoi .ebu. "Nenio estas fino de frazo en lojxbano. Sed malfino ekzistas." .ebu. banzu xu
07:33 < niftg> .u'i se'i zo'oi malfino
07:33 < Ilmen> Bona frazo
07:38 < niftg> mi nu'o kanpe lo nu su'oda ca'a gaurtcini lo nu ctuca fo lo lojbo bau lo spero
07:38 < gleki> ie
07:38 < gleki> i'i
07:39 < niftg> .u'u srera tu'a lo terbri be zo gaurtcini
07:39 < gleki> en: gaurtcini
07:39 < mensi> gaurtcini [< gasnu tcini ≈ Do condition] = t1 is an opportunity for t2=g1 to do g2. |>>> Cf. tcini, gasnu, funca. |>>>
07:39 < mensi> tijlan
07:40 < gleki> ue
07:40 < ruaim> な、なるほど！
07:43 < niftg> en IRC oni ne kutime uzas {.i}, kio estas "malfino" de frazo.
07:43 < ruaim> mlatu　=kato estas
07:43 < ruaim> lo mlatu=kato estisto
07:45 < niftg> "io, kiu estas kato"?
07:48 < ruaim> jes jes!
07:48 < ruaim> facile estas!
07:48 < gleki> mlatu = esti kato
07:48 < gleki> lo mlatu = iu kiu estas kato
07:49 < gleki> {mlatu} estas verbo.
07:49 < gleki> {lo mlatu} estas  substantivo
07:50 < ruaim> dankon!
07:50  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
07:50 < gleki> (versxajne estas necesa traduki mian enkondukon en Lojxbanon en Esperanton)
07:54  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
07:54  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
07:54  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
07:56 < ruaim> ti=これ　
07:56 < ruaim> ta=それ
07:56 < ruaim> tu=あれ
07:56 < ruaim> そうね？
07:57 < niftg> そんな感じ
07:57 < Ux> Has it just turned into japanese lessons???
07:58 < niftg> .u'u
07:58 < niftg> ta'o zo .u'u simsa zo'oi oops
07:59 < ruaim> No Japanese is learning
07:59 < gleki> Ux: looks like. that's why we have three channels
07:59 < ruaim> I use Japanese to learn
08:01 < niftg> nitcu lo za'umoi ke ckule se irci
08:03 < ruaim>  ĉu vi scias mi ne ankoraŭ loĵbano parolas? mi lernas...
08:04 < ruaim> mi ne volis ofendi... mi pardonpetas
08:05 < niftg> ne estas problemo.
08:07 < niftg> mi ankaux pardonpetas, ke mi kutime parolas en lojxbano por nur lojxbanisto.
08:09  * nuzba @selpahi: Tê îmmo'l öin-n akác íčeitokç ke eqolet'. | Random #Itkhkuil phrases http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/random-phrases-according-to-my-mother-the-person-who-hit-you-likes-to-travel (gloss + audio) (#lojban) [http://bit.ly/1G3oATh]
08:09  * nuzba @uitki: L17-04 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-04 by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1dKj2W0]
08:09 < Eogan> Sumimasen, watashi wa sore o subete no kõhõ o motte
08:10 < Eogan> I bet I made mistakes there anyway
08:12 < niftg> ta'o zo'oi kõhõ cu se smuni ma .i secau lo anji cu smuvrici mutce
08:33  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa SuperUser fa
08:35  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa zipcpi fa
08:37  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa SuperUser fa
08:37  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa SuperUser fa
08:38  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa SuperUser fa
08:38  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa SuperUser fa
08:41  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa SuperUser fa
08:53 < cflep> coi
08:53 < niftg> coi la .cflep.
08:55 < cflep> If I could, I would say how are you in Lojban...
08:57 < niftg> so'ida cusku lu {do mo} li'u
08:57 <@xalbo> The most common is {do mo} or {pei do mo}. It's a much more broad question than English "How are you?", also encompassing things like "What's up (with you)?" and "Who are you?"
08:58 < cflep> ok thanks
08:58 < zipcpi> {mo} is a "pro-verb"
08:59 < zipcpi> Just like {do} is a "pronoun"
08:59 < zipcpi> {mo}, specifically, is the interrogative pro-verb
08:59 < zipcpi> {ma} is the interrogative pronoun
09:00 < zipcpi> {ma vecnu lo gerku}= "Who sells dogs?" Note that {ma} can mean both who or what depending on context
09:00 < cflep> so {mo do}   is "How(are) you"
09:01 < zipcpi> Generally is {do mo}; it's more natural because if the answer is {kanro} "is-healthy", it completes as {mi kanro} "I am healthy"
09:02 < zipcpi> You don't have to move your question words to the beginning, unlike English
09:02 < zipcpi> {la .tom. cu vecnu ma} = "What does Tom sell?"
09:03 < cflep> What about {ma lo gerku ku se vecnu do}
09:03 < zipcpi> = {ma se vecnu lo gerku ku do} = "Who sold a dog to you?"
09:04 < akmnlrse> "what did the dog sell you?"
09:04 < zipcpi> Erm...
09:04 < zipcpi> Oops, forgot the se
09:04 < zipcpi> Yeah akmnlrse is right
09:04 < cflep> what I wanted to say is Which dog did you buy?
09:04 < zipcpi> Ah... which
09:05  * ctefaho waves around selpai'is latest gadri idea
09:05 < zipcpi> That's a funny thing... Lojban for the longest time, had a hard time dealing with "which"; the simplest was {ma noi gerku cu se vecnu fi do}
09:06 < zipcpi> Which relied on embedding an additional clause with {noi}
09:06 < zipcpi> But now... we have {mo'oi}
09:06 < zipcpi> {mo'oi} is like {lo}
09:06 < zipcpi> Except it is an interrogative article
09:06 < zipcpi> {mo'oi gerku cu se vecnu fi do}
09:07 < cflep> how do I know if it's present or futur or past?
09:07 < zipcpi> Lojban has no mandatory tense marking
09:07 < dutchie> good question!
09:07 < zipcpi> But it has ways to mark tenses
09:07 < cflep> and what is the "fi"
09:07 < zipcpi> {ca}, {ba}, {pu}
09:07 < zipcpi> Oh
09:07 < zipcpi> {fi} tags the x3
09:08 < zipcpi> {lo gerku cu se vecnu do} = A dog is sold by you.
09:08 < zipcpi> {lo gerku cu se vecnu fi do} = A dog is sold to you
09:08 < dutchie> do you know about {zo'e}?
09:08  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada2 fa
09:09 < cflep> ah so se+fi switches x2-> x1 and x3->x2
09:09 < zipcpi> {zo'e} is another solution; it's the "elliptical pronoun", something like "something/someone"
09:09 < zipcpi> fi "jumps" to x3
09:09  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada2 fa
09:09 < zipcpi> fi is part of a set
09:09 < zipcpi> fa fe fi fo fu
09:09 < zipcpi> fa jumps to x1
09:09 < zipcpi> fe jumps to x2
09:09 < zipcpi> etc
09:10 < cflep> ok, but the tenses... could you give some exemples please?
09:10 < zipcpi> lol
09:10 < zipcpi> OK
09:10 < zipcpi> mi ca vecnu = I am selling
09:11 < zipcpi> mi pu vecnu = I was selling
09:11 < zipcpi> mi ba vecnu = I will sell (in the future; do note that this isn't an adequate translation for many uses of English "will")
09:11 < cflep> do you know any other language, because English is a bit special with the tenses...
09:11 < zipcpi> I know a little bit of Malay and Chinese
09:12 < zipcpi> But not enough to construct examples on the fly, and I don't know if you speak them
09:12 < cflep> I can't speak those languages at all...
09:12 < zipcpi> OK
09:13 < cflep> and what about "I would sell this dog, if it was taller."
09:13 < cflep> and the oher conditionals
09:14 < zipcpi> {ai mi vecnu le meti gerku .ijanai da'i ri rajycla zmadu
09:15 < zipcpi> This uses a lot of constructs that you aren't quite familiar yet... :p
09:15 < cflep> oh that looks complicated
09:16 < cflep> So, could you tell me please something about the plurals?
09:17 < zipcpi> OK... there are no real plurals in Lojban. There is {loi}, but it's not a mere plural, but also groups them into a single entity
09:17 < akmnlrse> {lo gerku} is vague as to number, {lo pa gerku} is one dog, {lo za'u gerku} is more than one
09:17 < zipcpi> {lo za'u pa gerku}
09:17 < zipcpi> Or just {lo so'o gerku} "Several dogs"
09:18 <@xalbo> In English, "dogs" is used for any case other than one (including two dogs, or three, or twenty-million). Only the case of a single dog is treated separately. In Lojban, that case isn't treated separately.
09:20  * nuzba @lycaon_ebooks: I'm not HAPPY ABOUT IT dark souls was such a shitty teen lojban is the "um, actually" of [http://bit.ly/1Lfz0Ww]
09:20  * nuzba @uitki: bauspo fazykamni - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/bauspo_fazykamni by Cirko - /* ni'o lo tadji */ za'a mi za'u roi srera tau zo ce [http://bit.ly/1Gt77G3]
09:20  * nuzba @oka_iu_tcan: #lojban oi uanai ma'i la ilmentufa lo'u pu nu'i ti ta nu'u le'u du lu pu ku nu'i ti ta nu'u .i la'e di'u cu natfe zo'ei la cylyly [http://bit.ly/1Gt829C]
09:20  * nuzba @oka_iu_tcan: @oka_iu_tcan srana la'oi http://lojban.github.io/cll/10/25/ [http://bit.ly/1LfAH6m]
09:21 < cflep> what's that green script there?
09:22 < durka42> what green script
09:22 < durka42> coi
09:22 < cflep> coi
09:22 <@xalbo> nuzba is a bot that collects any mentions of "lojban" on twitter and mirrors them here.
09:22 < cflep> doesn't matter
09:23 < cflep> oh thank you
09:23 < ctefaho> https://twitter.com/lycaon_ebooks/status/611201687307595776
09:23 < durka42> @lycaon_ebooks seems to be a markov generator...
09:23 < ctefaho> whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
09:23 < durka42> mi na viska su'o crino uanai
09:24 <@xalbo> Different IRC clients use different colors for different nicks. On mine, nuzba is green. Apparently for cflep nuzba is green (or it does all actions as green, or something).
09:24 < durka42> ua
09:25 < durka42> I switched to Colloquy yesterday and now all nicks are blue
09:25 < durka42> well they were an eye-bleeding shade of green so I changed them to blue
09:25 < cflep> Is there also one for FB?
09:25  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
09:26 <@xalbo> I don't think so.
09:26 <@xalbo> Apparently there's one for mumble.
09:26 < durka42> yeah is that one new
09:26 <@xalbo> I think so.
09:27 < Ilmen> Yeah, I didn't see it the previous days
09:27 < durka42> I figured you had made it, Ilmen
09:29 < Ilmen> durka42: Nope, I think it's Cirko
09:29 < Ilmen> but I'm unsure
09:34  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
09:47  * nuzba @neilthawani: @Bishopanonymous Two things that may interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/technology-changes-memory_n_4414778.html [http://bit.ly/1Gtb7qa]
09:54 < niftg> .ua la okaiutcan puza patsku tu'a lo nu'i zei jufra pe la ilmentufa
09:55 < niftg> cu'u la nuzba
09:55 < zipcpi> k: dze'oinu'i
09:55 < mensi> (CU [Z:dze'oinu'i VAU])
09:56 < zipcpi> Hmm... interesting, maybe we could use that to make zi'evla out of cmavo concepts without proper brivla
09:56 < zipcpi> k: dze'oize'oi
09:56 < mensi> (CU [Z:dze'oize'oi VAU])
09:57 < durka42> mi dze'oi'oi
10:22 < Ilmen> en: baurnuludu
10:22 < mensi> baurnuludu = x1 is the language with ISO 639-3 code ''nld'' (Flemish, Dutch). |>>> See also bangu |>>>
10:22 < mensi> glekizmiku
10:28 < gleki> en: bergamot
10:29 < mensi> bergamia = x1 is a bergamot orange of variety/cultivar x2
10:32  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa niek fa
10:32  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa niek fa
10:32  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa niek fa
10:32 < niek> oi
10:32  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
10:36 < zipcpi> oi co'u gendra
10:37 < zipcpi> k: bergamiia
10:37 < mensi> (CU [Z:bergamiia VAU])
10:37 < zipcpi> k: bergami'a
10:37 < mensi> (CU [Z:bergami'a VAU])
10:38 < zipcpi> k: bergamo
10:38 < mensi> (CU [Z:bergamo VAU])
10:38 < zipcpi> Yeah I think the last one is the best
10:49 < phma> bergamota
10:49 < gleki> bergumota
10:49 < phma> not to be confused with garmudi, which is the other, unrelated, fruit called bergamot (a pear)
10:49 < gleki> en: garmudi
10:49 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:50 < gleki>  Monarda fistulosa ?
10:50 < Ux> Which one is added to a tea?
10:51 < phma> The orange EO.
10:53 < phma>  From the Italian word 'bergamotto', that derives from the arab: "beg-armudi or beg armut ("prince's pear" or "prince of pears)
10:53 < gleki> interest = The price paid for obtaining, or price received for providing, money or goods in a credit transaction, calculated as a fraction of the amount or value of what was borrowed.
10:53 < gleki> How to say all that in Lojban?
10:53 < phma> I think the g is supposed to be yumuşak, but I'm no Turk. It's Turkish, not Arabic.
10:54 < gleki> {dejyterze'a} is just a new word not explaining anything
10:54 < phma> let's see. jbera...
10:55 < gleki> credit transaction. it's related to {dejni}, okay. but i dont understand much more.
10:55 < gleki> at least is interest = jdima lonu degji?
10:55 < gleki> or {jdima lonu pleji}?
10:57 < phma> parbi...
10:57 < gleki> i guess credit transaction here is more related to how banks work.
10:58 < gleki> en: dejyterze'a
10:58 < mensi> dejyterze'a [< dejni te zenba ≈ Owe 3rd conversion increase] = z3 is the interest on debt z1=d2 of debtor d1 to creditor
10:58 < mensi> d3. |>>> Cf. dejni, zenba, terdejni, kagyseldejni, ze'i zei seldejni, ze'u zei seldejni, paurseldejni, fairprali, jbera,
10:58 < mensi> jdini, banxa. |>>> totus
10:59 < gleki> ko'i te zenba fi lo se dejni be fo'a bei fo'i
10:59 < gleki> why te zenba here?
11:00 < zipcpi> Do we need more zi'o?
11:00 < zipcpi> I have a bunch of spare zi'o laying around
11:00 < zipcpi> No one seems to want to buy them
11:03 < rutytar1> lo'u .cy. .obu. .ibu. le'u vlakemlerpoi fi lo zo coi
11:03 < rutytar1> is this valid?
11:04  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
11:05 <@xalbo> "Interest", in the financial sense, is {ve zivle}
11:06 < gleki> rutytar1: looks like
11:06 < gleki> xalbo: and who is the investor?
11:06 < rutytar1> i'o
11:06 <@xalbo> Whoever is loaning the money.
11:07 <@xalbo> (ie, whoever is being paid the interest)
11:08 < zipcpi> rutytar: I defined {vlalerpoi} to have a more convenient place structure
11:08 < gleki> xalbo: so if i use my credit card to take cash then zivle1 is the bank?
11:08 < rutytar1> i was thinking the the ke seemed a little gratuitous
11:08 < zipcpi> Maybe I should make it {vlalepo} instead to make it easier to say, and to divorce from jvojva
11:08 < gleki> what is zivle2 and zivle3 here?
11:09 <@xalbo> Yes, the bank is investing their money in giving it to you, with the expected return that you'll repay it with interest.
11:11 < gleki> lo banxe cu zivle lo jdini lo ka ce'u ri te cpacu mi vau lo interese ?
11:12 <@xalbo> Sounds about right.
11:12 < zipcpi> Oh rutytar1: You have an extraneous {lo}
11:12 < zipcpi> {zo coi} doesn't need {lo}
11:13 < gleki> oh, right didnt notice that
11:13 < gleki> xalbo: much better. ki'e. are you su'ova'e a financier?
11:13 < zipcpi> Also lo'u / le'u is a bit... uncertain. Cause in my mind {lo'u .cy. .obu. .ibu. le'u} = the string ".cy. .obu. .ibu."
11:14 <@xalbo> gleki: no va'e
11:14 < gleki> uinai i ma'a nitcu lo jdini kurti
11:14 < zipcpi> {me'o} (or if I would be so bold as to suggest {li'ei}) might be more accurate
11:15 < zipcpi> LIhEI isn't in the parsers yet though
11:15 < gleki> en: li'ei
11:15 < mensi> li'ei = [LIhEI] arbitrary character string |>>> Accepts any arbitrary string of BY, bu-letterals, PA. Elidable
11:15 < mensi> terminator: lo'o. See li'ai, me'o, mo'e, li. |>>> spheniscine
11:15 < gleki> too bad. it's a new selmaho
11:15 < zipcpi> Well it has to be after xornunsep :p
11:20 < gleki> La Bangu eng2jbo dictionary now takes really too much time to generate. i think i need to start writing a script generating it.
11:22 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/kelci'e
11:23 < gleki> guaspi: play
11:23 < mensi> 7 da se tolcri: plu, gea, jiul, cor, cwi, psyn, toi
11:23 < gleki> guaspi: plu
11:23 < mensi> plu = X1 plays game (vo) X2:+1 |>>> Use -plu -ziu for playing with an object.
11:23 < ldlework> What was wrong with selkei
11:23 < zipcpi> selkei can be game or toy
11:23 < gleki> guaspi: ziu
11:23 < zipcpi> Or just anything played with
11:23 < mensi> ziu = X1 uses means X2 for purpose (vo) X3+1 |>>> Typically X2 is an object and X3 is done by means of X2.  In a
11:23 < mensi> subordinate clause autoconversion leaves X2 as the 2nd case.
11:23 < ldlework> je'e
11:24 < zipcpi> Essentially {mi kelci lo se kelci}
11:24 < zipcpi> Which sounds like a tautology
11:24 < gleki> so i might not remember correctly but in -plu-ziu plu2 must be merged with ziu3.
11:24 < gleki> at least this is how jvajvo should probably work in guaspi
11:24 < zipcpi> Also {ci'erkei} "To play a game" is already defined. Funny though, because "game" is a more basic concept than that
11:24 < gleki> or maybe i just dreaming that
11:25 < gleki> anyway, it's {x1 kelci x2 se pi'o x3}
11:26 < gleki> why dont we have a JOI for these guaspesque tanru/jvajvo?
11:27 < gleki> In a subordinate clause autoconversion ...
11:27 < zipcpi> Also {ciste} has some useful places
11:27 < gleki> zipcpi: the existence of ci'erkei in the official gimste just shows that they didnt know of raising
11:28 < zipcpi> What's worse, they glossed it as "game"
11:30 < gleki> en: game
11:30 < mensi> 53 da se tolcri: pergamena, ci'erkei, nunkei, bancumumu, bemboiterjvi, bolgrijvi, boltipterjvi, cocyci'ekei, dabysmifau,
11:30 < mensi> dracykei, fetso'a, keirta'o, nakso'a, pleplolarcmaci, samselkei, samyzilkei, bliiardo, caksova, caxmati, ci'erkeilai,
11:30 < mensi> crakemsazycimde, crelai, danjnkroli, dracyselkei, ganti, jajrlanparti, jboselkei, kalte, ka'urji'a, keigri, keijvi,
11:30 < mensi> keirmu'u, kelci, kelgi'a, kelka'u, kelkubli, kelnemka'u, krokinole, lisne'i, lisybartu, nakpibrkevna, namkei, ragbi,
11:30 < mensi> samkei, samyzilkeikei, sovda, spaune, stepmania, vlalikei, zai'e, zdile, zerkalte,
11:30 < mensi> zi'ai
11:30 < gleki> en: kelci
11:30 < mensi> kelci = x1 [agent] plays with plaything/toy x2. |>>> Play game (= ci'erkei), play competitively (= jvikei).  See also
11:30 < mensi> jivna, jinga, zdile. |>>> officialdata
11:30 < zipcpi> samyzilkeikei!!!
11:30 < zipcpi> Come one
11:31 < gleki> en: samyzilkei
11:31 < mensi> samyzilkei [< skami zi'o kelci ≈ Computer nonexistent it play] = x1=k2 is a video game on platform x2=s1. |>>> Also tv/
11:31 < mensi> pc/computer game. x2 may be a personal computer, handheld device, video game console or arcade machine. See also:
11:31 < mensi> playing video game (=samyzilkeikei), playing on (gaming) computer (=samkei). |>>>
11:31 < mensi> jongausib
11:32 < tsani> vlaste: samyzilkeikei
11:32 < vlaste> samyzilkeikei = x1 plays with video game x2.
11:32 < tsani> ...
11:32 < tsani> but
11:32 < tsani> valste: samkei
11:32 < tsani> vlaste: samkei
11:32 < vlaste> samkei = k1 plays with computer/gaming system/gaming console s1.
11:32 < tsani> ...
11:32 < tsani> vlaste: samyzilkeikei (finti)
11:32 < vlaste> samyzilkeikei (finti) = Wuzzy
11:33 < gleki> I usually play hide'n'seek with my videogames.
11:33 < tsani> LOL
11:33  * zipcpi facepaws
11:34 < tsani> I truly wonder if samyzilkeikei was created after samkei
11:34 < zipcpi> JVS has "time entered"
11:35 < tsani> Indeed
11:35 < zipcpi> zo samkei cu se finti de'i li'ei ny 2014 ly 1 dy 15
11:35 < tsani> My desire to find out doesn't outweigh my laziness though
11:35 < tsani> :P
11:35 < tsani> ua
11:35 < gleki> ra'o
11:36 < zipcpi> ... They're both by Wuzzy
11:36 < zipcpi> And within 3 seconds of each other
11:36 < tsani> ...
11:36 < tsani> wut
11:36 < tsani> uai
11:37 < zipcpi> It's shortly after {samyzilkei} was defined
11:37 < zipcpi> By someone else
11:37 < zipcpi> jongausib
11:48  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
11:50  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
11:56  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
11:56  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
11:57  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
12:04  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
12:05  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa <W>2015-06-17 21:05:16.760 1 => <104:(-1)> Connection closed:  [-1] fa
12:10  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
12:10  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
12:13 < zipcpi> I found la selpa'i-s post but he just suggested "x1 has purpose x2". My {erpi} has those places reversed
12:16  * nuzba @selpahi: lol, "zdralölţ" = "bear goo" in Ithkuil | #lojban [http://bit.ly/1fhJJCv]
12:16 < zipcpi> lol
12:16 < zipcpi> k: zdraloltu
12:16 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "z" found.
12:16 < zipcpi> slinku'i
12:17 < zipcpi> k: zdralolu
12:17 < mensi> (CU [Z:zdralolu VAU])
12:17 < zipcpi> Do we really want to start borrowing from Ithkuil lol
12:36  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
12:37 < Ux> Why is Ithkuil popping here once in a while???
12:37 < ctefa`o> Cause reasons
12:37 < zipcpi> Cause constructed language communities tend to intersect
12:38 < Ux> How one would say "because reasons" in lojban?
12:38 < zipcpi> ki'u zo'e
12:38 < dutchie> or possibly {mu'i zo'e}
12:38 < dutchie> (?)
12:39 < zipcpi> Yeah... there are different flavors. {ki'u} means "justification", {mu'i} means "motivation"
12:39 < ctefa`o> ki'u lo krinu
12:39 < zipcpi> Meh... I prefer zo'e
12:39 < zipcpi> Carries the "I don't care" spirit better :p
12:40 < Ux> So if I recall correctly zo'e means something unidentified, no?
12:40 < zipcpi> Yeah
12:40 < ctefa`o> It means "something"
12:40 < ctefa`o> And can mean almost anything
12:40 < dutchie> zo'e co'e zo'e
12:41 < dutchie> u'iru'e
12:42 < Ux> So there is no "x1 is caused by x2" verb?
12:42 < ctefa`o> that's selkrinu
12:42 < dutchie> en:rinka
12:42 < mensi> rinka = x1 (event/state) effects/physically causes effect x2 (event/state) under conditions x3.
12:43 < zipcpi> Well, as is often said, Lojban has four (+1) ways to say "why"
12:43 < Ux> Makes sense to me
12:44 < zipcpi> {ri'a ma} asks for a "physical" cause; doesn't actually need to be physical, but it implies that something causes something else without need for intervention
12:44 < Ux> This language is fascinating to me, glad I found this IRC chat (otherwise I'd just read about it a bit and move on)
12:45 < zipcpi> Like "Why did the bridge fall?"
12:45  * dutchie curious about the "(+1)"
12:45 < zipcpi> {ni'i ma} asks for a logical reasoning, like "Why does 1+1 = 2?"
12:45 < dutchie> but i'm sure zipcpi will get there
12:45 < Ux> This language has a completely different redistribution of building blocks compared to all my known natlangs
12:46 < zipcpi> Both {ki'u} and {mu'i}, however, imply a thinking/feeling being
12:46 < zipcpi> As you might guess, {ki'u} matches more with the "thinking" part, asking for an agent's justification
12:46 < zipcpi> While {mu'i} asks for an agents motivation, which is more of the "feeling" aspect
12:47 < zipcpi> Now for the + 1
12:47 < zipcpi> That's {seja'e ma}
12:47 < zipcpi> This can generally be used to replace all the other four, for those English speakers who haven't quite grasped the difference between the four yet :p
12:48 < zipcpi> Each of these are based on a brivla
12:48 < zipcpi> {ki'u} - {krinu}
12:48 < zipcpi> mu'i - {mukti}
12:49 < zipcpi> ri'a - {rinka}
12:49 < zipcpi> ni'i - {nibli}
12:49 < zipcpi> se ja'e - {se jalge}
12:49 < Ux> This is odd how asking about "because reasons" led to all the words to ask "why?"
12:50 < zipcpi> Haha
12:50 < dutchie> welcome to lojban
12:50 < Ux> Not I am not sure how I understand "because reasons" in english... It is a bit vague
12:50 < dutchie> intentionally so
12:50 < zipcpi> That's why I used {zo'e}
12:50 < zipcpi> It's about as equally vague :p
12:51 < Ux> Like I sorta kinda understand it on almost subconscious level, but instructions and mechanics aren't clar to me
12:51 < zipcpi> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/because_reasons
12:52 < zipcpi> So yes, {ki'u zo'e} or {mu'i zo'e}
12:52 < zipcpi> "avoid specifying"? That's {zo'e} :p
12:53 < Ux> Wow, I didn't realise there is so much accepted vagueness in it
12:53 < Ux> I mean the english phrase
12:53 < zipcpi> lol
12:54 < Ux> It's like one of those words that you learn and know where to apply to signify a specific concept, but then you learn etymology and your mind is blown
12:55 < dutchie> heh, just realised a(nother) reason i like lojban: no annoying contortions to insert accented characters
12:55 < dutchie> better than french/german
12:55 < Ux> Lojban is a good tool to better understand natlangs, I would not oppose it being a free study choice in schools
12:57 < Ux> To me lojban is like when you think you know all the different ways to perform some task, and then you learn how it is done in Japan
12:58  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa niftyg fa
13:00 < zipcpi> lol Wait till you learn how Lojban does third-person pronouns :p
13:01 < zipcpi> Basically, "he, she, it, they"? Doesn't really exist
13:02 < zipcpi> There are several ways to refer to things other than the speaker and the addressee
13:02 < zipcpi> With a pronoun that is
13:03 < zipcpi> One is ti/ta/tu; these are demonstrative and refer to something in your environment that you are signaling to (usually by pointing)
13:03 < zipcpi> ti refers to something near you
13:03 < zipcpi> ta refers to something at a medium distance, or close to the addressee rather than you
13:04 < zipcpi> tu refers to something at a very far distance
13:04 < Ux> Sorry for redundancy, but I want to recap: "because reasons" is translated into ki'u zo'e/mu'i zo'e as "reasoning something vague"
13:04 < zipcpi> "with justification that is vague"
13:04 < zipcpi> "with motivation that is vague"
13:05 < zipcpi> Or "is something that I don't wish to specify"
13:05 < dutchie> i do like how neatly that translates
13:06 < Ux> Wouldn't "reasons that are vague" be a closer approximation?
13:06 < zipcpi> Well, zo'e can be specified with {poi} or whatever if wanted, but in this case, we are deliberately leaving it vague
13:07 < zipcpi> So yeah the most literal translation would be "for a justification that I don't wish to specify"
13:08 < Ux> Oh I see
13:08 < Ux> So it is then depends on what you refer to: the reasoning or the persn's motivation
13:09 < zipcpi> Yes
13:09 <@xalbo> It's not the reasons that are vague, it's the speaker. "reasons that are vague" implies to me that the speaker doesn't know. {ki'u zo'e} implies that the speaker considers it not worth saying what they are (whether or not the speaker knows).
13:09 < zipcpi> Exactly
13:09 < Ux> Ahhh, noiw I get it
13:10 < Ux> And here I thought I understand my natlangs
13:10 < zipcpi> So yes... it's actually amazing how great it translates :p
13:11 <@xalbo> Yes, it's pretty much perfect. :)
13:11 <@xalbo> Reminds me of "This is an ex-parrot" from the Dead Parrot Sketch ({ti ba'o spitaki}).
13:11 < zipcpi> {ti ba'e ba'o spitaki}
13:13 < zipcpi> {ba'o} is a tense implying that an event is already over
13:13 < zipcpi> {ba'e} is an intensifier; basically emphasizing the next word or lexical unit
13:13 < zipcpi> Thus {ti ba'e *ba'o* spitaki}
13:14 <@xalbo> Point.
13:17 < hamnox> u'isai
13:17 < ldlework> coi la hamnox
13:17 < hamnox> coi
13:18 < ldlework> hamnox: do mo
13:18 < Ux> In what cases the name needs .dots. around it, and in what case not like "la hamnox" above???
13:19 < dutchie> when one is not being lazy
13:19 < Ux> So in general it would be {la .hamnox.}
13:19 < Ux> No?
13:20 < dutchie> well, you'd probably also have to lojbanise it to something like {la .xamnoks.}
13:20 < dutchie> or whatever their preferred lojban name is
13:21 < Ux> Ok thanks
13:25 < ldlework> Ux: I'm suuuuuper lazy when it comes to the morphology
13:25 < durka42> lazy => la'oi ? :)
13:27 < Ux> mi lazni zo'e
13:27 < ldlework> That would be less lazy.
13:28 < Ux> Would that be "I am lazy about everything"?
13:28 < dutchie> no
13:28 < durka42> just means "I am lazy about something that I'm not bothering to specify"
13:28 < Ux> Ah I see
13:30 < zipcpi> On names; they always need the pauses when spoken
13:30 < Ux> mi lazni lo rafske ku
13:30 < zipcpi> Or cmevla more accurately
13:30 < zipcpi> Names can be brivla too
13:30 < zipcpi> For example, mine
13:30 < zipcpi> {la zipcpi}
13:30 < zipcpi> "The one named "penguin""
13:31 < BenLubar> is there a word like samru'e that means thread instead of process?
13:31 < zipcpi> Some even name themselves after brivla that do not have any defined meaning; they still must conform to the morphology of a brivla though
13:32 < zipcpi> cmevla are much easier to make
13:32 < Ux> So is {mi lazni lo rafske ku} "I am lazy about morphology", or did I make some mistake?
13:32 < zipcpi> I'm not sure {rafske} means that... let me take a look
13:33 < ldlework> BenLubar: more likely samru'e is a classification for which both Processes and Threads fall into
13:33 < ldlework> en: rafske
13:33 < mensi> rafske [< rafsi saske ≈ Affix science] = x1 is the morphology of language x2 according to methodology x3. |>>> see also
13:33 < mensi> vlaturge'a, taiske |>>> phma
13:33 < dutchie> is there any reason to prefer naming oneself with a brivla or a cmevla?
13:33 < BenLubar> ldlework: is "how many threads do you want this program to use" {xo samru'e}?
13:33 < ldlework> BenLubar: sure
13:34 < BenLubar> ok :D
13:34 < zipcpi> dutchie: If you find a Lojban word that you'd like to name yourself after, go ahead and make your name that
13:34 < ldlework> dutchie: they don't invoke the rules of the morphology in the minds of your listener?
13:34 < zipcpi> cmevla are for transliterated names
13:35 < zipcpi> Though you also see people with cmevla based on Lojban rafsi, e.g. .rutytar.
13:35 < dutchie> je'e
13:36 < zipcpi> From grute and tarci
13:37 < dutchie> so i decided to by {la dutcis} in la jbogu'e; but i could equally well take the made-up brivla {la dutci}?
13:37 < dutchie> to go by*
13:37 < zipcpi> Yes
13:37 < zipcpi> dutci conforms to the shape of a gismu
13:37 < zipcpi> So yes, that is acceptable
13:38 < durka42> mi'e la durka
13:38 < zipcpi> Yep. {durka} is another example
13:38 < durka42> heh, {dutci} makes me think of {tcidu}
13:38 < durka42> mi'e ji'a la durkavore
13:38 < dutchie> ooh i like that
13:39 < dutchie> ldlework: how much trouble is it to remove the s from my jbogu'e login ;)
13:45 < Ux> {mi'e la uks} wouldn't be too correct then or?
13:45 < zipcpi> Hmm... ta'o I think {e'anka'e} can replace {selzauka'e} for "acceptable" in the "permissible" sense
13:45 < zipcpi> la .uks. is acceptable. So is la .ux. ; depends on which you prefer
13:45 < durka42> Ux: uks is a fine cmevla, technically it's {mi'e la .uks.} but lazy jbopre sometimes leave out the dots in writing
13:46 < zipcpi> All cmevla must have the pauses. In writing though they *can* be identified by their final consonant
13:47 < zipcpi> In formal contexts though it's considered a courtesy to leave the dots in, since it can be disconcerting to suddenly discover a word is a cmevla
13:47 < Ux> Well it is short (Uxio in full) galician version of my real name (Eugene, Eugen, Gene, Eogan etc.)
13:47 < zipcpi> Cool
13:47 < Ux> So definitely .uks.
13:47 < zipcpi> You'd probably want to change your name though
13:47 < Ux> Why is that?
13:48 < zipcpi> Cause when someone notices a name that's already Lojbanic, they tend to call you by that
13:48 <@xalbo> dutchie: You could call yourself {la dunra}. ({.dutcis.} makes me think of -dut- -cis-, {dukti crisa}, so therefore {dunra})
13:48 < durka42> as selckiku once observed, being called by many names is part of jboklu :)
13:48 <@xalbo> (Or was there already a jbopre who called jself {dunra}?
13:48 < durka42> xalbo: I get called {dunra ckaji} sometimes
13:49 < durka42> dunra ckaji => durkai
13:49 <@xalbo> je'e
13:49 < dutchie> hmm, intereseting
13:50 < zipcpi> Then {selzau'inda} can be changed to mean "worthy of approval"
13:52 < durka42> hmm I guess to be a "real" lujvo it has to be {selzary'inda}
13:52 < durka42> {selzau'inda} reads better though
13:52 < zipcpi> Yeah
13:53 < Ux> Pardon zipcpi (which I presume would be {u'u} in lojban), but what do you mean by Lojbanic? Like written in correct spelling or stemming from the language word?
13:53 < durka42> vlaste: selzau'inda (co)
13:53 < vlaste> selzau'inda (components) = (not a lujvo)
13:53 < durka42> vlaste: selzary'inda (co)
13:53 < vlaste> selzary'inda (components) = se zanru inda ≈ 2nd-conversion approve worthy
13:53 < zipcpi> In that {.ux.} is an acceptable cmevla
13:53 < zipcpi> So people would assume they could call you by {la .ux.}
13:54 < Ux> Oh I see, it being confusing
13:54 < Ux> Guess .eogan. would be a better pick then
13:55 < zipcpi> It has to be .e'ogan. or .eiogan.
13:55 < zipcpi> Cause /eo/ is not an allowable diphthong
13:55 < eogan> Oh, really?
13:55 < zipcpi> Yep
13:55 < eogan> I missed that onbe in phonetics
13:55 < zipcpi> Ah... it's not in the CLL
13:55 < zipcpi> It's a later reform
13:55 < eogan> Ah I see
13:56 < eogan> What are the reasons for not having it, may I ask?
13:56  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
13:56 < zipcpi> CLL would tell you that {e,ogan} is acceptable, but that was changed in the reform. The reasoning was that {i,a,i,a,ion} was indistinguishable from {i,ia,ii,ia,ion}
13:57 < zipcpi> So no more "syllabic glides"
13:57 < zipcpi> Either buffered by ' or the semivowels i and u
13:57 < zipcpi> *Must be either
13:58 < eogan> Since e'ogan is not doable in IRC...
13:58 < Ilmen> coi
13:58 < zipcpi> ` is allowable
13:58 < zipcpi> e`ogan
13:58 < Ilmen> e`ogan is possible
13:58 < eogan> Oh right
13:59 < Ilmen> You could also go for "iogan"
13:59 < demize> And in places where neither is allowed you could use h for ' if you want.
14:00 < e`ogan> iogan is an entirely different name morphologically: Johan, Iogan
14:01 < zipcpi> Also they weren't too fond of the idea that cmevla can have {,} to distinguish pronunciation, but it being often left out in practice
14:01 < demize> Hmm, Eogan is Irish, right?
14:01 < e`ogan> Thus eiogan would be ambiguous, and euogan just weird
14:02 < zipcpi> Back to {i,a,i,a,ion}: without the commas, that would be {iaiaion}; which would tend to be pronounced {ia,ia,ion}
14:02 < zipcpi> So yeah, that's why they banished that in the reform
14:03 < Ilmen> ta'o ma nuzba
14:04 < e`ogan> Not specifically Irish, it was used in germanic and french proto-territories too
14:04 < zipcpi> doi menli sei zoizoi http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/e'anka'e zoi
14:04 < e`ogan> But yeah today Eogan or rather Eoghan is exclusively used in Ireland
14:05 < e`ogan> More common version is known as Owen
14:07 < e`ogan> I have too many name "declinations" in different locales Ux=Uxio=Owen=Yvain=Eogan=Eugene
14:07 < Ilmen> ua
14:08 < dutchie> i've also seen the scottish Euan
14:08 < dutchie> and the variant irish spelling eoighann (or something similar with all sorts of weird letters in there)
14:08 < e`ogan> I like Eogan the most personally just the way it sounds
14:09 < Ilmen> Yeah, it sounds nice
14:10 < e`ogan> The name is awfully close to Ivan-Iogan-Johan though, probably due to famous people with them being more known
14:10 < zipcpi> Ilmen: I'm deprecating selzauka'e in favor of e'anka'e; cause I think that is closer to the sense I want
14:10 < e`ogan> Not the same morphology though
14:10 < zipcpi> Ilmen: While selzau'inda would mean "worthy of approval"
14:13 < zipcpi> Or would {e'akne} be better?
14:13 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: hey
14:13 < ctefa`o> A question, what came first? xoi or soi?
14:13 < zipcpi> Ugh I often think of ways to improve zi'evla after making them
14:13 < Ilmen> I wonder whether it should be {ka'e se curmi} or {na'e .inda lo ka se tolcru}
14:13 < Ilmen> anyway it's a zi'evla so there's no problem
14:14 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: Uneasy question
14:14 < Ilmen> Maybe they came up more or less concurrently
14:14 < demize> e`ogan: Hmm, Wikipedia seems to just call it and "early Irish name". Anyway, it's a nice one.
14:14 < Ilmen> Originally "xoi" was {fi'oi}
14:14 < zipcpi> lol
14:15 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: the inspiration, or at least part thereof, is that Gua\spi has a device similar to xoi/soi
14:16 < ctefa`o> Ah
14:16 < demize> Hmm, soi was entered into jbovlaste in 2003.
14:16 < ctefa`o> So that's where it came from?
14:16 < ctefa`o> demize: new soi
14:16 < Ilmen> Gua\spi infulenced several skillful lojbanists, I think it influenced the greater use of "ka" over "nu", but I'm nunsure
14:16 < Ilmen> *unsure
14:17 < demize> ctefa`o: Yeah, figured, was just looking at the old ones.
14:17 < ctefa`o> nunsure lol
14:17 < demize> Makes me wonder what I did back then.
14:17 < Ilmen> nunbirti va'i
14:18 < ctefa`o> I really dig your zi'e too
14:19 < ctefa`o> doi Ilmen
14:19 < Ilmen> My... zi'e?
14:19 < Ilmen> ua nai
14:19 < ctefa`o> Err
14:19 < ctefa`o> Or what it was
14:19 < ctefa`o> Tags from xoi to soi
14:20 < Ilmen> Oh, I think somebody did suggest zi'e for this
14:20 < ctefa`o> gocti said it was your idea
14:20 < ctefa`o> Maybe I am mixing things up
14:20 < Ilmen> Well I suggested the meaning, but not the word choice
14:21 < ctefa`o> Ah yes
14:21 < zipcpi> (Gua\spi infulenced several skillful lojbanists, I think it influenced the greater use of "ka" over "nu") Huh funny, I just started using {ka} more once I understood it more :p
14:21 < ctefa`o> and yeah it was zi'e
14:22 < Ilmen> I don't remember well, but I think I've created fi'oi/xoi because I was bothered by {fi'o} and had probably read http://selpahi.weebly.com/guaspi/a-lojbanist-learns-guaspi-part-1
14:22 < zipcpi> {ma djica lo nu cenba} {ma djica lo ka cenba}
14:23 < ctefa`o> Well Ilmen I have an idea for fi'o
14:23 < ctefa`o> Re-formalizing it based on xoi
14:24 < Ilmen> I don't like much fi'o's syntax too
14:25 < ctefa`o> {ko'a broda fi'o brode ko'e} -> {ko'a broda xoi fa ko'e brode do'e ke'a se'u}
14:25 < Ilmen> It's already pretty much what fi'o currently means
14:26 < ctefa`o> yeah, but not how it is defined;)
14:26 < Ilmen> jbo: fi'o
14:26 < mensi> fi'o = [FIhO] galfi le selbri poi vo'a li'erla'i ke'a ku'o lo tcita be lo sumti bei le du'u ri pamoi sumti vo'e |>>>
14:26 < mensi> xorxes
14:26  * ctefa`o 
14:26  * Ilmen 
14:26  * ctefa`o meant BPFK section
14:27 < Ilmen> je'e
14:27 < zipcpi> Does BPFK section even define xoi yet?
14:27 < ctefa`o> Using that weird {.i joi} crap
14:27 < zipcpi> Haha... that's like Gleki's {.ibo} right?
14:27 < ctefa`o> Nope, no xoi, no new-soi
14:27 < Ilmen> I don't find {.i joi} that weird (but I don't know if that's appropriate for fi'o)
14:28 < ctefa`o> Well it is weird for fi'o yeah
14:28 < ctefa`o> And the BAI being based on fi'o
14:28 < Ilmen> I sometimes uses {jo'u gi.... gi...}
14:29 < Ilmen> jo'u gi mi klama gi mi citka ---> fasnu fa lo nu mi klama jo'u lo nu mi citka
14:29 < ctefa`o> So would anyone seriously argue against redefining fi'o based on xoi?
14:30 < ctefa`o> Or, to make fi'o a short-hand version of xoi, in other words
14:30 < Ilmen> Whatever meaning fi'o has, I think it can be defined using xoi
14:30 < zipcpi> Gleki might. He doesn't like xoi :p
14:31 < ctefa`o> Well sad for gleki
14:31 < ctefa`o> (And with new-zi'e fi'o-s xoi would become soi)
14:31 < zipcpi> On the other hand I don't quite get why he likes fi'o and sumtcita so much (even though I do like sumtcita, he seems to think it can do things that it just can't)
14:31 < Ilmen> Gleki wants a lo-like version of xoi, that wouldn't require using a vau/se'u terminator too often
14:31 < Ilmen> maybe we can steal "foi" for this
14:31 < Ilmen> %)
14:32 < zipcpi> e.g. he thinks {gu'au} can replace mass-gadri
14:32 < Ilmen> .i'u nai
14:32 < zipcpi> But {gu'au prenu} just means "a person who happens to be in a group"
14:32 < zipcpi> {lo gu'au prenu}*
14:32 < ctefa`o> Well if gleki wants something different than xoi then don't use xoi
14:33 < ctefa`o> I on the other hand really need a xoi-based-fi'o to fix the case semantics
14:33 <@xalbo> So, people have experimental meanings for {loi}, {koi}, {foi}, {soi}, {xoi}, {zo'oi}, {la'oi}...I think I'm going to hold onto {doi} as hard as I can before someone tries to steal it.
14:33 < zipcpi> lol
14:33 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:33 < ctefa`o> .u'i
14:33 < zipcpi> Nah I'm not touching {loi} anymore
14:33 < zipcpi> You can have {loi}
14:33 < zipcpi> Unless someone else other than me is trying to redefine it
14:35 < Ilmen> What is sometimes bothering with xoi is that for making simple adverbs, you almost always have to put a bridi terminator, because xoi introduces a complete bridi
14:35 < zipcpi> Right
14:35 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: but nice that you agree with xoi-based-fi'o
14:36 < Ilmen> But indeed one can say the same for noi vs adjectives
14:36 < zipcpi> Huh... {tei}?
14:36 < Ilmen> xD
14:36 < zipcpi> exp: tei abu by cy pa foi
14:36 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
14:37 < zipcpi> exp: tei abu by cy foi
14:37 < mensi> ([{tei <(¹a bu¹) by cy> foi} BOI] VAU)
14:37 < zipcpi> off: tei abu by cy pa foi
14:37 < mensi> ([{tei <(¹a bu¹) (¹by cy pa¹)> foi} BOI] VAU)
14:37 < zipcpi> Huuuuuuuh
14:37 < zipcpi> That's very interesting
14:38 < zipcpi> Now why would xornunsep need to break TEI? I don't think it needs to
14:38 < Ilmen> maybe the recent fiddling with xorxes' proposal about lerfu strings broke it
14:39 < Ilmen> As I don't use much the lerfu system, I haven't payed much attention to the recent proposals about it
14:39 < zipcpi> Ilmen: I'm just wondering if this could be in TEI: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/li'ei
14:39 < ctefa`o> But no one has posted such a proposal for fi'o anywhere?
14:39 < ctefa`o> If not I will/might do it
14:40 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: I don't think so. This may have been discussed informally by the past on IRC tho
14:40 < zipcpi> off: tei abu by tei cy pa foi foi
14:40 < mensi> ([{tei <(¹a bu¹) (¹by [tei {cy pa} foi]¹)> foi} BOI] VAU)
14:41 < zipcpi> off: tei abu vu'u pa foi
14:41 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
14:41 < Ilmen> I've never ever seen "tei" used in non-teaching Lojban materials
14:42 < zipcpi> lol
14:42 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: Je'e, then I will post it
14:42 < zipcpi> Yeah I can see why it's like almost untouched
14:42 < zipcpi> But it's... quite interesting in light of xornunsep and my proposed li'ei
14:42 < ctefa`o> All clear about that do'e?
14:43 < ctefa`o> It really very much needs do'e to be able to be FA, if anyone has problems with that
14:43 < Ilmen> Yet having witnessed 0 usage for {tei} makes it much more common than {jo'o}, which probably have a negative number of usage zo'o
14:44 < zipcpi> u'i
14:44 < Ilmen> *runs*
14:44 < ctefa`o> valsi:
14:44 < ctefa`o> ...
14:44 < ctefa`o>  valsi: jo'o
14:44 < Ilmen> en: jo'o
14:44 < mensi> jo'o = [BY1] shift letterals to Arabic alphabet. |>>> officialdata
14:44 < ctefa`o> WTF
14:45 < Ilmen> dai
14:45 < zipcpi> uedai uanaidai u'i
14:45 < ctefa`o> whyyyyyy
14:45 < Ilmen> ko reisku fi lo jbocei
14:46 < Ilmen> This one is even funnier:
14:46 < Ilmen> en: se'e
14:46 < mensi> se'e = [BY1] following digits code a character (in ASCII, Unicode, etc.). |>>> officialdata
14:46 < zipcpi> ... now totally broken by xornunsep
14:47 < zipcpi> Not that anyone would miss it lol
14:47 < zipcpi> BY1 is probably the place where cmavo go to die
14:48 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:48 < ctefa`o> Old ideas, new ideas
14:49 < zipcpi> http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/BY1
14:49 < demize> se'e sounds like it could possibly be useful sometime I guess, but uh...
14:49 < zipcpi> And like I said, xornunsep just killed it
14:49 < zipcpi> {se'e civo} doesn't work the way it should under xns
14:50 < Ilmen> The thing is, is it worth a word. On can't even specify which encoding is used. {na'u se sinxa li ...} can works just fine
14:50 < zipcpi> lol
14:50 < demize> Ilmen: Indeed it does not.
14:50 < ctefa`o> Can I just register on lojban.org and post the new-fi'o?
14:50 < demize> Maybe if talking about Unicode code points was really common then it would make sense to have one for those, but otherwise..
14:51 < zipcpi> No, this is the kind of thing that needs to be all something like {sei'ei'a} or something
14:51 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: post where?
14:51 < zipcpi> To be used in specialized contexts like a Lojban-based programming language
14:51 < ctefa`o> Well like http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new_soi
14:52 < Ilmen> Sure, you can create such a page
14:54 < e`ogan> Lojban based programming sounds like a thing where it belongs
14:55 < Ilmen> en: zilfi'i
14:55 < mensi> zilfi'i [< zi'o finti ≈ Nonexistent it invent] = x1 exists for / has purpose / is supposed for use x2 (property of x1)
14:55 < mensi> |>>> Synonymous with kosmu. See also finti. |>>> Ilmen
14:55 < zipcpi> ... So {se erpi} already exists, sorta
14:56 < e`ogan> When I tried to learn programming (VB, C++, Ruby, bit of Python), I have noticed that english can and will lead to confusing variable definitions if one tries to use pure english
14:56 < zipcpi> I like {erpi} though
14:57 < Mateon1> coi
14:57 < zipcpi> Also links to {kosmu} but not defined
14:57 < Ilmen> I think using "pilno" for the definition is not best
14:57 < Ilmen> because it's not currently used
14:57 < zipcpi> I don't like the zi'o definition; but I don't know how to describe teleology in Lojban
14:57 < Ilmen> a purpose is something like finti3 or mukti1
14:58 < zipcpi> True, but it's the first thing I think about when I think of purpose. Maybe that's malgli of me
14:58 < Ilmen> zipcpi: "kosmu" is a misterious gismu
14:59 < Mateon1> Suppose I was reading/explaining some code, how would I denote that [property name] (possibly not lojban) belongs to object named something that might or might not be in lojban. In programming it's usually denoted `objectname.propertyname`.
14:59 < Ilmen> Once upon a time there were two or three mysterious bots called kosmu, fizbu, plus maybe a third one
14:59 < Ilmen> zipcpi: and each time one said "kosmu" or "fizbu", the bot said the definition of those words
14:59 < Ilmen> yet there weren't in jbovlaste
15:00  * ctefa`o is about to add kosmu to jbovlaste as "x1 is the purpose of x2"
15:00 < zipcpi> Also somehow I like {erpi} being "telos", and {se erpi} being "have telos"
15:00 < Ilmen> No one know who made them. After some time, those bots vanished, and we didn't see them again
15:00 < Ilmen> That's the story :p
15:00 < zipcpi> ctefa'o: That would be the reverse of zilfi'i though... I don't know how {kosmu} was originally defined
15:01 < Ilmen> What's bad is that we don't know kosmu's etymology
15:01 < Mateon1> Ilmen: Remember what the definition they provided was?
15:01 < ctefa`o> I hate zil
15:01 < Ilmen> fizbu was something like "x1 is exited about x2"
15:01 < zipcpi> ...
15:01 < zipcpi> You just mentioned that to ctefa'o
15:01  * zipcpi hides
15:01 < ctefa`o> fizbi, ki'e
15:02 < ctefa`o> ...
15:02 < zipcpi> lol
15:02 < ctefa`o> fizbuuu
15:02 < demize> Ilmen: Did you ever whois them back then and do you have logs since then? :p
15:02 < zipcpi> The problem is that we don't know their etymology
15:02 < ctefa`o> Who cares?
15:02 < zipcpi> lol
15:03 < Ilmen> demize: I think we looked at their IP, but didn't draw anything conclusive
15:03 < demize> No one else in the channel with the same IP? sad...
15:03 < Mateon1> Logs would be useful enough
15:03 < zipcpi> Right... I think {fizbu} might as well be added
15:03 < Ilmen> they were a bit counterproductive, because anybody trying to use "kosmu" in their sentences got the bot throwing the def right after
15:03 < demize> Though if the IP was from a server, it might run something else too...
15:03 < Ilmen> which was somewhat bothering
15:04 < Ilmen> «  fizbu : x1 feels excitement about x2 (nu); x1 is excited.  »
15:04 < Ilmen> «  kosmu : x1 has purpose x2; x1 is supposed for use x2; x1 is intended as x2.  »
15:05 < zipcpi> Well if you want I can change the Lojban definition to {x1 te finti x2 zi'o}; until someone defines it properly
15:05  * ctefa`o really wants to invert the kosmu places
15:05 < zipcpi> That's {erpi} already
15:05 < ctefa`o> Sucks for erpi
15:06 < zipcpi> What's wrong with it?
15:06 < ctefa`o> You will ser
15:06 < ctefa`o> see
15:07 < ctefa`o> But does anyone know if PU and FA'A are actually *defined* with fi'o?
15:07 < zipcpi> I think the fi'o are placeholder definitions
15:07 < Ilmen> I think things like "ba" and "ki'u" have a more precise meaning than fi'o balvi/krinu
15:07 < ctefa`o> Looks lile it yeah
15:07 < zipcpi> Just like zi'o
15:08 < ctefa`o> Well I think the BAI *are* based on fi'o!
15:08 < ctefa`o> Err
15:08 < ctefa`o> ?*
15:08 < ctefa`o> no !
15:08 < zipcpi> I meant definitions that use zi'o
15:08 < zipcpi> Not that fi'o is as bad as zi'o :p
15:08 < zipcpi> I agree zi'o is worse :p
15:08 < durka42> zipcpi: btw, x-rays are quantized into photons :p
15:09 < ctefa`o> I aim to kill zi'o
15:09 < ctefa`o> AND zil-
15:09 < Ilmen> I don't know anymore what zi'o broda means
15:09 < zipcpi> I know, but it's a form of light; the {gusni} place structure is useful too
15:09 < zipcpi> {kantu}... not so much
15:09 < ctefa`o> zi'o is a HACK
15:09 < durka42> hm good point about the place structure
15:10 < durka42> other than that I would say either is fine
15:10 < durka42> ctefa`o: how do we kill it though? by defining things like {.otpi} which technically don't use {zi'o} but are still the same as another brivla with a place somehow deleted?
15:10 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: it seems like «zi'o broda» is like a predicate completely different from «broda»
15:10 < durka42> sure {zi'o} modifies the predicate
15:10 < ctefa`o> durka42: I have a plan
15:10 < ctefa`o> Called sumtcita'a
15:10 < durka42> oh good :)
15:11 < zipcpi> zei: sumtcita'a
15:11 < mensi> sumti zei tutci zei tavla
15:11 < durka42> sumtcita tavla?
15:11 < ctefa`o> Pretty much
15:11 < e`ogan> How you say "good morning/day/evening/night" in lojban?
15:12 < Ilmen> when I make zil- lujvo or zi'evla, I try avoiding zi'o in the formal definition
15:12 < ctefa`o> ki'ai xamgu cerni
15:12 < ctefa`o> Sumtcita'a will fix the Lojban case when finalised
15:12 < Ilmen> e`ogan: There isn't any set way to say them. Some people say "cerni coi"
15:13 < ctefa`o> But it relies heavily on new-fi'o
15:13 < durka42> new-fi'o?
15:13 < ldlework> I'm fond of "cerza'a"
15:13 < e`ogan> Yes I understand: ther is more than one way to say it in lojban, depending on what the emphasis is
15:13 < zipcpi> zei: cerza'a
15:13 < mensi> cerni zei zabna
15:14 < Ilmen> If I were to translate "good morning", I'd say something like ".a'o xamgu cerni", "ko'oi xamgu cerni" or "mi cerni rinsa do"
15:14 < zipcpi> zabna has a terminal rafsi? Huh interesting
15:14 < Ilmen> @ e`ogan
15:14 < ctefa`o> And I am glad xoi/soi already existed, I kind of thought them out on their own semantically, or at least something similar
15:14 < ctefa`o> (Without gua/spi)
15:14 < durka42> ah new-fi'o as in fi'o defined in terms of xoi
15:15 < ctefa`o> Yep
15:15 < Ilmen> ctefa`o: I find weird Lojban didn't have some such device from the scratch
15:15 < ctefa`o> Me too
15:15 < e`ogan> So is lojban still "under construction" ?
15:15 < ctefa`o> In a way
15:15 < durka42> yes and no
15:15 < ctefa`o> But it is very definitely at least 1.0
15:15 < ctefa`o> I would say 1.1 with xorlo
15:15 < durka42> it's quite usable most of the time, but the kinds of people attracted to it tend to like tinkering with conlangs :)
15:16 < e`ogan> je'e
15:16 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: xoi/soi should most definitely have been there from start
15:16 < e`ogan> Well it is an artistry in its own right
15:16 < Ilmen> As for me I really didn't create many experimental cmavo
15:16 < Ilmen> only a couple of things like xoi and ri'oi
15:16 < durka42> co'o
15:16 < ctefa`o> Xoi was enough;)
15:16 < Ilmen> co'o dy
15:17 < ctefa`o> xo'o dy
15:17 < ctefa`o> si si
15:17 < ctefa`o> co'o dy
15:17 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: think of it, fi'o and the BAI based on it, are quite weird with ".i joi"
15:18 < Ilmen> I see cmavo as shorthands; I try creating brivla (predicate words) instead of cmavo, unless something really seem quite useful and deserving a shorthand
15:18 < ctefa`o> (Semantically speaking)
15:19 < zipcpi> What is the longhand for {lo} or {da}? :p
15:19 < Ilmen> lo poi'i...
15:19 < zipcpi> Erm... that's more cmavo
15:19 < zipcpi> No cmavo
15:19 < zipcpi> ever
15:19 < zipcpi> Only giant tanru
15:19 < zipcpi> zo'osai
15:19 < Ilmen> zipcpi: There are some cmavo that are essential
15:19 < Ilmen> like du'u, ka
15:19 < ctefa`o> mi
15:19 < zipcpi> Yeah I know I was only being silly
15:19 < ctefa`o> do
15:19 < ctefa`o> Err actually
15:19 < Ilmen> mi = lo mibypre
15:20 < Ilmen> %)
15:20 < ctefa`o> Lol yeah
15:20 < ctefa`o> But if we forbid mi's rafsi...?;)
15:20 < Ilmen> "da" can be replaced with suzdza, roldza, kaidza
15:20 < Ilmen> rafsi are only semantic/mnemonic hints
15:21 < Ilmen> if we forbid mib-, then let's just make a zi'evla instead
15:21 < Ilmen> :p
15:21 < zipcpi> Giant tanru that can't have any ke grouping either; so think carefully about what you want to say
15:21 < ctefa`o> (Also, xoi-fi'o is kinda essential in killing of bloated place structures properly)
15:22 < zipcpi> Erm, but repatching them with {do'e} isn't going to help
15:23 < ctefa`o> xoi, being a lot more specific than .ijoi, is not helpful with that?
15:23 < zipcpi> You're still relying on {do'e ke'a}
15:23 < ctefa`o> Yes
15:23 < zipcpi> You can't just delete places in place structures if you don't have a reliable BAI to replace it
15:24 < ctefa`o> That's why I am creating new BAI too
15:24 < Ilmen> {xoi lo nu ko'e brode cu co'e ke'a}
15:24 < Ilmen> if you want to avoid the loop BAI -> xoi -> do'e -> BAI -> xoi ...
15:25 < ctefa`o> Let's just make a simple convention
15:25 < Ilmen> mi klama do'e ko'a ~= lo nu mi klama cu fasnu gi'e co'e ko'a
15:26 < ctefa`o> I don't think such a loop will be of much issue in practice
15:26 < jacus> okay, "zi'evla" is new and made me curious... What's going on there? Is this something like "asnrtarbi", which is "tarbi zei asna" made to look like a lujvo?
15:26 < ctefa`o> And I love do'e
15:26  * ctefa`o hugs do'e
15:26 < Ilmen> jacus: zi'evla is more or less a synonym of fu'ivla
15:26  * ctefa`o snuggles with do'e
15:26 < zipcpi> {zi'evla} is what some older materials called {fu'ivla}
15:27  * ctefa`o makes hot prami with do'e
15:27 < zipcpi> Except it's the preferred term now
15:27 < Ilmen> jacus: «fu'ivla» was originally a word designing words borrowed from other languages
15:27 < Ilmen> however the zi'evla word shape is also used for original Lojban words
15:27 < Ilmen> that aren't borrowings
15:27 < ctefa`o> Jacus: fu'ivla can be thought of as a subset of zi'evla
15:27 < jacus> got it
15:28 < ctefa`o> The zi'evla with a foreign origin
15:28 < zipcpi> Well... unless you get into {pavyfu'ivla} and {relfu'ivla}
15:29 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: basically, if the meaning is clear from context then you use fi'o. If you mean something more complex, use xoi.
15:30 < Ilmen> fi'o seems like tanru
15:30 < ctefa`o> Or even specify places with be in the fi'o
15:30 < ctefa`o> xoi doesn't allow tanru?
15:30 < Ilmen> ti gerku zdani  /  ti zdani fi'o gerku...
15:31 < zipcpi> Yeah I've pointed out that fi'o are just tanru with a different grammar
15:31 < Ilmen> ti melbi be mi zdani  /  ti zdani fi'o se melbi mi
15:31 < ctefa`o> Well you can put a tanru in fi'o but not fi'o in a tanru
15:31 < Ilmen> ^ is there any difference ?
15:31 < zipcpi> I did, ctefa'o. The other day?
15:32  * ctefa`o is also just about to shut down
15:32 < Ilmen> .ai mi sipna si'a
15:32 < jacus> I've been curious about asnrtarbi for a bit though, because it's a synonym for a zei-lujvo, and I can't find the rules for quite exactly how that works. (My goal is words for "Sitting position", etc, which indicate the position but not actually sitting)
15:33 < ctefa`o> You can't do "fi'o se melbi mi"?
15:33 < zipcpi> No... it's not a way to make a zei lujvo. It's a zi'evla that just happens to be based on those words
15:33 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: why? You can do
15:33 < ctefa`o> You need a be after the melbi then
15:33 < ctefa`o> Errrrr
15:33 < ctefa`o> Ok
15:33 < ctefa`o> I am tired now
15:34 < Ilmen> .e'e surla sipna
15:34 < ctefa`o> But xoi-fi'o is what I am going to propose
15:34 < zipcpi> jacus: tarbi zei asna -> tarby'asna ; this form of lujvo isn't part of the original definition though, but is a later addition
15:34 < ctefa`o> With the do'e
15:34 < Ilmen> je'e
15:34 < ldlework> tsemo'a : "Sitting Position"
15:35 < ldlework> jacus: ^
15:35 < Ilmen> coi co'o la cadgu'a
15:35 < zipcpi> zei: tsemo'a
15:35 < mensi> zutse zei morna
15:36  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
15:36 < jacus> zipcpi: ah, would explain why it doesn't quite fit the documentation. :-)
15:37 < ctefa`o> As for your melbi question
15:39 < ctefa`o> Hmm I think it gets quite similar in that particular example
15:40 < ctefa`o> Eh, take that tomorrow
15:42  * nuzba @uitki: Do you hear the people sing - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Do_you_hear_the_people_sing by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1SpfyaG]
15:42  * nuzba @earthtopus: current mood:  just became aware of the existence of Lojban terms "rafsi: an abbreviated form of a gismu used as an affix to make lujvo" 8D [http://bit.ly/1TvhCiX]
15:42  * nuzba @Raprto_bot: やっぱlojban勉強する冪 [http://bit.ly/1RaqyGu]
15:42 < zipcpi> mi tavla do fi'o bangu la .lojban. -> mi bangu be la .lojban. be'o tavla do
15:43 < zipcpi> Er
15:43 < zipcpi> befa
15:43 < zipcpi> mi bangu be fa la .lojban. be'o tavla do
15:43 < ldlework> zipcpi: are you interested at all in a translation work?
15:43 < zipcpi> What might that be?
15:44 < ldlework> zipcpi: I mean doing a translation together
15:44 < zipcpi> Of what?
15:44 < ldlework> I think something non-fiction would be neat.
15:44 < zipcpi> Hm what kind of topic?
15:45 < ldlework> zipcpi: Something interesting to lojbanist?
15:45 < ldlework> John Searle's Speech Acts maybe?
15:46 < zipcpi> Wow... we'd gonna need a lot of jargon words
15:46 < ldlework> Hmm, its not super techincal
15:46 < ldlework> We'd need words for things like predicate and proposition and conjugation and adverb and so on
15:46 < zipcpi> ... maybe I'm just scared off by the Wiki article
15:46 < zipcpi> Ah... those already exist... sortof
15:46 < ldlework> right as lojban terms
15:48 < zipcpi> Some of them can actually be broadened. For example, {rafsi} can refer to morphemes in any language
15:48 < ldlework> Yeah we can even write a preface explaining this kind of stuff
15:59  * ctefa`o is real grammar noob sometime
15:59 < ctefa`o> s
15:59 < ctefa`o> ...
16:01 < ctefa`o> As for linguistic work, you probably need a whole bunch of fu'ivla for that
16:02 < iovbrfenzej> \quit
16:02 < iovbrfenzej> \quit
16:02 < dutchie> other slash
16:06 < ctefa`o> mi cilce
16:06 < ctefa`o> .....
16:06 < ctefa`o> .i mi cilce canci
16:07 < ctefa`o> (Pokemon-style)
16:07 < ctefa`o> co'o
16:29 < zipcpi> {me'ei}? Huh. I've been just using {lo si'o}
17:01  * nuzba @lycaon_ebooks: such a shitty teen lojban is the "um, actually" of languages CONGRATS ON INVENTING THE ARRAY *slow clap* excuse me oh mighty , why have you [http://bit.ly/1J4TO2p]
17:03 < zipcpi> ... what the heck is that. Is someone trying to imitate horse_ebooks?
17:10 < zipcpi> k: ski'yuidje
17:10 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "s" found.
17:10 < zipcpi> k: skicyuidje
17:10 < mensi> (CU [L:skicyuidje VAU])
17:32 < skapata> :D
17:36 < ldlework> D:
18:32  * nuzba @uitki: Nuzba:xu do djuno - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Nuzba:xu_do_djuno by Guskant - to'eki'u [http://bit.ly/1CeqdvC]
19:05 < fleimbo> coi
19:14 < phma> coi
20:56  * nuzba @shukil026: Lojban [http://bit.ly/1QFcolS]
23:06 < gleki> that twitter account is a troll.
23:10 < gleki> {ka} formalisation appeared before resurrecting gua\spi
23:45 < zipcpi> k: ki'yuidje
23:45 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [uU] or [yY] but "i" found.
23:46 < zipcpi> Still don't understand why ski'yudje is not acceptable. Maybe a morphological "bug" was found
23:46 < zipcpi> *ski'yuidje
23:47 < akmnlrse> zipcpi: ski'yuidje is a slinku'i
23:47 < akmnlrse> k: daski'yuidje
23:47 < mensi> (CU [L:daski'yuidje VAU])
23:47 < zipcpi> Ah...
23:47 < zipcpi> ki'e
23:48 < akmnlrse> (or not exactly a slinku'i, but behaves like one)
23:48 < zipcpi> ta'o do mo la .cekitaujeis.
23:48 < akmnlrse> na pante .i zo jei to'e sai jai cafne
23:48 < zipcpi> ie
23:52 < gleki> li su'o jei mi nelci zo jei
23:53 < zipcpi> zo jo'u ji'a simsa zo jetnu
23:53 < akmnlrse> xu li re jei zo su'o mapti
23:54 < zipcpi> zo jei simsa zo joi
23:55 < zipcpi> sa'enaisai simsa le laldo te frica be zo lo bei zo le
23:56 < akmnlrse> y fi ma
23:56 < zipcpi> mo fi makau
23:56 < akmnlrse> go'oi laldo
23:57 < zipcpi> la'oi veridicality cu do'asai simsa le te frica ju'ocu'i
23:58 < akmnlrse> pe'i lo ni zo jo'u jai verdikala cu ro roi dunli lo me zo joi moi
23:59 < zipcpi> ta'o xy~~~'y ti cinri sei zoizoi http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Complement_to_causation_sumtcita zoi
--- Day changed Thu Jun 18 2015
00:00 < gleki> mi djica lo nu ma'a za'ure'u lanli lo gaspo gi'e ju'ocu'i jmina su'o lo gaspo lo jbobau i mu'a lo lujvo  ciste co gaspo cu cinri
00:00 < zipcpi> ie iku'i do'asai puzu zo le cu .y. ruble panra zo lo
00:01 < gleki> *puzuku
00:01 < zipcpi> si'a zo jo'u cu do'a ruble panra zo joi
00:01 < zipcpi> ie
00:05 < akmnlrse> naku zo'u brode .i to'eki'u bo broda -> Event of broda prevents event of brode, and brode is false ????
00:05 < akmnlrse> mi na nelci
00:05 < mensi> lo nu nelci zo'u ba'e mi nelci i ie mi nelci
00:07 < akmnlrse> (to ro lo drata pagbu zo'u simlu co zabna toi)
00:09 < zipcpi> .iku'i lu <to'e ki'u lo broda cu brode> li'u simsa lu <ki'u lo broda na brode>
00:09 < zipcpi> li'u
00:10 < akmnlrse> brode soi lo broda cu fanta .i nafse'imlu
00:10 < akmnlrse> ja nafse'i be ja'a
00:11 < zipcpi> zasti fa lo natfygau sumtcita .i mu'a zo ba'o
00:11 < zipcpi> ganai ba'o broda gi na broda
00:13 < akmnlrse> ka'e zbasu lo cizra ne mu'u lu ba'o ku je to'e ki'u lo broda cu brode li'u
00:13 < zipcpi> oiro'e
00:13 < akmnlrse> la'a stali lo ka nafse'i
00:15 < akmnlrse> exp: lo'u ki'yuidje le'u
00:15 < mensi> ([lo'u {ki'y uidje} le'u] VAU)
00:15 < zipcpi> u'i
00:15 < akmnlrse> ge tosymabru gi slinyku'i
00:15 < zipcpi> ua vei'ibu'o zo pa'y ka'e valsi
00:16 < akmnlrse> vei'i = xoi se vedli ?
00:16 < zipcpi> ba'anai
00:16 < akmnlrse> ua
00:17 < zipcpi> xu nitcu zo moi'i xoi fricygau lo ka morji kei lo ka vedli
00:17 < akmnlrse> na djuno
00:19 < zipcpi> zo kai'e co'e zo ba'a
00:19 < zipcpi> zo lai'i co'e lu ba'acu'i li'u
00:19 < zipcpi> zo vei'i co'e lu ba'anai li'u
00:22 < zipcpi> pe'i na du'eva'e go'oi nitcu .i le te frica be zo morji bei zo vedli cu .y. ralci
00:23 < zipcpi> lu <mi morji lo du'u broda> li'u simsa lu <mi vedli lo li'i ce'u gau djuno lo du'u broda> li'u
00:25 < zipcpi> zu'unai lu <mi vedli lo li'i ce'u broda> li'u simsa lu <mi morji lo du'u mi lifri lo ka ce'u broda> li'u
00:26 < gleki> na mutce simsa pe'i
00:27 < gleki> mi morji lo du'u mi lifri i ku'i xu mi ca'a lifri
00:27 < zipcpi> krefu lifri i'au xu
00:27 < gleki> i va'i mi xusra lo du'u mi morji i mi na xusra lo du'u mi lifri
00:28 < gleki> i zo morji simsa zo djuno
00:29 < zipcpi> ku'i lu ba'anai li'u smuvrici tu'a zo morji jo'u zo vedli i'au xu
00:29 < akmnlrse> je'u ka'e morji lo du'u lifri lo no roi ca'a se lifri
00:30 < gleki> broda lo se broda vau o'iru'e
00:30 < akmnlrse> .u'i
00:31 < zipcpi> mi kelci lo selkei .i mi kelci lo se kelci
00:31 < gleki> zipcpi: lu ba'anai li'u pu maljbo se pilno i lo maljbobau cu jbobau lo pu ju ca jbopre
00:32 < zipcpi> ja'o do na pante lo nu da'i mi jmina zo moi'i
00:32 < gleki> zo moi'i frica lu ba'anai li'u
00:32 < zipcpi> i'au xu
00:32 < zipcpi> .ie
00:33 < zipcpi> lu ba'anai li'u ei panra zo vei'i
00:34 < akmnlrse> xu da'i xamgu fa lo nu ge zo ba'a vadge gi zo moi'i je zo vei'i satci
00:40 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/moi'i
00:43 < gleki> lo ckilu pe zo ba'a zo'u mi ba'o jonai ca'o jonai pu'o lifri
00:44 < zipcpi> lu jonai li'u cu tarti lo cizra va'o lo za'ure mei
00:45 < gleki> ba'a = sei mi pu'o lifri
00:45 < gleki> li'o
00:45 < zipcpi> xy~'y frica ru'e zo kanpe
00:46 < akmnlrse> .ei pei zo me'ie ka'e se pagbu lo sumsmi poi na sumti
00:46 < zipcpi> zo'oi me'ie ki'a
00:47 < akmnlrse> .i da'i cusku lu li'o zo'u mi xoi me'au pa mei'e [sei cla'ani] ba'o ku ca'o ku pu'o ku vau lifri li'u
00:47 < akmnlrse> .i zo mei'e sei ciska srera
00:47 < zipcpi> ua .i ku'i mi na djuno lo ni kakne
00:47 < gleki> ie zo kanpe na mulno mapti zo ba'a
00:48 < gleki> i fadni lo nu lo cnima'o na mapti lo ralbrivla ju gismu
00:56 < zipcpi> xy~'y xu zo mei'e ka'e binxo co cmavo ma'oi nu
00:57 < zipcpi> exp: su'o nu lo gerku lo mlatu lo xarju cu .omnycti
00:57 < mensi> ([{su'o BOI} {nu <(¹[lo gerku KU] [lo mlatu KU] [lo xarju KU]¹) (¹cu [omnycti VAU]¹)> KEI} KU] VAU)
00:57 < zipcpi> exp: mi nelci ro nu lo cakla lo spinaca lo .articoke lo narge
00:57 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "n" found.
00:57 < akmnlrse> alta: su'o nu lo gerku lo mlatu lo xarju kei cu .omnycti
00:57 < mensi> ([FA {su'o BOI} {<nu (¹[{FA <lo (²gerku SF²) KU>} {FE <lo (²mlatu SF²) KU>} {FI <lo (²xarju SF²) KU>}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU]¹) kei> SF} KU] [cu {omnycti SF} VAU])
00:58 < zipcpi> exp su'o nu lo gerku lo mlatu lo xarju kei cu .omnycti
00:58 < zipcpi> exp: su'o nu lo gerku lo mlatu lo xarju kei cu .omnycti
00:58 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "o" found.
00:59 < zipcpi> la .exp. na nelci lo nu claxu lo selbri
00:59 < mensi> i ji'a mi na nelci mi'e la mensi
01:02 < zipcpi> .y. a'o ka'e da se erpi va'o lo simsa pe ma'oi je
01:02 < zipcpi> pe la selpa'i
01:04 < zipcpi> exp: pu ba broda
01:04 < mensi> (CU [{pu ba} broda] VAU)
01:04 < zipcpi> exp: puku ba broda
01:04 < mensi> ([pu ku] [CU {ba broda} VAU])
01:05 < zipcpi> exp pu joi ca joi ba broda
01:05 < zipcpi> exp: pu joi ca joi ba broda
01:05 < mensi> (CU [{pu <joi ca> <joi ba>} broda] VAU)
01:06 < zipcpi> http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/how-to-substantially-simplify-the-lojban-connective-system-my-connective-system
01:08 < zipcpi> nitcu lo simsa be zo ga jo'u zo gu
01:08 < zipcpi> be'o poi ka'e cpacu lo namcu
01:10 < zipcpi> exp: mi ga ba'o gi ca'o gi pu'o lifri
01:10 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "l" found.
01:10 < zipcpi> .y.
01:10 < zipcpi> nai'o makau tadji
01:10 < zipcpi> exp: mi gaje ba'o gi ca'o gi pu'o lifri
01:10 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "l" found.
01:11 < zipcpi> oi
01:13 < zipcpi> exp: mi gu'e ba'o gi ca'o gi pu'o lifri
01:13 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "l" found.
01:13 < zipcpi> ar~~~~x~~~
01:13 < zipcpi> oisai ro'e
01:15 < zipcpi> exp: mi gu broda gi brode gi brodi
01:15 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
01:15 < zipcpi> exp: mi ga broda gi brode gi brodi
01:15 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
01:16 < gleki> alta: mi djica lonu lo plise
01:16 < mensi> ([FA mi] [CU {djica SF} {FE <lo (¹[nu {<FA (²lo [plise SF] KU²)> <CU (²COhE SF²) VAU>} KEI] SF¹) KU>} VAU])
01:16 < gleki> ca'o u'i snada
01:16 < gleki> si tolspofu
01:16 < zipcpi> pe'ibu'onai co'e ma'oi nu
01:17 < zipcpi> ma'oi nu ka'e cpacu lo selbri .i le gerna naru'e .y. me'oi convenient
01:19 < zipcpi> da'i zo mei'e cu cmavo ma'oi nu
01:19 < zipcpi> su'o nu lo gerku lo mlatu lo xarju kei cu .omnycti
01:19 < zipcpi> su'o mei'e lo gerku lo mlatu lo xarju kei cu .omnycti
01:19 < zipcpi> zo kei cu jai se bilga
01:19 < zipcpi> ie'i
01:20 < zipcpi> zo kei ja zo vau
01:22 < zipcpi> ku'i pe'i naru'eku zo mei'e cu mapti
01:24 < zipcpi> nitcu lo ka vrici se erpi co vanbi lo simsa be zo je
01:25 < zipcpi> xu zo erpi'yvanbi zabna lujvo tu'a la'o gy use-case gy
01:26 < gleki> .dict usecase
01:26 < phenny> Couldn't get any definitions for usecase at Wiktionary.
01:26 < gleki> .dict use-case
01:26 < phenny> use-case — noun: 1. Alternative spelling of use case
01:26 < gleki> .dict use case
01:26 < phenny> use case — noun: 1. (software engineering) A description of a potential scenario in which a system receives an external request (such as user input) and responds to it
01:26 < gleki> en: pruce
01:26 < mensi> pruce = x1 is a process with inputs x2, outputs/results x3, passing through steps/stages x4. |>>> x2 resource (= selru'e,
01:26 < mensi> but also ru'etci, (ru'er-/ruc- or selru'e-/selruc- modifying:) selxaksu, selsabji, livla).  See also cmavo list pu'e,
01:26 < mensi> farvi, tadji, grute, tcini. |>>> officialdata
01:27 < gleki> simsa lu lo klesi ja mupli lo nu pruce li'u
01:27 < gleki> sa
01:27 < gleki> simsa lu klesi ja mupli lo nu pruce li'u
01:27 < zipcpi> I use it slightly less technically
01:28 < zipcpi> More like "A condition or scenario of expected usage"
01:29 < ctefaho> .u'i coi rodo
01:29 < zipcpi> What I mean to say is "This new "mei'e" should be usable in the same use-cases as the simple connective "je""
01:29 < ctefaho> (so someone added fizbu huh)
01:30 < zipcpi> And connect everything that je can connect
01:30 < zipcpi> Selpa'i-s je, even
01:30  * ctefaho runs to add kosmu too
01:31 < dutchie> coi
01:31 < akmnlrse> (to la'a ro da poi na lunbe selbrisle toi)
01:31 < akmnlrse> coi
01:33 < zipcpi> I use the word "use-case" a lot more than most people; so I have essentially laicized its definition
01:34 < zipcpi> exp: erpivanbi
01:34 < mensi> (CU [erpivanbi VAU])
01:35 < ctefaho> en: fizbu
01:35 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
01:36 < akmnlrse> mensi: ko ningau
01:36 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
01:36 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/sigma .y~~~.
01:36 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
01:37 < gleki> why adding gismu with glico meanings?
01:38 < zipcpi> Not really glico; the sigma is a mathematical symbol for the concept, so it's international
01:38 < zipcpi> Just don't know if it's gimy'inda
01:38  * ctefaho realized today that his cat speaks in UI
01:38 < zipcpi> Did you name it Lojban?
01:39 < ctefaho> (mostly .oi)
01:39 < gleki> oops, by glico i asked about {fizbu}
01:39 <@Broca> Not .au?
01:39 < gleki> en: sigma
01:39 < mensi> sigma = x1 is the standard variation of/in data set/distribution x2; x1 is the quantified (in)accuracy of the results x2
01:39 < mensi> given by some observation or measurement (procedure), calculated from/by standard x3 |>>> Technically, there really is
01:39 < mensi> only one possible standard deviation, but in practice, it is often approximate via some means x3 (such as assuming that
01:39 < mensi> the distribution is Gaussian, even if it actually is only a finite data sample x2). |>>>
01:39 < mensi> krtisfranks
01:39 < zipcpi> Cause I don't know how to define it in Lojban
01:39 < ctefaho> most definitely ".oi"
01:39 < ctefaho> but ".oi.au" mostly yeah
01:40 < gleki> he used {sigma} for standard deviation ?!!!
01:40 < gleki> but the capital sigma is ...
01:40 < zipcpi> I mean I could make it {ue'inmo} or something, but that's just going in circles
01:43 < zipcpi> You know what we really need is an... amplified English dictionary
01:43 < zipcpi> With longer explanations for each word
01:43 < zipcpi> longer definitions
01:43 < zipcpi> Rather than just throwing out synonyms and seeing what sticks
01:44 < gleki> tatoeba.org
01:44 < zipcpi> That's just examples
01:44 < zipcpi> Doesn't help us organize a discussion on, say, how exactly "excited" and "enthusiastic" differ
01:45 < gleki> using examples
01:45 < zipcpi> Doesn't help much. How does "I am excited" and "I am enthusiastic" differ?
01:46 < zipcpi> There are subtle senses that contrast each, but how do we define them?
01:46 < zipcpi> Then express them in an acceptable Lojbanic manner?
01:46 < gleki> only thru examples
01:47 < zipcpi> Unfortunately I'm not trained in linguistics or philosophy
01:48 < zipcpi> Tatoeba isn't "natural" use either. Look how much we use ra/xai/ko'a on it, then compare with actual use
01:48 < zipcpi> Or even {lo'i}
01:49 < zipcpi> {ra/xai/ko'a} is simply because Lojban third-person pronouns don't work like most other languages
01:50 < zipcpi> So we need a dirty substitute for them even though it doesn't match actual usage
01:52 < gleki> im not talking about existing sentences. just add more examples showing differences you need
01:57 < zipcpi> Still not seeing how that helps: All that'd mean is that I'd translate {mi fizbu lo ka klama le zarci} to "I am excited to go to the store" and {mi entuzi lo ka klama le zarci} as "I am enthusiastic about going to the store"
01:58 < gleki> now find an example that uses both words.
01:58 < zipcpi> "I am excited, and he is enthusiastic"?
01:59 < gleki> no, more verbosity is needed
01:59 < zipcpi> What we really need are sentences like this: http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4225938 but I don't know how to pull them out of thin air, or control them for which words I want to use
02:00 < zipcpi> Where I'm able to actually pull out all the stops and translate things in a very non-literal manner
02:01 < zipcpi> {zei'a} isn't even in the English sentence at all
02:02 < zipcpi> But I think it really is one of my best sentences
02:05 < ctefaho> kosmu added, shots fired
02:05 < zipcpi> Right... you want a BAI for it
02:06 < ctefaho> yup
02:06 < ctefaho> ko'au
02:06 < zipcpi> purpose ; reason for which something is performed
02:06 < zipcpi> I don't think that's quite right
02:07 < ctefaho> well pe'u come with a better sense
02:07 < zipcpi> I've already defined {erpi} with it
02:07 < ctefaho> sucks for erpi
02:07 < zipcpi> No, I meant with the sense I tihnk you want
02:07 < ctefaho> ahhhhh
02:08 < zipcpi> "What is gasoline used for?"
02:08 < ctefaho> teleological?
02:08 < zipcpi> Yes, that's teleological
02:08 < ctefaho> didn't know that word
02:08 < zipcpi> Translating it literally as {te pilno} would require a zi'o
02:08 < zipcpi> *se pilno
02:09 < ctefaho> well, feel free to edit kosmu with what you think fits better
02:11 < zipcpi> " reason for which something is performed" is already {krinu}
02:12 < ctefaho> well I used Wikipedia's idea, if you have an idea that makes it better distinguished from cause then pe'usai edit it
02:13 < zipcpi> Also it's nice to have something that can refer to the "telos" of both an object or an event
02:13 < zipcpi> Without having to use tu'a or jai
02:14 < zipcpi> Selpa'i also had a similar idea
02:14 < ctefaho> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relation is my god
02:15 < zipcpi> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos_(philosophy)
02:16 < zipcpi> Edited it. Basically copied my definition for {erpi}, except without the notes relating it to terpli
02:19 < zipcpi> "What is gasoline used for" = "What is the purpose (telos) of gasoline"
02:19 < ctefaho> hmm wtf
02:19 < ctefaho> si si
02:20 < zipcpi> ma kosmu lo tcigaso
02:20 < zipcpi> lo tcigaso cu se kosmu lo ka ce'u livla
02:21 < zipcpi> "Gasoline is used for fuel"
02:21 < zipcpi> Not implying that is currently used by anyone
02:21 < ctefaho> now we need to answer how fi'o kosmu is different from terzu'e;)
02:21 < zipcpi> Just that this is what gasoline is to be used for
02:22 < gleki> pilno doesnt imply anything being used currently
02:22 < gleki> that's what ca'a is for
02:22 < zipcpi> It still has that annoying agent place though
02:22 < gleki> so you basically want zilpli with plino1 moved into x0
02:23 < gleki> *pilno1
02:23 < zipcpi> Well, that's basically what zilfi'i/erpi/kosmu is, yes
02:23 < ctefaho> tucti?
02:23 < ctefaho> tutci
02:24 < ctefaho> for zipcpi's idea
02:24 < ctefaho> maybe not
02:25 < zipcpi> No... because then you can't talk about the purpose of any arbitrary object or event
02:25 < zipcpi> Telos isn't restricted to "tools"
02:27 < dutchie> on tatoeba, is it a good idea to add multiple translations of {ko'a broda} for "He brodas", "She will broda", "She did broda" etc etc?
02:27 < zipcpi> I don't know
02:29 < dutchie> on the one hand, it's correct and should lead to more understanding of the vagueness, but on the other hand, doing it properly will result in loads of translations
02:29 < zipcpi> Especially when they cross
02:30 < zipcpi> Also added a note about the "etymology" of kosmu
02:31 < ctefaho> .i'o.i'e
02:32 < zipcpi> Anyway see {te batke} for something that I think you'd want your {ko'au} for
02:32 < zipcpi> Selpahi also mentioned it
02:32 < Compu-Celebi> For a long time, I have been repeatedly forgetting to inquire in here about, in any Lojban word, following an el or an ar with a gliding diphthong.
02:33 < Compu-Celebi> For example, is "ria" a valid Lojban word?
02:33 < zipcpi> No
02:33 < zipcpi> Cia, for any consonant, including ', is invalid
02:33 < zipcpi> It used to be valid, so you might see some older materials using it
02:33 < zipcpi> But it was banned in a phonotactic reform
02:33 < ctefaho> sincrboa
02:33 < Compu-Celebi> I am surprised that [i]The Complete Lojban Language[/i] does not contain any statements about the matter.
02:34 < zipcpi> It's a later reform
02:34 < zipcpi> CLL is outdated in many ways; many reforms that have been officialized aren't reflected there
02:35 < zipcpi> The "dotside" reform and the "xorlo" reform mostly
02:35 < zipcpi> As well as the aforementioned phonotactic reform
02:35 < Compu-Celebi> Is "sincrboa" intended to be a Lojban borrowed word for the English word "boa"?
02:35 < ctefaho> yep
02:35 < zipcpi> It isn't valid
02:35 < zipcpi> At least not anymore
02:36 < ctefaho> but sincrbo'a is what you need
02:36 < ctefaho> OR sincrboua
02:36 < Compu-Celebi> Oh, of course, "oa" is invalid.
02:36 < zipcpi> But you can't call yourself la .bo,as. anymore either, unlike what the CLL will tell you
02:36 < ctefaho> (latter could be written as "sincrbowa" to highlight the difference)
02:37 < zipcpi> ctefaho: That would be nice if we had something for i/y too
02:37 < Compu-Celebi> How is that name word invalid?
02:37 < zipcpi> "Syllabic vowel-glides" are banned everywhere, even in cmevla
02:38 < zipcpi> You must buffer them with {'} or semi-vowels too
02:38 < zipcpi> either .bouas. or .bo'as.
02:38 < ctefaho> zipcpi: if you wanna replace y, I propose ə or @ (x-sampa style) or q (for its somewhat-resemblance to the schwa)
02:38 < Compu-Celebi> Define "syllabic vowel-glide."
02:38 < ctefaho> neither which will make everyone/anyone happy
02:38 < zipcpi> Eh... I don't like things that are hard to type
02:39 < zipcpi> Or which messes with email-recognition
02:39 < ctefaho> -->q
02:39 < ctefaho> lo sofqbakni
02:39 < ctefaho> lo sof@bakni
02:39 < ctefaho> lo sofəbakni
02:40 < ctefaho> (so you can use "y" in the diphtongs)
02:40 < ctefaho> (alternative ortographies++)
02:40 < zipcpi> Syllabic vowel glide: meaning glides from one vowel to another in two separate syllables, without a semivowel buffer
02:42 < Compu-Celebi> I conjectured correctly and would have called them "bisyllabic gliding diphthongs."
02:42 < zipcpi> Yeah
02:42 < Compu-Celebi> Why are they impermissible?
02:43 < zipcpi> I don't know the full story, but the reasoning is probably that i,a,i,a,ion was indistinguishable from i,ia,ii,ia,ion
02:43 < zipcpi> And also that commas are also meant to be optional
02:43 < Compu-Celebi> Well, now, I must modify my Lojban Python module and its Common Lisp counterpart.
02:46 < zipcpi> Two more things you need to know about main differences between CLL and modern Lojban: Dotside: all cmevla must both begin and and with a pause now. But {la}, {lai}, and {doi} are now allowed in them
02:46 < zipcpi> Reasoning: no one could reliably detected those "banned" syllables in actual usage
02:46 < Compu-Celebi> I knew about this, from a previous discussion in here.
02:46 < akmnlrse> Compu-Celebi: .a'u .i xu ra noi samselpla cu gubni
02:47 < Compu-Celebi> I subsequently read a document that presented convincing arguments in favor of it.
02:47 < ctefaho> (about that, are there still jbopre who oppose dotside?)
02:47 < gleki> dutchie: as for tatoeba.org yes, that's what is usually done
02:47 < Compu-Celebi> I am a computer programmer as a hobbyist.
02:48 < zipcpi> And the third one is the "brivla cmevla" merge. It's not as officialized as the other things I mentioned, but still people now usually leave the {cu} in {la .djan. cu klama} now
02:48 < akmnlrse> ctefaho: la .uuzît
02:48 < akmnlrse> ku mu'a
02:48 < zipcpi> Just to be able to work in both parsers
02:48 < gleki> sincrboa was never valid
02:48 < zipcpi> ua
02:48 < zipcpi> off: la djan klama
02:48 < mensi> ([{la djan} CU] [klama VAU])
02:49 < zipcpi> exp: la djan klama
02:49 < mensi> ([la {djan klama} KU] VAU)
02:49 < gleki> sincrboa is what xorxes used.
02:49 < ctefaho> yeah
02:49 < dutchie> je'e la gleki
02:49  * ctefaho slaps gleki around a bit with a large trout
02:50 < ctefaho> err
02:50 < ctefaho> I mean
02:50 < ctefaho> hi gleki
02:50 < Compu-Celebi> Oh, I confused "gubni," which means "public," with "gunka," which means "work."
02:50 < ctefaho> I just registed on lojban.org
02:50 < ctefaho> do I get a password sent to me by email?
02:50 < Compu-Celebi> The code is neither public nor complete.
02:50 < akmnlrse> je'e
02:51 < zipcpi> The "brivla cmevla" merge is somewhat disputed, but the main reasoning is that it makes it much easier to make tanru out of names {le .atlantik. xamsi} = the sea of-type "Atlantic", or names that mix cmevla and brivla, for example if you have a "last-name" and a "first-name" that mixes the types
02:52 < zipcpi> As I said, it's not quite as officialized as the "dotside" reform or the phonotactic reform, but it affects common usage significantly as to when {cu} is to be elided
02:53 < gleki> ctefaho: lo do jaspu mo'u se zanru
02:53 < ctefaho> ki'e la gleki ku
02:54  * ctefaho practicing for cmevla/brivla merge
02:54 < dutchie> .u'i
02:54 < ctefaho> zipcpi: But then you must always terminate many la's with a cu or a ku?
02:55 < ctefaho> so other stuffs doesn't get eaten by the la
02:55 < zipcpi> Yes, but the reasoning is that it's not too much of a bother, because you'd have to do it if the name is a brivla anyway
02:55 < ctefaho> true
02:55 < zipcpi> Like {la zipcpi cu klama}; cu isn't elidable here
02:55 < ctefaho> but good, that helps a lot with another idea of mine
02:55 < ctefaho> (which funnily enough works in speech but not in writing)
02:56 < ctefaho> (but I came up with a solution for that too)
02:56 < zipcpi> Indeed, the ubiquity of examples like {la .djan. klama} in older materials often confused beginners, who thought that {la zipcpi klama} would be correct too
02:56 < zipcpi> It makes la look like it has "two grammars"
02:57 < ctefaho> but besides ku, cu and do'u, there is not much else you can use to terminate la?
02:57 < ctefaho> (do'u for la in vocatives, li'a)
02:57 < zipcpi> ... tones?
02:57 < ctefaho> tones?
02:57 < zipcpi> Dunno, just making a wild guess
02:57 < zipcpi> Cause I've heard of ideas of replacing stuff like {lo} or {cu} with tones :p
02:58  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
02:58 < gleki> any sumti autoterminates {la}
02:58 < gleki> doi la zipcpi do tugni xu
02:58 < gleki> exp: doi la zipcpi do tugni xu
02:58 < mensi> ([doi {la zipcpi KU} DOhU] [do {CU <tugni xu> VAU}])
02:58 < gleki> here {do} autoadds {ku do'u} to the syntactic tree.
03:00 < Compu-Celebi> I would have implemented a terminator for Lojban names.
03:00 < gleki> terminators arent needed very often actually.
03:01 < gleki> {cu}, {vau}, {li'u} is what is usually used. seldom {be'o} is needed.
03:01 < gleki> and {ku} is used after names}.
03:01 < gleki> since {la gleki noi broda} and {la gleki ku noi broda} have different meanings.
03:02 < zipcpi> I prefer {la gleki voi broda} for the first case though, just to emphasize the "titular addition to name" sense
03:02 < gleki> well, actually {li'u} should be excluded from this list since English also uses unquote marks.
03:02 < gleki> neither {ku'o}, nor {kei} are really needed. they can be avoided.
03:03 < zipcpi> Well English also uses commas, but they don't necessarily match with famyma'o
03:03 < zipcpi> Unquote mark is probably the most reliable "famyma'o" English has
03:04 < Compu-Celebi> Why is Lojban left-branching?
03:04 < zipcpi> Oh and right bracket ({toi})
03:04 < Ilmen> If {vau} weren't also the gihek terminator, I would use it more often
03:04 < Ilmen> coi
03:04 < Ilmen> Compu-Celebi: Well the choice between left and right branching is somewhat arbitrary
03:05 < gleki> yes, you have to choose something. either red or blue pill.
03:06 < Ilmen> left-branching probably works better with LR(1) parsers; I guess for right branching languages the whole sentence string should be inverted/mirrored before giving it to the parser (but I'm not sure, I'm not familiar with LR(1) parsing)
03:06 < Ilmen> I hope I am not saying rubbish there :)
03:07 < Compu-Celebi> I opine right-branching to be more logical, because it enables what is modified to be known before the modifier without reading/listening ahead.
03:07 < Ilmen> Erm
03:07 < Ilmen> Lojban is right branching, sorry
03:07 < Compu-Celebi> No, Spanish and Latin, for example, are right-branching.
03:07 < Ilmen> Japanese is left banching
03:08 < Compu-Celebi> English is left-branching.
03:08 < gleki> depends on what structures you are talking about.
03:09 < gleki> postpositions imply left branching since their heads are to the right. English uses prepositions so its right branching here.
03:09 < Ilmen> Compu-Celebi: as far as I can tell, in Lojban modifiers come after modified elements, except for things like tanru
03:09  * ctefaho new cmavo idea: Make lojban right-branching?
03:10  * ctefaho (based on cfipu)
03:11 < Compu-Celebi> I have been referring to seltau, not, for example, attitudinal modifiers.
03:11 < Ilmen> lo gerku poi blabi ---- the marker for predicate to argument conversion (lo) comes first, and then the relative clause comes after the lo-description
03:12 < Compu-Celebi> I was using "modifier" in the adjectival/adverbial sense.
03:12 < Ilmen> Yeah, for some mysterious reason tanru works the other way around, the head comes last and the modifiers precede the head
03:14  * nuzba @mkmagicannon: @PixelJanosz @MeltSteelBeams @_DHMapplethorpe @_strelokgslingr @_icze4r Yes some people spell it "curb". Also in Lojban it's "korbi". [http://bit.ly/1G6eAbI]
03:14  * nuzba @mkmagicannon: @PixelJanosz @MeltSteelBeams @_DHMapplethorpe @_strelokgslingr @_icze4r Just In The Rare Event That You Gave A Fuck About Lojban [http://bit.ly/1G6eW20]
03:14  * nuzba @mkmagicannon: @_DHMapplethorpe @PixelJanosz @MeltSteelBeams @_strelokgslingr @_icze4r Skip the jargon and this is still readable: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/besto [http://bit.ly/1TwJ9k5]
03:14  * nuzba @mkmagicannon: @_DHMapplethorpe @PixelJanosz @MeltSteelBeams @_strelokgslingr @_icze4r This one's fun too (notably shorter): http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/gleua [http://bit.ly/1TwJiUJ]
03:15 < gleki> ctefaho: for postpositions i "solved" this problem by enriching the parser to allow postpositions. just use {co} to reverse their branching
03:15 < gleki> alta: lo vanci co ca mi citka
03:15 < mensi> ([{<lo (¹vanci SF¹) KU> co ca} {FA mi}] [CU {citka SF} VAU])
03:16 < gleki> The evenings-in I eat.
03:16 < gleki> alta: lo nanca be li ci co pu zi mi tadni
03:16 < mensi> ([{<lo (¹[nanca {be <FE (²li [ci BOI] LOhO²)>} BEhO] SF¹) KU> co <pu zi>} {FA mi}] [CU {tadni SF} VAU])
03:17 < gleki> Three years *ago* I studied.
03:17 < gleki> Here is a rare examples when english has postpositions.
03:17 < gleki> *example
03:17 < Compu-Celebi> Anyhow, if Lojban were right-branching, any predicate word could be known not to be a seltau before knowing whether it is even part of one or more phrase compounds without reading/listening ahead.
03:18 < Ilmen> Yeah, Lojban is not purely right branching
03:19 < Ilmen> I'd say it's mostly right branching, but there are exceptions such as tanru, or number strings used as quantifiers or with MOI words, etc
03:20 < Ilmen> For example, when one hears/read {mi pa...}, one can't know yet whether this "pa" is a quantifier making a sumti ("pa gerku"...) or part of a MOI or MAI or ROI clause (pa moi... pa roi...)
03:21 < Ilmen> So that seems like an instance of left-branching
03:23 < zipcpi> I think part of the reasoning is that the place structure always reflects the right most predicate word
03:23 < zipcpi> Or the place structures of anything to the right, rather
03:24 < zipcpi> {ko'a blanu gerku ko'e} = ko'e fills x2 of gerku
03:24 < zipcpi> {ko'a gerku co blanu ko'e} = ko'a fills x1 of gerku, but ko'e fills x2 of blanu
03:25 < Compu-Celebi> Not knowing from a phrase compound's first word whether it is part of a phrase compound and, therefore, is a seltau is inconvenient.
03:25 < Ilmen> {ko'a gerku blanu ko'e} would be equally fine if the default was modified-modifier
03:25 < zipcpi> What about the co case though?
03:26 < gleki> {gerku co blanu} is an elaboration of {gerku}.
03:26 < gleki> gerku i sa'e gerku co blanu
03:26 < gleki> it's a dog. More precisely, it's a blue-dog.
03:26 < zipcpi> I meant if da'i we reversed the modified and modifiers
03:26 < Ilmen> In Toki Pona, the equivalent of Lojban's tanru are right branching
03:26 < zipcpi> So it is in Malay
03:27 < Ilmen> so instead of saying "blabi kerfa gerku", one would say "gerku kerfa blabi"
03:27 < Compu-Celebi> I would prefer to know what general class the predicate word/phrase compound denotes before reading/listening beyond the first word.
03:27 < ctefaho> are you talking about "co"?
03:27 < Compu-Celebi> "co" does not rectify the issue, because it would be the second word.
03:27 < zipcpi> In malay teaching materials it's called the "DM rule". "diterangkan menerangkan"
03:28 < Compu-Celebi> No word that essentially means, "The following is an inverted phrase compound," exists.
03:28 < zipcpi> {lo se ciksi lo ciksi}
03:29 < gleki> Compu-Celebi: then what's the problem? You may always use {co}!
03:29 < zipcpi> Hmm... new KE? Though I don't know how selma'o should actually work for semantic parsing
03:29 < zipcpi> {co} changes place structure
03:30 < Ilmen> gleki: They would prefer a marker that comes *before* the tanru begins
03:30 < zipcpi> What he wants is a way to say things like military style "Meal, Ready-to Eat", while still having everything that comes to the right have the place structure of "meal"
03:31 < gleki> ihope they are not mixing adjectives with compound verbs.
03:31 < zipcpi> The important thing right now is the place structure
03:31 < zipcpi> {co} changes place structure
03:31 < Compu-Celebi> If I were to read {le vanci sanmi}, I would initially wonder whether it refers to the evening and then discover that it actually refers to a meal and that the meal is a dinner.
03:32 < gleki> {lo sanmi pe lo vanci}
03:32 < zipcpi> What about in the selbri?
03:33 < Ilmen> Compu-Celebi: And then, after having read/heard "le vanci sanmi", you still have to wait for the next word because it's not yet sure that the tanru is finished
03:33 < gleki> ma mo
03:33 < zipcpi> ti vanci sanmi
03:33 < Compu-Celebi> Ilmen, indeed, and it compounds the issue.
03:34 < gleki> zipcpi: ti vanci do'e lo sanmi. depends on what meaning you want
03:34 < zipcpi> The other way round is what you want probably
03:35 < zipcpi> Your fixes would be much more complicated in more complicated sentences and/or tanru though
03:36 < gleki> idk. give me examples, i wil ltranslate them
03:36 < zipcpi> lo melbi je xunre ke nixli ckule
03:37  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
03:38 < Ilmen> ... <right-branching tanru> ckule nixli ke xunre je melbi
03:39 < gleki> zipcpi: lo ckule ne lo nixli je noi melbi je xunre
03:39 < Ilmen> school of type girl of type both red and beautiful
03:40 < zipcpi> Gleki: See, now you have to bring in NE and NOI, and introduce a subclause, just to reverse the order
03:40 < Compu-Celebi> I would prefer to be in a position to think, "It refers to a meal.  The meal is of an evening-related type," as opposed to, "It possibly refers to an evening.  It turns out that it refers to a meal of an evening-related type or something else.  It is the former," or, as is even less preferable, "It refers to an evening.  Oh, it actually refers to a meal of an evening-related type."
03:41 < zipcpi> The more such structures in the sentence, the more complicated it's gonna get
03:42 < zipcpi> Compu-Celebi: Yeah it probably was a malglixlu-decision
03:42 < Ilmen> Compu-Celebi: I also like when the predicate comes first, because you know right away what argument roles to expect
03:42 < zipcpi> {co} can still change place structure
03:42 < zipcpi> It just won't actually reverse order
03:42 < ctefaho> doi zipcpi
03:43 < gleki> zipcpi: i just dont understand why you need tanru but okay.
03:43 < zipcpi> But I don't know what we can do about it. It's already such a part of the language, embedded even in the lujvo system
03:43 < ctefaho> (Test: did you interpret that as "doi la zipcpi" or "doi lo zipcpi"?)
03:43 < gleki> {co} has a rafsi
03:44 < zipcpi> *and* changes place structure
03:44 < gleki> zipcpi: it must change the place structure
03:44 < gleki> ctefaho: acc. to CLL it means {doi la/lo zipcpi}
03:44 < Compu-Celebi> I have wondered whether Lojban's phrase compound order has been based upon English.
03:44 < zipcpi> ctefa'o: An elided article after DOI and COI is ambiguous
03:45 < Ilmen> Me too
03:45 < zipcpi> {doi selpa'i} can refer to "Beloved..." or the person Selpahi
03:45 < Compu-Celebi> Ilmen, it is why I prefer prefix notation, also.
03:47 < ctefaho> zipcpi: Ambigious much?
03:47 < zipcpi> Yes
03:48 < ctefaho> doirodo does anyone here have a different interpretation than zipcpi?
03:49 < Ilmen> ctefaho: I've been taught that COI broda ~= COI le broda
03:49 < Ilmen> but I don't really know what the CLL says on this
03:50 < ctefaho> it says waht you just said
03:50 < zipcpi> It's one of the few things in the CLL that aren't significantly touched by a reform
03:50 < akmnlrse> http://alexburka.com/lojban/cll/lojban.html#c06s11e06
03:50 < Compu-Celebi> As I recollect, it is "la" that is elided.
03:50 < akmnlrse> ka'e nafse'i vau ku'i
03:50 < ctefaho> no lo/le/la is a le
03:50 < zipcpi> Right... "old" le
03:50 < zipcpi> Which we don't care about anymore
03:50 < ctefaho> it says I adressed a penguin up there
03:51 < zipcpi> Yet I can drop the article in {coi .djan.}?
03:51 < Compu-Celebi> "la" is now part of the same grammatical class as "le"?
03:51 < zipcpi> It's just inconvenient
03:51 < zipcpi> Under cmevla-brivla merge, yes
03:52 < ctefaho> Because if the rules clearly say "doi zipcpi" means "doi lo zipcpi" but everyone interprets it as "doi la zipcpi", rule needs to change at least?
03:52 < zipcpi> I've always been told that it was ambiguous
03:52 < zipcpi> The cost of dropping a syllable
03:53 < Ilmen> I pretty often say things like {co'o cliva}, {ki'e sidju}...
03:53 < ctefaho> well then
03:53 < ctefaho> Ilmen: Is that an implicit "cu" or a "lo"?
03:53 < ctefaho> coi cliva
03:53 < zipcpi> {lo/le}
03:53 < Ilmen> ctefaho: it can't be an implicit "cu"
03:54 < ctefaho> good
03:54 < ctefaho> .i coi la cliva .i xu doi lo cliva
03:54 < zipcpi> doipei
03:55 < cliva> coi le (to na'e verdikala toi) ctefa'o
03:55 < Ilmen> ta'e skudji fe mu'a lu co'o lo cliva li'u
03:55 < ctefaho> .u'i
03:57 < gleki> how do we say "lively ~= anti-dull"?
03:58 < zipcpi> {zdile}?
04:01 < gleki> .dict lively
04:01 < phenny> lively — noun: 1. (nautical) Term of address — adjective: 1. Full of life; energetic, 2. Bright; vivid; glowing; strong; vigorous — adverb: 1. (obsolete) In a lifelike manner, 2. Vibrantly, vividly
04:02 < gleki> 1. full of life and energy
04:02 < zipcpi> {to'e to'e zdile}? zo'o
04:02 < gleki> 2. full of zest or vigor
04:03 < gleki> something like {gleki zukte so'i da}
04:04 < gleki> en: ue'i
04:04 < mensi> ue'i = [UI1] attitudinal: excitement - lack of excitement - boredom |>>> Used to express excitement (enthusiasm,
04:04 < mensi> exhilaration). The opposite expresses boredom (dullness), while the cu'i-form expresses "indifference". See fizbu,
04:04 < mensi> tolzdi |>>> ctefaho
04:04 < zipcpi> Right now it's linked to {fizbu}/{tolzdi}
04:05 < gleki> dull is not tolzdi
04:05 < zipcpi> Of course, you're probably talking about how to define {fizbu}
04:05 < gleki> neither lively=enthusiastic
04:05 < zipcpi> Right
04:06 < gleki> i'd use {jai zu'e renvi}
04:07 < zipcpi> I'm... not sure I like renvi
04:07 < zipcpi> Doesn't seem very lively to me
04:07 < gleki> https://www.reddit.com/r/conlangs/comments/3a6ptz/in_what_ways_does_lojban_differ_from_its/
04:07 < gleki> {renvi} doesnt imply "hard survival"
04:07 < zipcpi> I know, but it can mean that
04:08 < zipcpi> Just adding {jai zu'e} doesn't seem to fix it
04:08 < akmnlrse> ue ue la selckiku cu pu zi spuda lo prutidu co'e
04:10 < ctefaho> does anyone use SE with PU/FAhA/ZAhO?
04:11 < ctefaho> za'a na
04:11 < zipcpi> Some times. Though I'm still confused what it means
04:12 < Compu-Celebi> I have never done so.
04:13 < Compu-Celebi> I do not recollect it being possible, either.
04:13 < ctefaho> ok good
04:13 < Compu-Celebi> s/possible/grammatical/
04:13 < phenny> Compu-Celebi meant to say: I do not recollect it being grammatical, either.
04:16 < gleki> .dict hello
04:16 < phenny> hello — noun: 1. "Hello!" or an equivalent greeting — verb: 1. (trans.) To greet with "hello" — interjection: 1. A greeting (salutation) said when meeting someone or acknowledging someone’s arrival or presence, 2. A greeting used when answering the telephone
04:17 < gleki> phma: ta'i ma do kakne lo ka me'oi phenny
04:17 < gleki> oops
04:17 < gleki> phenny: ta'i ma do kakne lo ka me'oi phenny
04:17 < Compu-Celebi> Wow, phenny applies sed substitution strings.
04:17 < gleki> phma: ju'inai
04:28 < Compu-Celebi> I have just completed reading jbovlaste's entries for the experimental root words that have been added to it since I had last checked.
04:29 < gleki> poor you
04:30 < gleki> send my greetings to Curtis
04:31 < Compu-Celebi> Huh?
04:33 < gleki> most gismu are from Curtis
04:34 < Compu-Celebi> Were you expressing pity for me?
04:34 < ctefaho> is he the one making "pitza" and stuff?
04:35 < Compu-Celebi> "pitza" is not a valid Lojban word.
04:36 < ctefaho> well it wasn't exactly "pitza"
04:36 < gleki> {pitsa}
04:37 < gleki> you can see who entered what in JVS
04:38 < Compu-Celebi> "pitsa" is unlisted.
04:38 < ctefaho> pitsa yes
04:38 < ctefaho> but it seems to be gone
04:38 < e`ogan> Why haven't lojban picked nomenclature naming from latin?
04:38 < ctefaho> now the italians will go crazy
04:38 < gleki> nomenclature of what?
04:39 < e`ogan> I mean plants and animals, not objects
04:39 < gleki> it's not so easy to import them. we need an algorithm of lojbanizing any name.
04:41 < e`ogan> So it can't just be "cani" it has to be {gerku}?
04:42 < gleki> no, it would break self-segregation morphology.
04:42 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Experimental_gismu_and_cmavo_frequency_lists
04:42 < gleki> indeed pitsa should be added
04:54 < zipcpi> e'ogan: Yes, the problem is zi'evla morphology basically
04:54 < zipcpi> We don't have a good algorithm for changing arbitrary phonemes to squeeze into zi'evla morphology
04:55 < zipcpi> Right now it's all just trial and error
04:55 < e`ogan> Is it because of limitation such as {i,a,i,ai} = {iaiai} not being allowed?
04:55 < zipcpi> No
04:56  * ctefaho done with http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o
04:56 < zipcpi> Take "Lycaon"
04:56 < zipcpi> OK first that ao needs to be changed, but that's not the only problem
04:56 < zipcpi> likauon
04:56 < zipcpi> Then...
04:57 < zipcpi> We need to either add a vowel to the end, or drop the vowel
04:57 < zipcpi> likauo
04:57 < zipcpi> THen, we need to add a consonant cluster
04:57 < zipcpi> litkauo
04:57 < zipcpi> That's not mentioning the pitfalls known as "tosmabru" and "slinku'i"
04:58 < e`ogan> I see, the words in lojban are meant to follow internal morphological structure
04:58 < zipcpi> A tosmabru is any putative brivla (can affect both candidate lujvo and zi'evla) that would break apart into cmavo + brivla: tosmabru -> to smabru
04:58 < e`ogan> Is that to have cmavo, gismu and others to be recognisable from the structure?
04:59 < e`ogan> so*
04:59 < zipcpi> It's to prevent things like "propagate"/"prop a gate"
04:59 < zipcpi> Word boundary ambiguity
04:59 < e`ogan> Oh, makes sense
04:59 < zipcpi> That's also why cmevla have those mandatory pauses, and are the only words that end in a consonant
04:59 < zipcpi> And must end in a consonant
05:00 < zipcpi> A slinku'i is any putative zi'evla that would turn into a lujvo if a "cmavo" is added to it: pa + slinku'i = pas/lin/ku'i
05:01 < zipcpi> The reason paslinku'i is not considered a tosmabru is because lujvo takes priority on morphological space over zi'evla
05:01 < zipcpi> zi'evla basically takes all the leftovers not taken by gismu or lujvo
05:01 < e`ogan> So the whole concept of the words being approximated from the most common natlangs isn't really applicable to lojban
05:01 < zipcpi> Yes
05:02 < zipcpi> They have to be massaged to squeeze in, and there is no known algorithm to do so
05:02 < e`ogan> It seems each conlang concentrates heavily on a certain aspect, but can't have them all
05:02 < gleki> of course all Latin names can be turned into cmevla. and algorithms here could be made.
05:03 < zipcpi> Oh yes, if we do cmevla-brivla merge we can quite easily turn them into cmevla
05:03 < zipcpi> But even under BCM the doctrine is that cmevla can't have a single defined meaning
05:03 < gleki> one cannot accumulate concepts from natlangs since most concepts in natlangs dont match.
05:03 < e`ogan> Care to elaborate with an example?
05:04 < zipcpi> The word "see"
05:04 < gleki> e.g. "think" in English" pensar" in Portuguese, "dumat'" in Russian all have different connotations.
05:04 < gleki> semantic ranges
05:04 < zipcpi> Right that too
05:04 < gleki> almost any frequent verb
05:05 < e`ogan> Can't they be deconstructed into even more basic parts to be reassembled correctly in another language then?
05:06 < zipcpi> That's basically what we've been trying to do all this while, but it's not exactly an easy job :p
05:07 < gleki> it's highly doubted that these core concepts even exist.
05:07 < gleki> take emotions. there are zillions of them and no core emotions. instead there is a continuum.
05:07 < gleki> take colors. there is rainbow but natlangs dont often refer to particular parts of it.
05:08 < gleki> some color words mix different properties
05:08 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/menli_saske_papri#Colors_in_different_languages
05:09 < e`ogan> Well lojban has an interesting approach (that I'd compare to jpeg compression), but I am interested in finding out if there is some attempt at grinding the concepts to their "subatomic" components to be then built into said concepts via math algorythm description (or chemical formula of the concept if you will), which ofc is done by a machine since for a human that'd be too much tedious footwork to do
05:11 < gleki> yes, we only need formulae to transform from one language into another and use lojban to store these formulae. needless to say the only close things ever been done is Wierzbicka's NSM. As it name suggests there is no syntax there. Thus, no strict formulae we need.
05:11 < zipcpi> See {mutsteila} for a zi'evla-ization that I'm not too proud of
05:11 < zipcpi> mustela breaks to mu stela
05:11 < zipcpi> mutstela is the lujvo mut/stela
05:12 < zipcpi> musteila breaks to mu steila (because steila is a valid zi'evla)
05:12 < zipcpi> So yeah, endet up with mutsteila
05:12 < e`ogan> Ok thank you very much
05:13 < e`ogan> I think a translator for spoken speech based on semantic primes could be done
05:14 < Compu-Celebi> e`ogan, you have misspelled "algorithm."
05:14 < e`ogan> It's literature where this concept enters a bozon field so havy it can't move
05:15 < gleki> it doesnt matter whether primes exist. it does matter whether we have prepared formulae to transform from one language into another
05:15 < gleki> it should be so that any phrase first normalized. like this:
05:15 < Compu-Celebi> I have just learned of the word "bozon," which Wiktionary recognizes.
05:15 < Compu-Celebi> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bozon
05:15 < gleki> tersmus: mi prami fe do
05:15 < tersmus> prami(mi,do)
05:16 < gleki> tersmus: fa mi fe do prami
05:16 < tersmus> prami(mi,do)
05:16 < gleki> as you can see the output is the same.
05:16 < e`ogan> Oh right, not everyone is versed in physics and chemistry metaphors
05:16 < gleki> i dont know if for other languages anything similar is done
05:16 < Compu-Celebi> I am a computer programmer, not a scientist.
05:17 < e`ogan> And I am heavily visual/engineer minded, so even despite the ase with which I grasp languages, I am not really linguistically minded person
05:17 < Compu-Celebi> I was initially reminded of the word "boson" and the Higgs boson (which is informally known as the "God particle").
05:18 < e`ogan> ease*
05:19 < gleki> en: xigzo
05:19 < e`ogan> Ok now, tank you again for the info, I need to go now, or my internet contract will be void
05:20 < Compu-Celebi> Ah, I recollect that experimental root word.
05:21 < gleki> vrici is again superslow.
05:21 < Compu-Celebi> What is the Internet contract?
05:22 < e`ogan> I had new internet related equipment sent to me due to better connection and faster bitrate, but I didn't get the sticker with return address for the old equipment that needs to be sent in (it is loaned, not bought here)
05:23 < e`ogan> So if I will not solve the issue in time it is a breach of contract and either termination of service or a fine coming my way
05:24 < zipcpi> Does {kosmu} have an open rafsi?
05:24 < zipcpi> kos -> kosta
05:24 < zipcpi> kom -> komcu
05:24 < zipcpi> smu -> smuni, naturally
05:24 < Compu-Celebi> "sok" is available.
05:25 < e`ogan> ta'iroda co'o
05:25 < zipcpi> That generally is not how rafsi are assigned though :p
05:25 < Compu-Celebi> "mok," also, is.
05:26 < zipcpi> Not sure if we'd have to stretch the rules by this point though
05:27 < zipcpi> Unless we reassign it to /sokmu/, since we reversed it from the original mystery-bot definition lol
05:28 < zipcpi> I want {kosmyvanbi} to be "use case", unless there is a better lujvo for it
05:30 < zipcpi> "x1 (abstraction) is a use-case / expected usage scenario of x2"
05:31 < zipcpi> (object/event)
05:36 < zipcpi> Or maybe it could just be {kosmypau} or {kosmyka'u}
06:00 < ruaim> coi
06:00 < niftg> coi
06:01 < Compu-Celebi> mi judri ti
06:02 < gleki> mi na kakne lo ka mitysisku lo ve lujvo sepi'o la sutysisku
06:05 < Compu-Celebi> .i ri mo
06:05 < gleki> tutci
06:05 < gleki> gi'e proga
06:05 < gleki> sisi je proga
06:06 < Compu-Celebi> .i ri tutci ma
06:06 < gleki> lo nu mitysisku lo valsi
06:07 < zipcpi> ma kosmu zo kosmu paunai
06:08 < Compu-Celebi> "pau" [i]precedes[/i] what it marks.
06:08 < zipcpi> Oops.
06:08 < zipcpi> I meant to add {i'au} :p
06:10 < Ilmen> coi
06:11 < ruaim> coi
06:12 < Ilmen> こんにちは, Saluton
06:12 < ruaim> こんばんはな
06:13 < Ilmen> do mo
06:13 < niftg> coi ru'e
06:13 < zipcpi> coi
06:14 < niftg> le vi'artule canlu de'a banzu
06:14 < ctefaho> Ilmen: How would you express the exact same meaning as x4 of tavla using xoi?
06:15 < zipcpi> I also like this reversed {kosmu}; it's like "cosmic {smuni}"
06:15 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: I often use {sepi'o} instead of {bau}
06:15 < ctefaho> mi go'i
06:16 < zipcpi> Funnily in Malay you don't {pilno} a language (or any skill), you {dasni} it
06:16 < Ilmen> .a'o rinka lo nu do cpacu lo danfu pe lo do preti
06:16 < Ilmen> .a'u .u'e
06:16 < Ilmen> ko co'u dasni lo glibau gi'e co'a dasni lo jbobau
06:16 < Ilmen> zo'o
06:16 < zipcpi> u'i
06:18 < ctefaho> one solution to that xoi would be to access the mi via some pro-sumti but that's ugly and hacky
06:18 < ctefaho> ua
06:18 < Compu-Celebi> Ilmen, why did you use {pe}, instead of {be}?
06:19 < zipcpi> xy~'y xu zasti fa lo ui zei cmavo poi sinxa lo du'u do'ei pilno lo valsi poi lo datpre pu pilno ju'eiku'i do'ei na xusra lo du'u xukau mapti
06:20 < Ilmen> Compu-Celebi: I was unsure that a quote such as preti-x1 can satisfy danfu-x2, so I opted for "pe" which is safer
06:20 < zipcpi> xu ka'e snigau lu ju'acu'i li'u
06:20 < Ilmen> but maybe {danfu be lo do preti} was just fine
06:21 < Ilmen> But when I'm not sure I prefer to use {pe}
06:21 < Compu-Celebi> je'e
06:21 < zipcpi> simsa zoizoi so-called zoi .iku'i na bi'ai ze'oi xo'o
06:21 < Ilmen> en: ze'oi
06:21 < ctefaho> mi tavla do xoi la .lojban. cu bangu pi'o ke'a se'u
06:21 < mensi> ze'oi = [GOhOI] converts following word to selbri: "x1 is related to the meaning of this word in aspect x2" |>>> Quoting
06:21 < mensi> rules are similar to zo. Roughly, (ze'oi *coi*) ≈ (me la'e zo *coi* moi). Meant primarily to quote cmavo, to supersede
06:21 < mensi> use of zei as a way of making "tanru" out of cmavo. |>>> spheniscine
06:21 < ctefaho> Ilmen: iepei
06:22 < ctefaho> (as what x4 of tavla means)
06:22 < mensi> ei mi tugni
06:22  * ctefaho slaps mensi around a bit with a large trout
06:23 < Ilmen> .u'i
06:23 < zipcpi> ju'a - I state ; ju'acu'i - I say without asserting ; ju'anai - I deny
06:23 < niftg> .u'i ko na kusru
06:23 < Ilmen> {mi tavla do xoi (mi) gaupli lo jbobau ke'a}
06:24 < ctefaho> well works too;o
06:25 < Ilmen> lu ju'a cu'i li'u .u'e
06:26  * ctefaho snuggles pi'o
06:26 < zipcpi> *No@! I'm not {fi'o}!"
06:26 < zipcpi> :p
06:27 < ctefaho> too late little valsi
06:27 < Ilmen> jbo: tavla
06:27 < ctefaho> (but the pi'o in my example makes sense right?)
06:27 < mensi> tavla = x1 cusku fi x2 fe lo srana be x3 |>>> cusku; srana; casnu; bacru |>>> xorxes
06:27 < Compu-Celebi> en: xoi
06:27 < mensi> xoi = [XOI] Right-scoping adverbial clause: encloses a bridi and turns it into an adverbial term; the antecedent (ke'a)
06:27 < mensi> of the enclosed bridi stands for the outer bridi lo su'u no'a ku (the bridi in which this xoi term appears), including
06:27 < mensi> all the other adverbial terms (tags...) within this bridi located on the right of this xoi term (rightward scope). |>>>
06:27 < mensi> Terminator: se'u |>>> Ilmen
06:27 < ctefaho> (it does to me but perhaps not everyone?)
06:28 < zipcpi> coi la durka
06:28 < Ilmen> Compu-Celebi: "xoi" is an experimental word, with a syntax similar to that of poi/noi, but which doesn't attach to a sumti, and attaches to the whole bridi instead
06:29 < durka42> coi la zipcpi
06:29 < Ilmen> Compu-Celebi: {do sanga xoi melbi mi} = "You sing, which is beautiful to me"
06:29 < zipcpi> doi durka do'u pei lu ju'a cu'i li'u sinxa lo du'u do'ei pilno lo valsi poi lo datpre pu pilno ju'eiku'i do'ei na xusra lo du'u xukau mapti
06:29 < durka42> lol, Ilmen was talking about {xoi} when I signed off 15 hours ago
06:29 < Ilmen> .u'i
06:30 < zipcpi> simsa zoizoi so-called zoi .iku'i na bi'ai ze'oi xo'o
06:30 < gleki> zipcpi: i dont need xoi because i have noi, if you were wondering
06:30 < zipcpi> noi can't attach to the sentence
06:30 < gleki> neither xoi attaches to the sentence
06:30 < Compu-Celebi> Interestingly, "which" actually cannot be applied to anything but substantives, despite frequently being used thusly.
06:30 < zipcpi> It doesn't attach to the bridi I mean
06:31 < durka42> zipcpi: go'oi ju'a ie ru'e
06:31 < ctefaho> Ilmen: ok now I am just being stupid, I might as well put the ke'a in the fe then
06:31 < zipcpi> Compu-Celebi: I dunno; I think "which" is really just "what" with some qualifier description
06:32 < durka42> there is some technical prescriptive difference between "which" and "that" but I always get it wrong :)
06:32 < zipcpi> Essentially, {ma noi}; {mo'oi} is just a convenient way of using LE grammar without having to deal with an open bridi tail
06:32 < gleki> zipcpi: according to me attaching noi to bridi means that someone forgot to wrap that bridi into a sumti.
06:32 < ctefaho> XOI IS LOVE, LOVE XOI AND XOI LOVES YOU
06:32 < ctefaho> (me basically)
06:32 < ctefaho> ...
06:32 < ctefaho> (basically)*
06:32 < zipcpi> gleki: Perhaps so, but what? Will the jbocei strike them down with lightning?
06:32 < durka42> gleki: do you mean the vau-noi proposal?
06:32 < gleki> zipcpi: they will first strike xoi-makers.
06:33 < gleki> actually i forgot to implement broda noi in altatufa
06:33 < zipcpi> So you say the only solution to not wrapping the entire bridi into an abstraction is to {sa} and start all over again?
06:33 < Compu-Celebi> I have added another disjunct to one of the conditional checks in my word parsing function.
06:33 < Ilmen> Wouldn't that change the meaning of {lo nu do sanga noi melbi cu fasnu}?
06:33 < Compu-Celebi> In the Python version, the disjunction is:
06:33 < Ilmen> @ gleki
06:33 < Compu-Celebi> s/disjunction/disjunct/
06:34 < phenny> Compu-Celebi meant to say: In the Python version, the disjunct is:
06:34 < Compu-Celebi> cluster[1] == "," and is_gliding_diphthong(cluster[0] + cluster[2])
06:34 < durka42> Ilmen: yeah exactly
06:34 < Compu-Celebi> Now, {i,an}, for example, is treated as an invalid word, instead of a name word, while the reverse remains true for {e,an}, for example.
06:35 < zipcpi> Not every word has have an absolute argument as to why it should fit into your minimal simplified vocab list to be part of the language as a whole, you know
06:35 < durka42> ue sai la .fen. cu ciksi lo nunsezdrabi'o
06:35 < gleki> Ilmen: i'd use {su'u} there for safety.
06:35 < durka42> {ian} is valid but *{ean} isn't
06:35 < Compu-Celebi> What is altatufa?
06:35 < gleki> and of course it's of altatufa ideology i.e. it'd be in PEG purely.
06:35 < gleki> alta: lo nu noi
06:35 < mensi> ([FA {lo <(¹[nu {<FA ZOhE> <CU (²COhE SF²) VAU>} KEI] SF¹) (¹noi [{FA ZOhE} {CU <COhE SF> VAU}] KUhO¹)> KU}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
06:36 < gleki> ^ altatufa parser
06:36 < durka42> s/parser/expander
06:36 < Compu-Celebi> Why is it called "altatufa"?
06:36 < gleki> probably named after la alta dialect although isnt immediately relevant to it.
06:36 < Ilmen> -tufa comes from {gentufa}
06:36 < gleki> it was supposed to support la alta dialect but failed
06:37 < gleki> and then its legendary authors turned to other things to do.
06:38 < Compu-Celebi> The Common Lisp counterpart is:
06:38 < Compu-Celebi> (and (char= (char cluster 1) #\,) (gliding-diphthong-p (concatenate 'string (char cluster 0) (char cluster 2))))
06:43 < gleki> Compu-Celebi: is the code open?
06:46 < Compu-Celebi> I reject the term "open source" and use "free."
06:46 < Compu-Celebi> The code is prototypical and exists only on my computer.
06:47 < durka42> !
06:47 < durka42> backups!
06:47 < Compu-Celebi> s/only on my computer/on my computer only/
06:47 < phenny> Compu-Celebi meant to say: The code is prototypical and exists on my computer only.
06:47 < durka42> s/!/!!
06:47 < phenny> durka42 meant to say: backups!!
06:47 < durka42> .ei ma'a ctuca la .fen. fo zo lo'ai
06:49 < Compu-Celebi> Sequences of multiple exclamation marks are invalid.
06:49 < durka42> in my dialect they add extra emphasis
06:50 < durka42> also I was testing this newly discovered functionality of phenny
06:50 < Compu-Celebi> What is your dialect?
06:50 < durka42> northeastern american english
06:51 < zipcpi> And as for our "because reasons" discussion yesterday: http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4283895
06:52 < gleki> your english sentence will lead to a huge rant
06:52 < zipcpi> ... too colloquial?
06:52 < zipcpi> Or... because reasons
06:52 < zipcpi> dun dun dun
06:53 < gleki> yes a rant coming because reasons
06:53 < durka42> heh
06:53 < zipcpi> u'i
06:53 < durka42> seems cromulent to me
06:54 < Ilmen> "I hate Tom, because reasons."  -- I'd say {mi xebni la .tom. ki'u da}
06:55 < zipcpi> I like zo'e because it's like "I don't care to specify"
06:55 < Ilmen> zipcpi: then you can just leave {ki'u} empty
06:56 < zipcpi> True, but zo'e emphasizes the ellipticallity :p
06:56 < Ilmen> ki'u ma  ---  ki'u mu'o
06:56 < zipcpi> lol. "Because"
06:56 < zipcpi> *Because."
06:57 < durka42> ki'u tu'o da
06:57 < zipcpi> ki'u xo'e da
06:58 < Compu-Celebi> zipcpi, you have misspelled "ellipticality," which seems not to be a word.
06:58 < Compu-Celebi> Wiktionary does not recognize it.
06:59 < zipcpi> I make up a lot of words. I abuse English about as much as I abuse Lojban
07:00 < zipcpi> mi se kosmu lo ka zbusufukai
07:00 < Ilmen> Depends if -ity is a productive suffix
07:00 < Ilmen> or if it's fossilized
07:01 < zipcpi> veridicality
07:02 < Ilmen> A fossilized affix is an affix that cannot be added to other words anymore to create new words, so it has lost its productivity
07:02 < zipcpi> mi se kosmu lo ka banspokai
07:04 < zipcpi> All languages are agglutinative languages
07:05 < zipcpi> Some are just more scared to embrace that fact than others :p
07:06 < Compu-Celebi> I recently read about American Sign Language, especially on Wikipedia, and learned that it is agglutinative.
07:10 < Compu-Celebi> Coincidentally, I have been wondering, for months, as to whether anyone besides me has considered Lojban sign language.
07:11 < Compu-Celebi> s/I have been wondering, for months,/for months, I have been wondering/
07:11 < phenny> Compu-Celebi meant to say: Coincidentally, for months, I have been wondering as to whether anyone besides me has considered Lojban sign language.
07:13 < zipcpi> That's interesting... One thing though is that writing sign-language has always been a hurdle
07:13 < Compu-Celebi> <Compu-Celebi> Coincidentally, I have been wondering, for months, as to whether anyone besides me has considered Lojban sign language.
07:13 < Compu-Celebi> <Compu-Celebi> s/I have been wondering, for months,/for months, I have been wondering/
07:13 < Compu-Celebi> What is not a coincidence is that I recently researched ASL to help me to conceive of ideas for such a language.
07:13 < zipcpi> And writing is an important part of logical languages; basically the proof is in the pudding
07:13 < zipcpi> Having a dedicated parser is a proof that, yes, this language is syntactically unambiguous
07:14 < gleki> someone proposed glyphs for lojban
07:14 < demize> zipcpi: SignWriting is a thing, and will be in the next Unicode version too.
07:14 < durka42> ua
07:14 < Compu-Celebi> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sign_Language#Writing_systems
07:14 < zipcpi> demize: But how does one type it?
07:14 < durka42> seems to me you could have a sign loglang
07:14 < demize> zipcpi: Depends.
07:14 < demize> I could think of a few possible ways.
07:15 < zipcpi> We probably *could*; just bringing up an important consideration
07:15 < demize> Could do something the same thing that Japanese IMEs do.
07:18 < Compu-Celebi> I would assign a sign to each root word, use those signs or variations thereof for affixes, assign a sign to each structure, and use fingerspelling for loanwords and name words.
07:19 < zipcpi> Not all zi'evla are created equal though
07:19 < Compu-Celebi> ASL's tense aspect system is interesting, in that, like Lojban's, it is more expansive than English's.
07:19 < zipcpi> Though fingerspelling could be a good placeholder for zi'evla not considered "basic" enough
07:20 < durka42> for type 3 perhaps
07:20 < zipcpi> Also you probably want to decipher this and come up with an explanation that normal humans could understand zo'o zo'onai: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/corci
07:20 < Compu-Celebi> What are type-three Lojban loanwords?
07:20 < durka42> vlaste: corci
07:20 < vlaste> corci = x1 is a gesture/facial expression/body part motion/body language/expressive (nonverbal or nonvocal) feature/microexpression/stature/posture/sign/body signal [nonverbal expression made using only one's body parts and items on one's immediate person as extensions of the body in order to communicate; possibly nonlinguistic/extralinguistic] that conveys/expresses
07:20 < vlaste> thought/emotion/command/idea x2 (nu/si'o; possibly text and other types) made using body part/utensil/object/at locus x3 in/by motion/action/means x4
07:20 < durka42> oi sai
07:21 < zipcpi> durka42: But I hates type-3
07:21 < zipcpi> T.T
07:21 < durka42> zipcpi: well type 4 would get real sign :)
07:21 < durka42> type 3 would be some hybrid of the sign for the gismu plus fingerspelling
07:21 < durka42> Compu-Celebi: I mean type 3 fu'ivla as in cidjrspageti
07:21 < zipcpi> But because I hates type 3, I assign even the craziest concepts to type 4
07:21 < durka42> za'a .u'i
07:21 < Compu-Celebi> Prior to this discussion, I conceived of this idea.
07:22 < Compu-Celebi> I correctly conjectured that those loanwords were type-three.
07:22 < gleki> corci=asna
07:22 < durka42> ui dai
07:23 < zipcpi> Gleki: "that conveys/expresses thought/emotion/command/idea x2"
07:23 < zipcpi> Think that's kinda important for a sign language :p
07:23 < zipcpi> There's a useful idea somewhere in there, but ugh
07:24 < zipcpi> Just like the clockwise gismu...
07:24 < durka42> corci = x1 is body language expressing x2 (abstraction) using body parts x3 in motion x4
07:25 < zipcpi> Maybe I'll add that as "Simple English", but not sure if "abstraction" counts
07:26 < durka42> corci = x1 asna lo se pagbu be x3 ku x4 fi'o se cusku x2
07:26 < zipcpi> xoi ke'a se cusku x2? :p
07:26 < durka42> yes
07:26 < Compu-Celebi> en: asna
07:26 < mensi> asna = x1 is a body position/posture/stance/pose/asana of body x2 characterized by property/(set of) properties x3 (ka).
07:26 < mensi> |>>> jongausib
07:27 < durka42> zipcpi: no, just cusku then
07:27 < zipcpi> Oh right
07:27 < durka42> (which is one way to expand {fi'o})
07:37 < rutytar1> coi
07:37 < zipcpi> coi .rutytar.
07:38 < Compu-Celebi> rutytar1, is your name intended to be based upon a Lojban word for "fruit star"?
07:38 < zipcpi> je'u
07:38 < rutytar1> if there were such a word, yes
07:38 < zipcpi> za'e zei lujvo
07:39 < zipcpi> .y. jvocme
07:39 < zipcpi> jvocmevla
07:39 < zipcpi> rafcmevla
07:39 < zipcpi> ne'auge'e
07:41 < Compu-Celebi> Ah, an experimental attitudinal exists for emotionlessness.
07:41 < niftg> .au irci zmitci lo nu sisku tu'a lo purci rafsi .i .aubu'onai
07:41 < zipcpi> Yeah I use it as a "shrug"
07:41 < zipcpi> Or "Meh"
07:42 < gleki> lo purci rafsi cu mo
07:42 < gleki> i xu lo ba'o rafsi
07:42 < niftg> .ie doi gleki
07:42 < gleki> pe lo dzejbo xu
07:43 < gleki> a lo mijyjbo
07:43 < rutytar1> are you just starting, Compu-Celebi?
07:43 < Compu-Celebi> At what: studying Lojban?
07:44 < niftg> pu le banli nu muvdu pe lo rafsi
07:44 < rutytar1> yeah
07:44 < Compu-Celebi> Negative.
07:45 < niftg> sa'eru'e banli nu cenba
07:45 < rutytar1> i'a
07:46 < zipcpi> Here, ctefaho :p http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4283974
07:46 < zipcpi> Also http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4283976
07:47 < ctefaho> Approval
07:47 < ctefaho> ............
07:47 < ctefaho> .i'e
07:48 < ctefaho> well ue'ipei may need an (emotional question)?;)
07:48 < Compu-Celebi> en: ue'i
07:48 < mensi> ue'i = [UI1] attitudinal: excitement - lack of excitement - boredom |>>> Used to express excitement (enthusiasm,
07:48 < mensi> exhilaration). The opposite expresses boredom (dullness), while the cu'i-form expresses "indifference". See fizbu,
07:48 < mensi> tolzdi |>>> ctefaho
07:49 < zipcpi> Meh... I don't like adding cmavo clusters that don't have an easy gloss
07:49 < zipcpi> They're meant to be modular after all
07:49 < zipcpi> Yeah there is that little problem of beginners not knowing how to recognize cmavo clusters and trying to search for them as is
07:49 < rutytar1> "mi djica nu djuno l do pensi ma" does this look correct?
07:49 < ctefaho> Shots fired, kosmu modal ko'au proposed
07:49 < zipcpi> We need to fix our collators
07:50  * ctefaho out
07:50 < rutytar1> mi djica nu djuno lo do pensi ma
07:50 < ctefaho> co'o
07:51  * zipcpi just goes ahead and adds a link to {kosmu} and near-synonyms
07:52 < zipcpi> I also added {kosmyka'u}
07:52 < zipcpi> Because it's a concept that I happen to use a lot
07:54 < Compu-Celebi> rutytar1, it depends upon whether you intend it to mean, "I desire to know that you think of what?" but you probably intend it to mean, "I desire to know of what you think," which would require the use of {kau}, for indirect inquiries.
07:55 < rutytar1> so "mi djica nu djuno l do pensi ma kau"?
07:55 < Compu-Celebi> {kau} would follow the instance of {ma}, indicating it as serving as the indirect inquiry's focus.
07:56 < zipcpi> Er why do you use "l"?
07:56 < Compu-Celebi> Affirmative, except for the repeated typographical error.
07:56 < zipcpi> typo?
07:56 < rutytar1> type, i meant lo
07:56 < gleki> mi djica lo ka djuno lo du'u do pensi makau
07:56 < gleki> all sumti except pronouns start with a prefix like lo, le, la.
07:57 < gleki> thus {lo ka djuno}, {lo du'u} etc.
07:57 < Compu-Celebi> Oh, I have just noticed that I was misreading {nu djuno} as {lo nu djuno}.
07:58 < rutytar1> that's one of the dangers of learning ambiguous languages, they teach you to try to interpret it :p
07:58 < Compu-Celebi> Just prior, I noticed that I was misreading {lo do pensi} as {lo nu do pensi}.
07:59 < gleki> {nu djuno} is a verb meaning "is knowing"
07:59 < rutytar1> but the {nu} has to be closed, right?
07:59 < gleki> yes, {lo do pensi} and {lo nu do pensi} have to be taught together so that they dont mix in one's  head.
07:59 < zipcpi> Longer {fizbu} example: http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4283997
07:59 < Compu-Celebi> In some cases, the abstraction terminator is elidable.
08:00 < gleki> rutytar1: here {nu ...} clause ends when the sentence ends so closing isnt necessary.
08:00 < gleki> same for {ka} and {du'u}
08:01 <@xalbo> If you want it with all terminators, {mi djica lo ka djuno lo du'u do pensi ma kau [vau] [kei] [ku] [vau] [kei] [ku] [vau]}, but in this case all of the terminators can be elided.
08:02 <@xalbo> *Almost* all terminators can be elided at the end of a sentence. (Quotes can't always, and I'm sure I'm overlooking something else.)
08:02 < zipcpi> toi
08:02 <@xalbo> ki'e
08:02 <@xalbo> fu'o
08:02 < durka42> {toi} is technically elidable
08:02 < durka42> :p
08:02 < durka42> (the best kind of elidable)
08:02 < zipcpi> Not at the end of a *sentence*
08:02 < durka42> true
08:02 < durka42> also {tu'u} then
08:02 < rutytar1> so how is "do pensa ma kau" a prediction? who the speaker or the listener doing the prediction?
08:03 < zipcpi> {pensi}
08:03 < rutytar1> pensi, right
08:03 < zipcpi> kau basically marks the answer of an indirect question
08:03 < rutytar1> i'm asking about du'u
08:03 <@xalbo> "predication" is a fancy word we use interchangeably with "bridi" and "sentence".
08:03 < rutytar1> oh, words
08:03 < durka42> {kau} only makes sense within a {du'u} (or other abstractors sometimes)
08:04 < rutytar1> disregard that
08:04 < durka42> lo du'u do pensi makau ~ what you are thinking
08:04 < zipcpi> durka42: Well, it could also technically work with some evidentials and discursives
08:04 < durka42> eh?
08:04 < zipcpi> ju'ocu'i makau catra la .tom. = "I'm not sure who killed Tom"
08:05 < durka42> ehhhhh
08:05 < durka42> I dislike using attitudinals as predicates
08:05 < Compu-Celebi> As do I.
08:05 < zipcpi> lol
08:05 < durka42> lo .itca cu catra la .tom.
08:06 < zipcpi> They technically expand to predicates... ui -> mi gleki
08:06 < durka42> sei mi gleki
08:06 < Compu-Celebi> Consider this example:
08:06 < Compu-Celebi> mi djuno lo du'u do gasnu ma kau ca le prula'i crisa
08:07 < zipcpi> If you don't like them maybe we can see what happens if Toaq Dzu is ever finished :p
08:07  * xalbo se spaji lo du'u ra'oi .tom. nu'o rafsi
08:07 < zipcpi> From what I was told, Toaq Dzu attaches attitudinals as adverbs
08:08 < durka42> mi ja'a se cinri lo fanmo be lo to'anzybau
08:09 < zipcpi> And since Toaq Dzu is much briefer (at the cost of tones), it probably doesn't need a bunch of shorthand-discursives
08:09 < Compu-Celebi> The example translates as, "I know what you did during the previous summer."
08:10 < zipcpi> No need for {pe'i} -> {mi jinvi lo du'u...}
08:11 < Compu-Celebi> Compare with, "I know that you did what during the previous summer?"
08:12 < durka42> ie ma'a xa'o djuno lo du'u zo kau se smuni ma kau
08:13 < Compu-Celebi> en: xa'o
08:14 < mensi> xa'o = [ZAhO] opposite of za'o: event contour: refers to the portion of the event which occurs before the natural
08:14 < mensi> beginning; starting too early before ...; <----. |>>> araizen
08:14 < durka42> xa'o = already
08:14 < Compu-Celebi> Ah, once, I wondered how to translate "already" into Lojban.
08:14 < Compu-Celebi> s/wondered how/wondered as to how/
08:14 < phenny> Compu-Celebi meant to say: Ah, once, I wondered as to how to translate "already" into Lojban.
08:15 < zipcpi> {xa'o} wasn't part of the original description of the language, but is one of the oldest "experimental cmavo"
08:15 < zipcpi> And is already officialized by the BPFK
08:21 < zipcpi> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4283897 zo'u doi gleki do pu kanpe lo jetnu .i da pante ki'u zo'e
08:23  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Complement to causation sumtcita - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Complement_to_causation_sumtcita by Guskant - stika lo ka klesi [http://bit.ly/1QFphMK]
08:23 < durka42> zipcpi: ku'i da pante lo pante
08:24 < zipcpi> ie
08:25 <@xalbo> {mi ki'u xebni la .tom.} would be truth-conditionally the same, and shorter, but I think {ki'u zo'e} feels closer to "because reasons".
08:37 < zipcpi> Exactly
08:38 < zipcpi> The fact that the elliptical can be left out, but you choose to put it in anyway, speaks a lot
08:40 < zipcpi> In fact that's why I avoid telling nintadni they could fill empty places with {zo'e} and just skip to talking about FA
08:41 < zipcpi> (not to mention the whole zo'e/zi'o debate...)
09:00 < ldlework> zipcpi: I skip zo'e as well
09:01 < phma> mi co'e lo zo'enai comdaidza
09:03 < durka42> lu zo'e nai li'u ii
09:04 <@xalbo> ii dai nai
09:04 < zipcpi> ge'e ge'enai co'enai to'edo'eja'ai zo'enai do'i
09:05 <@xalbo> co'e nai  fa xi xo'e na'ebozo'e zi'onai do'e zu'i
09:06 <@xalbo> .i go'i fi xi no'o ko fe xi tu'o mi
09:08 < zipcpi> ge'oje'oby co'e jo'olo'a.abu boi to'ase'epaburebucibu
09:08 < zipcpi> na'ana'ana'a
09:09 < ldlework> na na .i na na na na .i ei ei ei .i co'oooooooooo
09:09 <@xalbo> .u'i
09:10 <@xalbo> na na na na na na na na na na na batci manku
09:12 < ldlework> We need a rhyming dictionary
09:14 < ldlework> prulamdei .i ro mi nabmi cu darno simlu .i caku nitcu pa mipstu .i o'a mi krici lo prulamdei
09:14 <@xalbo> http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~adam/lojban/rhyme.txt
09:15 <@xalbo> http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~adam/lojban/rhyme.pl was used to generate it, could work against any data file instead of the gismu.txt
09:15 <@xalbo> (Well, might need some slight modifications)
09:16 < ldlework> mu'i ma ko'a cliva .i mi na djuno .i ko'a na jungau .i mi cusku lo to'e drata .i je pacna lo prulamdei'ei'ei'ei .i prulamdei
09:17 <@xalbo> You need {ro lo mi nabmi}; {ro mi nabmi} is {ro mi [lo'o] [cu] nabmi}.
09:18 < ldlework> sure
09:18 < ldlework> ki'e
09:18 <@xalbo> (I meant [lu'u])
09:19 < ldlework> or "just use lo"
09:19 < ldlework> :O
09:19 < ldlework> I'm actually learning yesterday on the mandolin
09:21 <@xalbo> I know it's an instrument, but when I think of mandolin I always think of https://www.google.com/search?q=mandolin+slicer&tbm=isch
09:22 < ctefaho> .i ko'au ma zo kosmu
09:22 <@xalbo> Probably because I'm way better at cooking than at any music. But that's really cool.
09:23 < ldlework> If I had the confidence of la simpson, I'd try to record a lojban version
09:27 < latro`a> coi
09:27 < ctefaho> coi la .tro'as.
09:27 < ldlework> ue coi latro`a
09:28 < latro`a> .i ze'u na'ei irci
09:28 < latro`a> sei lo irci tutci cu cusku
09:30  * nuzba @dissociety: @famicomprincess call it lojban^2 [http://bit.ly/1L2ZvgD]
09:37 < gleki> ue coi
09:37 < gleki> i ku'i do pu su'ova'e skaipe cusku
09:37 < gleki> si tavla
09:40 < ldlework> xalbo: when are you going to visit la jbogu'e
09:41 <@xalbo> When I get unlazy. Which probably won't be soon.
09:41 <@xalbo> .u'u
09:43 < ldlework> u'i
10:18 < Ilmen> ldlework: I've talked of the Jboguhe to Tsani, who is a Minecraft player. However he said he was too busy to visit it for now.
10:18 < ldlework> Yeah he hasn't been around so much.
10:19 < Ilmen> I vaguely think there were some other lojbanist minecraft players, but can't remember which
10:19 < Ilmen> ta'o coi
10:19 < zipcpi> Huh we have {xo'o} for sarcasm but no brivla
10:19 < ldlework> en: zo'o
10:19 < mensi> zo'o = [UI5] attitudinal modifier: humorously - dully - seriously. |>>> See also xajmi, junri. |>>>
10:19 < mensi> officialdata
10:19 < Ilmen> There's {ranxi}
10:19 < ldlework> en: xo'o
10:19 < mensi> xo'o = [UI5] attitudinal modifier: sarcastically - sincerely |>>> There is no good attitudinal for sarcasm. Chosen for
10:19 < mensi> its similarity to zo'o. |>>> teryrei
10:20 < zipcpi> ranxi seems like it should describe events
10:20 < Ilmen> There's {ranxi}, but its place structure is hard to fathom
10:20 < ldlework> en: ranxi
10:20 < mensi> ranxi = x1 is ironic(al)/contrary to expectation x2 in state/property/aspect x3. |>>> See also dukti, frica, cizra. |>>>
10:20 < mensi> officialdata
10:20 < zipcpi> Yeah I don't think it's "sarcastic"
10:20 < Ilmen> jbo: ranxi
10:20 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:21 < Ilmen> je'e
10:21 < ldlework> lo nu lo smacu cu ctika lo mlatu cu ranxi
10:21 < niftg> ranxi jarco ?
10:21 < zipcpi> Nah that's stretching. We can't make brivla do what they aren't designed to do
10:21 < durka42> sarcasm and irony are different
10:21 < durka42> xo'o is just {naljunri}
10:22 < zipcpi> Though that could also be zo'o
10:22 < zipcpi> So yeah... need one specifically for sarcasm
10:22 < durka42> zo'o is {xamsku} or something
10:22 < zipcpi> Also xalbo
10:23 < durka42> you can be humorous without being sarcastic
10:23 < zipcpi> Exactly
10:23 < niftg> pu jinvi lo du'u simsa lo nu jitfa cusku
10:23 < zipcpi> Otherwise we wouldn't have {xo'o} would we? :p
10:23 < zipcpi> So yeah need a brivla
10:24 < zipcpi> e'u zo xorlo xo'o
10:24 < ldlework> clovo
10:24 < gleki> tolstace
10:25 < zipcpi> That's "lying"?
10:25 < zipcpi> "dishonest"
10:25 < gleki> true. then just ckasu
10:25 < niftg> {xo'o nai} zo'u ka stace
10:25 < durka42> nalstace maybe
10:26 < ldlework> nalstace is good
10:26 < zipcpi> Can't just add {nal} to everything though; all it means is "not X"
10:26 < ldlework> .wik sarcasm
10:26 < phenny> "Sarcasm is 'a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt.'[1]|[2]| Sarcasm may employ ambivalence,[3]| although sarcasm is not necessarily ironic." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
10:26 < niftg> ta'o zo nai cu simsa zo to'e jipau zo na'e
10:26 < gleki> wait no tolstace is fine. 
10:27 < zipcpi> ckasu is pretty close
10:27 < ldlework> ie
10:27 < ldlework> given the definition of sarcasm I'm going with ckasu now
10:27 < gleki> stace is about sincerely saying anything but about sincere feelings.
10:27 < gleki> *stace is not about sincerely saying anything but about sincere feelings.
10:27 < zipcpi> tolstace means dishonest.
10:27 < ldlework> gleki: speech can be stace
10:27 < gleki> this tolstace is unsincere feeling thatis what is xo'o
10:27 < zipcpi> I don't think you can change that
10:28 < Ilmen> palsku?
10:28 < Ilmen> si
10:28 < Ilmen> pacysku?
10:28 < ldlework> that could be insult and such
10:28 < gleki> ldlework: speech can't be sincere. only its meaning.
10:28 < ldlework> sarcasm can be endearing too
10:28 < ldlework> gleki: that's the only interpretation of what I could have meant
10:28 < ldlework> li'a
10:29 < gleki> xo'o - xo'onai. sincere - unsincere feeling.
10:29 < gleki> that's all
10:29 < zipcpi> Er... no
10:29 < ldlework> ...
10:29 < gleki> as for "to lie" it's about factual lies, not about feelings.
10:29 < Ilmen> en: ckasu
10:29 < mensi> ckasu = x1 ridicules/mocks/scoffs at x2 about x3 (property/event) by doing activity x4 (event). |>>> See also cmila.
10:29 < mensi> |>>> officialdata
10:29 < zipcpi> Even "insincere" != "sarcastic"
10:29 < gleki> no, i think it's not ckasu and doesnt have anything to do with ckasu.
10:29 < ldlework> It does.
10:30 < Ilmen> Sarcasm: « A sharp form of humor, intended to hurt, that is marked by mocking with irony, sometimes conveyed in speech with vocal over-emphasis. Insincerely saying something which is the opposite of one's intended meaning, often to emphasize how unbelievable or unlikely it sounds if taken literally, thereby illustrating the obvious nature of one's intended meaning. »
10:30 < ldlework> Because rekto is for insults.
10:30 < durka42> I still think it's {naljunri}
10:30 < durka42> but I'll let you guys argue
10:30 < gleki> btw dont forget that xo'o is an interjection modifier
10:30 < ldlework> I think it is the unbelievable-ness-to-exemplify-true-intent which makes sarcasm
10:31 < ldlework> Not evilness or harm
10:31 < gleki> if xo'o was incorrectly glossed then boo to that gloss.
10:31 < zipcpi> ... xo'o was invented for a reason
10:31 < zipcpi> You're proposing we change what {xo'o} means, then need to invent a new cmavo for sarcasm
10:31 < ldlework> lol
10:32 < gleki> why was xo'o invented?
10:32 < zipcpi> Sarcasm
10:32 < ldlework> to express sarcasm!
10:32 < ctefaho> I love xo'o no touchy
10:32 < gleki> to solve the polysemy of zo'o
10:32 < gleki> that's why
10:33 < ctefaho> I always speak xo'o behind people's back
10:33 < ldlework> no da krinu lo nu zbasu zo xo'o vau xo'o
10:33 < ctefaho> s
10:33 < ldlework> mu'i ma le jipci cu kruca le se litru zo'o
10:34 < Ilmen> {sarkamu}, {sarkasu}
10:34 < durka42> sounds like {zo'o} and {xo'o} are fine, but there might be a missing cmavo to specify stace - tolstace
10:34 < gleki> {sarkofago}
10:34 < durka42> cognate fu'ivla are not a solution!
10:34 < zipcpi> durka: Remember {sei stace}? *runs*
10:34 < ldlework> I think ckasu is too close to rekto
10:35 < zipcpi> rekto is not a serious gismu
10:35 < ldlework> Don't know why
10:35 < ldlework> If the meme in english didn't exist, it would be perfectly cromulent
10:36 < ldlework> ckasu could then be purposed to indicate speech who's literal meaning is unbelievable/unlikely for purposes of revealing different intended meaning
10:36 < ldlework> IE sarcasm
10:36 < ldlework> But I guess there are too many ckasu lujvo at this point
10:36 < gleki> selmaho:xo'o
10:36 < mensi> .i lu xo'o li'u cmavo zo'oi UI5
10:36 < mensi> http://lojban.github.io/cll/13/7/
10:36 < gleki> selmaho:ui5
10:36 < mensi> cmavo: be'u, dai, fu'i, ga'i, ji'ei, ju'o, le'o, ra'i'au, ra'i'aucu'i, ra'i'aunai, ri'e, se'a, se'i, vu'e, xo'o, zai'a,
10:36 < mensi> zo'o
10:37 < ldlework> mensi is just kidding
10:37 < ldlework> za'a
10:37 < gleki> ^ i think now it's obvious why xo'o can't be mapped to ckasu
10:37 < Ilmen> xo'orxo
10:37 < zipcpi> How would you define {rekto} without relying on the meme? Secondly, its place structure is unusual
10:37 < zipcpi> No, we can't use {rekto} to replace {ckasu}
10:37 < ldlework> zipcpi: x1 is insulted by x2 with insult x3?
10:37 < ldlework> how is that hard
10:38 < zipcpi> It's an unusual place structure
10:38 < cliva> zipcpi: .i'a pei mi stika lo velski be zo corci
10:38 < cliva> ja'e tu'a lu $x_1$ asna lo se pagbu be $x_3$ ku $x_4$ gi'e ve smusku $x_2$ li'u
10:38 < ldlework> zipcpi: for russian or english speakers?
10:38 < zipcpi> {lo rekto} = "the insulted"?
10:38 < zipcpi> Why is that more important that "insult"?
10:39 < ldlework> zipcpi: hahaha
10:39 < ldlework> there are a million brivla that have stupid x1's
10:39 < ldlework> should we do an audit
10:39 < ldlework> Anyway, I already recinded the idea, in that ckasu is already too profuse in lujvo
10:40 < ldlework> Also by that logic ckasu is also bad
10:40 < ldlework> "the ridiculer" ?
10:40 < zipcpi> A subject makes more sense than an object
10:40 < ldlework> for english speakers like yourself
10:40 < ldlework> tsk tsk selfish
10:40 < zipcpi> SOV
10:40 < zipcpi> SVO
10:41 < zipcpi> I don't know what language does OVS except for "passive" case
10:41 < zipcpi> Besides, most Lojban is S first
10:41 < ldlework> Its basically arbitrary though
10:41 < zipcpi> In fact rekt <- "wrecked". Passive.
10:41 < ldlework> for "is-an-insult"
10:42 < ldlework> the insult is the S
10:42 < ldlework> so you're just making arbitrary distinctions as to what the verb is
10:42 < ldlework> Wherein lojban, being x1 defines the verb, not the collection of sumti places involved
10:42 < ldlework> muy glico
10:43 < zipcpi> Why should we replace a core word with a non-serious word, that can never be divorced from the meme, with an embedded passive form?
10:45 < ldlework> embedded passive form to your arbitrary english sensibilities
10:45 < ldlework> as just shown
10:45 < ldlework> you divorce it by defining it
10:45 < ldlework> its not hard, it just makes you uncomfortable
10:45 < zipcpi> But a rule that most other Lojban brivla follows
10:45 < ldlework> And in the end, I'm not recommending it, since ckasu is already profuse
10:45 < ldlework> It isn't a rule!
10:45 < ldlework> look
10:45 < ldlework> you take 5 sumti places
10:45 < ldlework> and your instinct tells YOU which is the subject
10:46 < ldlework> Because you intuit an associated verb for the 5 places
10:46 < ldlework> Like vecnu
10:46 < zipcpi> You can't divorce it because of the sound
10:46 < ldlework> That's utterly arbitrary
10:46 < ldlework> So we can't use gismu forms for which there is any similar sound?
10:46 < ldlework> That's no argument at all :/
10:46 < zipcpi> Well, no matter what new definition we write, people will note the similarity with the meme
10:47 < zipcpi> And the way the passive form is embedded
10:47 < ldlework> That's a guess on your behalf founded with no information besides your instincts.
10:47 < zipcpi> It's just a non-starter
10:47 < ldlework> Its not embedded passive form
10:47 < zipcpi> It's right there! It's defined that way
10:47 < zipcpi> The word is defined based on the meme
10:47 < ldlework> zipcpi: so change the definition
10:47 < ldlework> you're just repeating arguments addressed
10:47 < ldlework> which is super sad
10:47 < zipcpi> But that's the very reason the word exist
10:47 < ldlework> because you're smarter than that
10:48 < ldlework> zipcpi: apparently reality aligns with your whim
10:48 < ldlework> in otherwords, you're not interested in conversing
10:48 < ldlework> just shouting things at me
10:48 < ldlework> k
10:48 < zipcpi> ... What is the etymology of the word then, if not "rekt"?
10:49 < ldlework> insult?
10:49 < zipcpi> No
10:49 < ldlework> What is the etymology of any other word that doesn't resemble any real word?
10:49 < ldlework> You're making arbitrary distinctions where there is none.
10:50 < zipcpi> I don't know why you're trying to save this gismu; there are zillions of different forms
10:50 < ldlework> If someone had chosen rekto, randomly, in a world without the meme, there would be no problem because it is perfectly cromulent gismu.
10:50 < ldlework> The structure of the definition is ARBITRARY
10:50 < ldlework> it doesn't include passive form
10:51 < ldlework> because YOU have decided what the english verb for rekto is
10:51 < ldlework> which is "to insult"
10:51 < ldlework> which is ARBITRARILLY GLICO
10:51 < ldlework> "to-be-an-insult"
10:51 < ldlework> and "to-be-insulted"
10:51 < zipcpi> Subject/object isn't glico
10:51 < ldlework> are BOTH cromulent verbs
10:51 < ldlework> in which case
10:51 < ldlework> each could be defined as SVO
10:51 < ldlework> with relation to /that/ verb
10:51 < ldlework> Not the verb -you want-
10:52 < ldlework> "to insult" x1 insults x2 with x3 : SVO
10:52 < zipcpi> To make a subject {se broda} is weird. That's why {te vecnu} -> {terve'u} -> {erve}
10:52 < ldlework> "to be an insult" x1 is an insult spoken by x2 to x3 : SVO
10:52 < ldlework> "to be insulted": x1 is insulted by x2 purported by x3 : SVO
10:53 < ldlework> Your passive form argument is totally bunk!
10:53 < ldlework> It only makes sense if you have a default verb in mind.
10:53 < ldlework> If you say, without any justification apparently, that rekto is the "to insult" verb
10:53 < ldlework> Then yes it is passive
10:53 < ldlework> But that's totally arbitrary.
10:53 < ldlework> And not how lojban works.
10:54 < ldlework> Lojban verbs are not defined by the most natural verb to individuals
10:54 < ldlework> lojban verbs are defined by their x1
10:54 < ldlework> if the person who is insulted is the x1
10:54 < ldlework> then the verb is "to be insulted"
10:54 < ldlework> period.
10:55 < zipcpi> But who thought that the place structure should be like this? Someone jokingly basing it off the "rekt" meme
10:55 < ldlework> It has no consequence for the discussion above!
10:55 < zipcpi> You're defending the indefensible
10:55 < ldlework> No
10:55 <@xalbo> The point is that most selbri that have an agent and a patient put the agent in the x1 and the patient in the x2. Someone is actively doing something, and someone else is having something done to them.
10:55 < ldlework> You keep conflating two arguments
10:55 < ldlework> As justifications for the other
10:55 < ldlework> If you can't win the meme argument
10:55 < ldlework> You make a passive form argument
10:55 < ldlework> If you can't win the passive form argument
10:55 < ldlework> You return to the meme argument
10:55 < ldlework> The fact is
10:55 < ldlework> Lojban has no implicit verb order at all
10:56 < ldlework> And the fact is
10:56 < ldlework> rekto is a perfectly cromulent gismu form
10:56 < ldlework> And its definition is -arbitrary-
10:56 < zipcpi> The reason that it is "passive" is because "rekt" is passive
10:56 < ldlework> _you_ are defending the indefensible
10:56 < ldlework> rekt isn't passive!
10:56 < ldlework> holy shit
10:56 < ldlework> I just explained how you are imbuing rekt with a verb other than the one defined!
10:56 < ldlework> I literally just explained this! in detail!
10:56 < ldlework> But you are impenetrable at this point.
10:57  * durka42 clears throat
10:57 < ldlework> So go on, holding your own position without even the possibility of letting alternative information in, doi krici
10:57 < ldlework> In the end, I don't think we should use rekto as I already explained.
10:57 <@xalbo> ldlework: name 3 gismu that have an agent and a patient and put the patient in the x1 and the agent in the x2. Or, conversely, argue that there are other languages that have "to be insulted by someone" as an active role and "to insult someone" as a passive action that one undergoes.
10:57 < ldlework> rekto could be removed entirely for all I care
10:58  * durka42 suggests that both of you try to see the other's point of view instead of trying to "win"
10:58 < ldlework> but it isn't passive
10:58 < ldlework> and it truly is a fine gismu form
10:58 < ldlework> xalbo: it doesn't matter what lexicons exist in other languages
10:58 < ldlework> x1 defines the verb
10:58 < ldlework> that's all there is to say
10:58 < ldlework> lo vecnu is "to sell"
10:58 < ldlework> not passive form of "to buy"
10:59 <@xalbo> All meanings are possible, but not all meanings are as natural as all other meanings.
10:59 < ldlework> durka42: there isn't anything to win. I agree that rekto was borne from a glico meme. Which has no consequence for how lojban verb's are defined, or whether that makes it an invalid gismu morphologically
11:00 < ldlework> xalbo: to certain sensibilities sure
11:00 < ldlework> But in lojban we go by how things are defined no?
11:00 < ldlework> Or do we just disregard things that we want when they make us uncomfortable
11:00 < ldlework> You can argue that a different order would be more useful more of the time
11:01 < ldlework> That's different than decalring a lojban verb to be passive form, when that's now how lojban verbs work - at all -
11:01 < ldlework> That's an argument that's easily agreeable with.
11:01 < la_kristan> coi
11:02 < dutchie> coi la .kristan.
11:02 < durka42> coi
11:03 <@xalbo> That's why I keep saying "agent" and "patient". There are a *lot* of languages that split places into those. Lojban doesn't, explicitly, but de facto it often does. And it does so enough that finding a proposed selbri with those roles reversed is striking and surprising.
11:03 <@xalbo> I think that's what zipcpi means by "passive".
11:03 < ldlework> Its utterly arbitrary to value the speaker of an insult over the insult itself
11:03 < latro`a> it's arbitrary, but it's also how most of the list works
11:04 < ldlework> No
11:04 < ldlework> You didn't read
11:04 < zipcpi> <xalbo> ldlework: name 3 gismu that have an agent and a patient and put the patient in the x1 and the agent in the x2. Or, conversely, argue that there are other languages that have "to be insulted by someone" as an active role and "to insult someone" as a passive action that one undergoes.
11:04 < ldlework> between the speaker of an insult and the insult itself
11:04 < ldlework> not the insulted
11:04 < ldlework> You are merely uncomfortable with putting the insulted first
11:04 < ldlework> But we have lots of gismu for which -insult- comes first
11:04 < latro`a> no, when an agent is required for a "noun" to exist, the agent still tends to wind up first
11:04 < latro`a> what you're describing is analogous to putting klama5 in klama1, pe'i
11:05 < jenca> ldlework: is the starbucks by docker a good place to meet?
11:05 <@xalbo> The only counterexample I can thnk of offhand is {cmene}, where the agent is the cmene3.
11:05 < latro`a> there's a noun that (at least in the philosophy behind the definition) can only exist in the presence of an agent
11:05 < ldlework> latro`a: I already agreed that you could justify a rearrangement based on utility
11:05 < ldlework> But not based on anything called 'passive form'
11:05 < latro`a> this isn't utility, the point is that the vehicle isn't a vehicle in the sense of klama5 unless there is a klama1
11:05 < durka42> xalbo: {mukti} is another example
11:05 < latro`a> so the klama1 has "priority"
11:05 < ldlework> 'passive form' implies a default verb
11:06 < latro`a> I agree that there is no true passive a la romlangs
11:06 < latro`a> or english
11:06 < ldlework> the only reason why the idea of "passive form" exists is because in english verbs /mean one thing/
11:06 <@xalbo> durka42: Good catch.
11:06 < ldlework> latro`a: okay then I'm happy
11:06 < latro`a> but the final effect is essentially the same: agents get prioritized in most cases, when they are necessary for a selbri to make sense
11:06 < ldlework> all verbs are by definition 'active form' in lojban
11:07 < latro`a> sure, but that's vacuous; there is actual content in the fact that agents get prioritzed in the gimste
11:07 < ldlework> Its not vacuous at all.
11:07 < ldlework> Its central to understanding what the word 'verb' means when talking about lojban.
11:07 < ldlework> And using verb to describe brivla.
11:07 < la_kristan> I've been reading about "la'e", and want to make sure I've got it.
11:08 < ldlework> You're making a utilitarian argument, which I agree with, fully.
11:08 < la_kristan> "vacuous"... that's a fun word
11:08 < ldlework> But its a formally and fully non-linguistic argument.
11:08 < latro`a> the discussion with "passive" is basically a shorthand for what I"m saying
11:09 < ldlework> If our speech is a bow, and our words arrows, "passive" doesn't even land anywhere in the same country as the argument you're making.
11:09 < ldlework> semantically.
11:09 < latro`a> it's not technically correct, but it gets the meaning across, which is that most of the gismu are in "active form" in the sense of english
11:09 < ldlework> But be assured, I do agree with the content of the argument.
11:09 < la_kristan> is a vehicle not "lo xe klama" if it's sitting in the driveway?
11:09 < gleki> passive is rather {ri'i}
11:10 < ldlework> latro`a: no they are not
11:10 < latro`a> la_kristan, that's a question of tense
11:10 < ldlework> they are active only when you assume a specific verb
11:10 < ldlework> the agentive verb
11:10 < ldlework> Which is utterly arbitrary.
11:10 < latro`a> I mean without SE conversion, which is why I said gismu
11:10 < latro`a> it's arbitrary, but it's also how the vocabulary base is structured
11:10 < ldlework> Except all the ones where it isn't
11:10 < latro`a> that's why I said it's not truly linguistic anymore, because lojban has no notion of "active"
11:10 < ldlework> Making it truly arbitrary.
11:11 < latro`a> but it "feels" like it has a notion of active
11:11 < la_kristan> so it might be something that was or will be a means of transportation?
11:11 < latro`a> because of how the gismu list is structured; lo gismu cu panra lo rarbau valsi
11:11 < la_kristan> even if it isn't one right now?
11:11 < latro`a> correct
11:11 < ldlework> latro`a: except where it doesn't
11:11 < latro`a> it is not {lo ca xe klama}
11:12 < la_kristan> .ua
11:12 < gleki> "gimste being active" is one of most important sources of misusage.
11:12 < latro`a> sure; exceptions exist, which is fine because again it's not truly linguistic
11:12 < latro`a> but the exceptions are somehow justified where they appear (for the most part)
11:12 < ldlework> Really?
11:12 < latro`a> la_kristan, note that it is probably {lo ca xe klama be zi'o bei zi'o ...}
11:13 < latro`a> but that is a weaker notion
11:13 < la_kristan> I don't recall having learned "zi'o" yet...
11:14 < latro`a> zi'o is a KOhA for making a new selbri which doesn't contain the place that you're filling zi'o with
11:14 < latro`a> so {ti xe klama zi'o zi'o zi'o zi'o} is "this is a vehicle" in the weakest possible sense
11:15 < la_kristan> ah.
11:15 < gleki> in this case i'd say {marce}
11:15 < zipcpi> But yeah that's generally considered an ugly way to do things. When we find we need to zi'o a place often we tend to find another brivla, or create a new one
11:15 < latro`a> indeed, often there are better ways to do things than zi'o
11:17 < gleki> again {se marce} can both mean "to ride" and "to be a passenger". no active role here.
11:18 < latro`a> marce is a good example of an "exception" in the sense I meant before
11:18 < latro`a> marce has some of the funny tense issues that have been a trouble for me for a long time
11:19 < gleki> although SWH bias immediately wants us to sya {sazri} emphasizing other aspects
11:19 < gleki> *to say
11:19 < latro`a> since it is ostensibly about being a vehicle intended for transporting something, whether it actually does so or not
11:19 < latro`a> the same problem as kabri
11:19 < la_kristan> now, about "la'e"... is it correct to say "mi tcidu fi la'e zoi gy. Lojban for Beginners .gy"
11:19 < la_kristan> ?
11:19 < latro`a> sure, although we would usually use {la'o} instead
11:19 < latro`a> which means essentially the same thing
11:20 < la_kristan> what's the difference?
11:20 < latro`a> pragmatically, nothing; there's a pedantic thing I could say about types that isn't really important 99% of the time
11:21 < latro`a> la'o is just for using a name (which is what you wanted there); la'e can have some other sort of "pointer" even though it usually doesn't
11:22 < la_kristan> cause it's the title of the book?
11:22 < la_kristan> so a name?
11:22 < latro`a> right
11:22 < la_kristan> ah.
11:22 < mudri> {la'e di'u} is a good example of {la'e}, unless someone tells me otherwise.
11:23 < mudri> “the referent of the last utterance”
11:23 <@xalbo> latro`a: What I've wanted, and I think you're alluding to it, is an ability to apply a CAhA to a particular place.
11:23 < gleki> most likely
11:23 < la_kristan> what's the best word for "listen" as in listening to a song? the dict gives me three different words.
11:23 < gleki> is there a problem of applying it?
11:23 < ldlework> la_kristan: tinju'i
11:24 < gleki> en: listen
11:24 <@xalbo> mudri: Yes, it's a good example. Although often anymore {la'e di'u} is used less than {lo nu/du'u/su'u go'i}
11:24 < mensi> 25 da se tolcri: snazga, tinju'i, tinzga, zgatirna, datnyxle, do, doi, doido'u, doinai, do'o, do'oi, fu'au, go'ira'o, ko,
11:24 < mensi> le'ai, le'elkai, ma'a, mencti, mi'a, mi'o, miptinytci, snasni, ta, tu, zai'a
11:24 < latro`a> la'e TEXT is a valid way to get an abstractor, yes
11:24 < latro`a> that's the other main usage
11:24 < latro`a> sorry, I exaggerated a bit
11:25 < mudri> ki'e la xalbo
11:26 < mudri> Hey, sutysisku's usable! Only CLL references needed until it can fully replace vlasisku.
11:27 < durka42> vlasisku's CLL references are terrible anyway
11:27 < durka42> it's a hardcoded list with mistakes in it
11:27 < gleki> oh, but that's the most easy part thus it wont be fixed zo'oru'e
11:27 < durka42> so a better solution would be better :p
11:27 < gleki> yes, is there a better solution?
11:28 < durka42> xalbo: like {klama fu zo'e pe ca'a}?
11:28 < gleki> btw one can put span tags into Wave Lessons or CC and use them in sutysisku. again it would be harcoded
11:28 <@xalbo> durka42: Yes.
11:28 < durka42> gleki: well, one could parse the selma'o catalog, or the intro blocks to each chapter where it lists the discussed cmavo
11:28 < mudri> Is CLL not scrapeable?
11:28 < gleki> mudri: actually i noticed that some references to CLL are incorrect.
11:28 < durka42> who needs to scrape, the source is on github
11:29 < mudri> Parseable, then?
11:29 <@xalbo> There are a *lot* of places like that. kabri2 is what latro`a just mentioned, mruli2, etc.
11:29 < gleki> if one makes such a list for me no matter whether it'd be autogenerated i can use it in la sutysisku
11:29 < gleki> jb: marce
11:29 < durka42> mudri: it ought to be
11:29 < mensi> marce = marce — x1(entity)  is a vehicle for carrying  x2(entity)
11:29 < mensi> :lo marce — vehicle. lo se marce — passenger.
11:29 < mensi> :ti marce lo se vecnu — This is a vehicle for carrying goods.
11:29 < mensi> :ti marce ge lo se vecnu na'o ku gi lo remna ca'a ku — This is a vehicle intended to transport goods but actually used
11:29 < mensi> for transporting people.
11:29 < mensi> :Comment: karce and carce are designed to be with wheels, marce isn't and is more generic.
11:29 < mensi> :Related words: klama, matra, bevri, bloti, carce, karce, xislu, sabnu, skiji
11:29 < mudri> I'm thinking about doing it.
11:30 < gleki> xalbo: here in {marce} i used {na'o} as a somewhat counter-example of ca'a
11:30 < durka42> https://github.com/lojban/cll/tree/docbook-prince/chapters
11:30 < durka42> and the selma'o catalog specifically https://github.com/lojban/cll/blob/docbook-prince/chapters/20.xml
11:30 < durka42> XML, eww
11:32 < niek> The CLL is on Github in eBook form?
11:34 < niek> Hmm, cool. I see that one could also convert it to .mobi
11:34 < niek> Maybe I should put it on my Kindle some time... maybe.
11:35 < fleimbo> coi ro do
11:35 < durka42> coi
12:25 < Caleb_> >_>
12:25 < Caleb_> <_<
12:26 < durka42> <_>
12:26 < Caleb_> I feel bad that I spelled that right the first time
12:26 < Caleb_> I've been infected
12:27 < Caleb_> I hate invented languages, but I'm here to see if anyone needed my sister for anything, Christa627
12:27 < durka42> I don't think I've seen any Christa627 around here
12:28 < zipcpi> Is there a word for "to injure"?
12:28 < zipcpi> It's... funny that {cagna} is an experimental gismu...
12:29 < Caleb_> She just told me she comes here with some lojban name, la_kristan
12:29 < zipcpi> Oh OK {xrani}
12:29 < durka42> ah! indeed la_kristan has been around
12:30 < Caleb_> is it lojban for "The Christ" >_>
12:30 < zipcpi> No
12:30 < e`ogan> I just found one interesting ambiguity thing "footagearest"
12:30 < durka42> it's just a transliteration of "Christa"
12:31 < e`ogan> It was lumped in the so called hashtag
12:31 < zipcpi> Any objections if I make {skuxai} "to insult"?
12:31 < Caleb_> lemme just change my name and switch over to christa
12:32  * durka42 cu se cfipu
12:32 < e`ogan> {foot age a rest} {footage a rest} {foot age arest} {foot a gear est}
12:32 < weird_christa> that's what happens when I try to get my brother's help...
12:32 < dutchie> "arest" isn't a word
12:32 < dutchie> arrest has a double r
12:32 < e`ogan> Oh yeah
12:32 < dutchie> but still interesting yes
12:32 < zipcpi> e'ogan: Ah yes... the "Pen Island" problem
12:33 < e`ogan> They are awesome
12:33 < e`ogan> Their logo embraces the pun
12:33 < zipcpi> Actually Lojban has that too; only stress rules differentiat {lo jbobau} from {lojbo bau}
12:33 < zipcpi> loJBObau -> lo jbobau
12:34 < zipcpi> LOjbobau -> lojbo bau
12:35 < zipcpi> But... if you mark stress and mandatory pauses, you don't need spaces
12:35 < zipcpi> exp: miTAvlafola.lojban.no'uloJBObaufedo
12:35 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "m" found.
12:35 < zipcpi> Er
12:36 < zipcpi> I might have made mistake somewhere
12:36 < weird_christa> shucks the internet is not working well; this name will be on and off for now. PM's will do if any information must be transferred, and they must be treated with the expected respnse time of an email conversation.
12:36 < zipcpi> exp: miTAvlafola.lojban.
12:36 < mensi> (CU [mitavlafolalojban VAU])
12:36 < zipcpi> ...
12:37 < zipcpi> simlu lo ka spofu
12:37 < zipcpi> exp: miTAvlafola lojban no'uloJBObaufedo
12:37 < mensi> (mi [CU {tavla <fo (¹la [lojban {no'u <lo jbobau KU> GEhU}] KU¹)> <fe do>} VAU])
12:38 < zipcpi> Right
12:38 < zipcpi> Seems it doesn't recognize dots as pauses
12:38 < zipcpi> Just ignores them altogether
12:39 < zipcpi> exp: ta~~~~vla
12:39 < mensi> (CU [tavla VAU])
12:40 < durka42> whaaat
12:40 < durka42> it definitely used to understand pauses
12:40 < zipcpi> lol I'm proposing ~ as an indicator for non-phonemic vowel length
12:40 < durka42> camxes: miTAvlafola.lojban.
12:40 < camxes> ([mi CU] [tavla {fo <la lojban>} VAU])
12:40 < durka42> off: miTAvlafola.lojban.
12:40 < mensi> mitavlafolalojban
12:40 < durka42> that's a big regression...
12:40 < zipcpi> OI
12:41 < zipcpi> So .y~~~~. rather than .yyyyyyy. which doesn't parse anyway
12:41 < zipcpi> And also not extensible to {iiiiiiii}
12:41 < zipcpi> That's just {ii ii ii ii}
12:42 < zipcpi> {ii~~~~~} is better
12:43 < zipcpi> doi durka xu du'eva'e zbusufukai .i a'o na go'i zo'oru'e
12:44 < zipcpi> .y.
12:44 < zipcpi> exp: doi durka xu du'eva'e zbusufukai
12:44 < mensi> (doi [{durka xu} {<du'e BOI> va'e} zbusufukai] DOhU)
12:44 < zipcpi> oi
12:45 < zipcpi> zo va'e na sumtcita
12:45 < zipcpi> nitcu lo glekynomvla po'u zo va'ei
12:46 < dutchie> zo glekynomvla ki'a
12:46 < zipcpi> lol It's a non-standard construction
12:46 < zipcpi> {nom} is a non-standard rafsi indicating "end of name"
12:47 < dutchie> that's the only bit i was stuck on
12:47 < zipcpi> {bom} is its counterpart, "start of name", but often dropped when not needed
12:47 < dutchie> so a {glekynomvla} is roughly a word made up by gleki
12:47 < zipcpi> Yep
12:47 < dutchie> \o/
12:49 < zipcpi> mi se spaji ru'e lo du'u la gleki cu finti lo cmavo i'au zo'oru'e
12:58 < la_kriston> 私はあなたが言っているものを理解していません
12:59 < Ilmen> こんばんは
12:59 < zipcpi> lol The moment when you make up a lujvo in your def, intending to define it, to find it's already defined.
13:00 < zipcpi> ... though...
13:00 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/cnixai?bg=1;langidarg=2
13:00 < zipcpi> Bloated place structure much?
13:00 < zipcpi> And where is the place for the offensive action?
13:01 < zipcpi> THough I guess that could be {ta'i}
13:01 < Ilmen> あなたも日本語で話せるのは順調です
13:02 < zipcpi> Oh so that's "c3" apparently. "about" is about as clear as {do'e} :p
13:03 < Fraeon> ロジバン語話してください
13:04 < zipcpi> X_1 co'e X_2 do'e X_3 fi'o co'e X_4
13:05 < zipcpi> xoi ke'a co'e X_5
13:05 < la_kriston> 申し訳ありませんが、私の日本語は非常に悪いです
13:05 < zipcpi> BEST BRIVLA EVER
13:06 < niftg> .u'i'i zmadu lo ni mi pu kanpe lo nu xokau da se bangu lo ponjo fi'o se irci zo'ei dei
13:09 < Ilmen> .e'u zo meckanpe
13:09 < zipcpi> ... why is it downvoted
13:09 < niftg> jbo:meckanpe
13:09 < mensi> meckanpe [< mleca kanpe ≈ Mleca* kanpe] = da de poi ca ke'a da x2 ckaji zo'u x1 kanpe lo du'u lo ckaji be x2 bei ca de
13:09 < mensi> dubme'a da bei x3 kei x4
13:10 < Ilmen> ŭe
13:10 < zipcpi> I upvoted it to put it back to +1
13:10 < zipcpi> But I don't know why it was downvoted
13:10 < niftg> en:meckanpe
13:11 < mensi> [< mleca kanpe ≈ Less expect] 3 da se tolcri: dunkanpe, fickanpe, zmakanpe
13:11 < Ilmen> "underestimate"
13:11 < niftg> .a'i jimpe fi lo jbovelcki
13:11 < Ilmen> .u'u mi ta'e ciska lo nandu jbovelski
13:13 < zipcpi> simsa lo mekso jenai lo te bangu i'au u'iru'e
13:14 < Ilmen> x1 malpliatendas kvanton x2
13:14 < Ilmen> x1 underestimates amount x2
13:15 < niftg> X1 cu kanpe .i X2 cu klani
13:15 < dutchie> za'a la zipcpi ca pilno zo i'au
13:16 < dutchie> .ipubo lo barda da'asnu cu vi zvati
13:18 < zipcpi> mi jai cafne fai lo ka pilno zo i'au
13:20 < dutchie> ua
13:20 < zipcpi> .i seki'ubo mi balrai co gubyzu'e lo si'o zo i'au nitcu lo ka co'e papo'o slaka
13:20 < niftg> mi fliba lo nu genturfa'i tu'a lo jbovelcki be zo'ei zo meckanpe
13:22 < Ilmen> exp: da de poi ca ke'a da febu ckaji zo'u fabu kanpe lo du'u lo ckaji be febu bei ca de dubme'a da bei fibu kei fobu
13:22 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
13:22 < Ilmen> ŭa
13:22 < Ilmen> .oi la'a claxu zo cu
13:22 < zipcpi> fabu febu
13:23 < zipcpi> xy~'y mi co'a zmanei fi lu xy xi xo'e li'u
13:23 < Ilmen> exp: da de poi ca ke'a da febu ckaji zo'u fabu kanpe lo du'u lo ckaji be febu bei ca de cu dubme'a da bei fibu kei fobu
13:23 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
13:23 < Ilmen> .u'i lo'u da bei le'u
13:23 < Ilmen> mabla selsre
13:25 < zipcpi> .iku'i nai'osai makau ciska tadji tu'a loi cizra lerfu po'u mu'a zo du'ubu ja zo fabu ja zo la'aubu
13:25 < Ilmen> exp: da de poi ca ke'a da febu ckaji zo'u fabu kanpe lo du'u lo ckaji be febu bei ca de cu dubme'a da fibu kei fobu
13:25 < mensi> ([{da <de (¹poi [{<ca ke'a> da <fe bu> BOI} {CU <ckaji VAU>}] KUhO¹)>} zo'u] [{fa bu} BOI] [CU {kanpe <lo (¹du'u [{lo <ckaji (²be [{fe bu} BOI] [bei {ca de}] BEhO²)> KU} {cu <dubme'a (²da [f
13:25 < mensi> i bu] BOI²) VAU>}] kei¹) KU> <fo bu> BOI} VAU])
13:25 < Ilmen> ti pu se skudji ja'o
13:25 < Ilmen> mi
13:26  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
13:26  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
13:26  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
13:26 < Ilmen> .ai mi jbovelcki cikre
13:26 < zipcpi> xu zo skudji co'e zo aidji ja zo djica
13:27 < Ilmen> fabu pu troci lo ka cusku lo smudu'i be febu
13:27 < zipcpi> pe'iru'e mi ta'e pilno zo aidji semau zo djica
13:27 < niftg> ki'e ba'a
13:28 < zipcpi> ua lu ki'e ba'a li'u co'exu zoizoi Thanks in advance zoi
13:29 < Ilmen> ckire fi lo pu'o fasnu
13:29 < zipcpi> zo nai'o cu basti lo xalbo sidbo be zo bei'a .i'au u'iru'e se'i
13:30 < Ilmen> mo'u smuvelcki cikre
13:32 < Ilmen> sa'u lo mi velcki zo'u zo da sinxa lo namcu .i je zo de sinxa lo temci mokca .i lo se meckanpe cu namcu zilkai
13:32 < niftg> doi zipcpi : .i mi za'o senpi lodu'u lu ki'e ba'a li'u dunli ja simsa ty ibu abu kei ca lo nu ku'i ca'a pilno
13:33 < zipcpi> mu'i ma
13:34 < niftg> lo nu gau cipra tu'a lo ca'a smuni .i zo'o ru'e
13:37 < niftg> je'e ilmen .i mu'a lu { meckanpe lo ni ce'u se ponbau bu'u ti } li'u drani ja mapti simlu
13:39 < Ilmen> lu ni xo kau da se ponbau li'u la'a mapti
13:39 < Ilmen> .i sa'u mi sruma lo du'u zo ni jo'u zo kau ka'e se basti zo ka jo'u zo ce'u
13:40 < Ilmen> ju'o cu'i
13:40 < niftg> zo ce'u na mapti zo ni vau ju'apei
13:40 < Ilmen> mi na djuno .u'i
13:41 < Ilmen> ba'a nai mi pu jinvi su'o srana .i ku'i mi co'u morji .oi sei'
13:41 < Ilmen> si se'i
13:42 < niftg> lu xo kau ce'u li'u pei
13:43 < Ilmen> .i sa'u lo nu skicu lo si'o meckanpe zo'u mi nitcu lo ka ka'e cpacu pe'a lo namcu se klani .i ja'o lo nu lo se meckanpe cu se ckaji lo klani namcu cu xamgu
13:43 < Ilmen> .i mi nitcu lo namcu lo nu karbi lo jetnu se klani lo se kanpe klani
13:44 < Ilmen> .i lu xo kau da se ponbau li'u zo'u lo namcu cu co'e lu xo kau li'u .i ku'i pau nai ta'i ma cpacu .i lo nu pilno lu ka mo'e ce'u da se ponbau li'u tadji
13:46 < Ilmen> .i lo ka mo'e ce'u da se ponbau gi'e jbopre kei goi ko'a zo'u lo ckaji be ko'a cu se klani lo se ponbau jbopre
13:47 < Ilmen> .i zo mo'e se pilno fi lo nu zo ce'u cu kancu namcu co snipa zo da
13:48 < Ilmen> .i li ci ckaji lo ka mo'e ce'u da sipna .i va'i ci da sipna
13:48 < Ilmen> exp: mo'e ce'u da
13:48 < mensi> ([{<mo'e ce'u TEhU> BOI} da] VAU)
13:48 < Ilmen> mo'e li ci da sipna
13:49 < Ilmen> = ci da sipna
13:50 < Ilmen> .i .a'o lo mi nu ciksi cu juxre joi cfipu dukse naku
13:50 < niftg> .ua .i mi smadi ja sruma lo drata fi tu'a lo namcu cpacu pe'a pe zo ni
13:52 < Ilmen> lu mi pu meckanpe lo ka do citka mo'e ce'u da li'u .i va'i pu kanpe tu'a lo dubme'a be lo se memkai be lo se citka
13:53 < Ilmen> .i ji'a lu mi pu meckanpe lo ka se memkai lo se citka be do li'u
13:53 < Ilmen> mapti si'a
13:53 < Ilmen> .i ku'i za'a clani zmadu
13:55 < la_kriston> la kriston, now?
13:55 < la_kriston> weird.
13:56 < la_kriston> Anyway, as I was saying, before I got disconnected (before I could even correct my spelling errors!)...
13:57 < Ilmen> ŭe la latro'a cu casnu kansa pu za lo cacra be li so'u
13:57 < la_kriston> mi tinju'i la'e lu lo jbobau cu mo li'u
13:58 < la_kriston> Is this sentence correct, and is "la'e" or "la'o" better in this context?
13:59 < dutchie> xu zo .ŭe du zo .u'e
13:59 < Ilmen> drani jufra
13:59 < Ilmen> dunli zo .ue doi la .dutcis.
13:59 < niftg> .i'enaise'i mi nu'o mulno te smuni lo ro jufra pe ra noi se sanga
14:00 < Ilmen> lo prosa cu kansa lo selsa'a
14:00 < Ilmen> bu'u la dontu'u
14:00 < Ilmen> no'u la .ĭutub.
14:00 < niftg> zo la'o ta'e kansa zo zoi
14:01 < la_kriston> Could someone please answer my question? I don't have much time.
14:01 < Ilmen> Your sentence was correct
14:01 < la_kriston> Is "la'e" or "la'o" better here?
14:01 < Ilmen> la'e lu....li'u is a correct way to say "the thing symbolized by the quote..."
14:01 < Ilmen> la'o is for foreign quotes
14:02 < la_kriston> Okay.
14:02 < Ilmen> la'o .... = lo se cmene be zoi ...
14:02 < Ilmen> You have "la'au" also
14:02 < Ilmen> en: la'au
14:02 < mensi> la'au = [LU] start grammatical name quotation; the quoted text is an identifier and must be grammatical on its own. |>>>
14:02 < mensi> Used to make more complex names where simple la doesn't apply, e.g. some book/song titles. Artibrary non-lojban text can
14:02 < mensi> be quoted with la'o. See also lai'e of LAhE, la'ai of LOhU and la'o of ZOI for naming cmavo. |>>>
14:02 < mensi> djeikyb
14:02 < dutchie> Ilmen: so what purpose does the accent serve then?
14:03 < Ilmen> dutchies: it shows it's pronounces as a [w] instead of a [u]
14:03 < Ilmen> but it's optional
14:03 < dutchie> ua
14:03 < dutchie> or should i say {ŭa}
14:03 < dutchie> zo'o
14:03 < Ilmen> The same goes with «ĭ», pronounced as [j] instead of [i]
14:04 < la_kriston> {mi tinju'i la'au lo jbobau cu mo li'u}?
14:05 < Ilmen> dutchie: "i" and "u" can be pronounced [j] and [w] when followed by a vowel; it's especially relevant in "uu" and "ii", because Lojban doesn't make a difference between long and short vowels
14:05 < Ilmen> so ".uu" is usually pronounced [wu], and ".ii" [ji]
14:05 < la_kriston> is that one ^ correct?
14:05 < Ilmen> so that you don't have to rely on the vowel length
14:06 < Ilmen> la_kriston: Yes, it is.
14:06 < la_kriston> Interesting. I'll try to remember that...
14:06 < Ilmen> .i lo jbobau ku cu mo .i lo jbobau ku pu'o misnyrai .au lo ro runbau ...
14:07 < Ilmen> (It's part of the lyrics)
14:07 < la_kriston> oh, okay... I couldn't make out the lyrics very well, though I did catch a few words.
14:08 < Ilmen> The lyrics are in the YouTube video description
14:08 < la_kriston> But you only use "la'au" if the title is a complete sentence?
14:08 < Ilmen> yes
14:09 < la_kriston> And "la'e" if it's in Lojban, and "la'o" if it's something else?
14:09 < Ilmen> la_kriston: another option is «la nu...»
14:09 < Ilmen> For example «la nu lo finpe cu carvi», or whatever :)
14:09 < la_kriston> I can only take so many options just at present...
14:12 < la_kriston> So I think I've got "la'e", "la'o", and "la'au"; I made a note of it.
14:12 < zipcpi> la'e is to convert text to referent
14:12 < Ilmen> "la nu" is nice too; it's maybe more elegant than la'au in may cases
14:12 < la_kriston> I'll have to research that later...
14:13 < la_kriston> I have to go now; thank you for your help!
14:13 < Ilmen> co'o drata jundi nitcu
14:13 < zipcpi> Hm I think {la du'u} may be more accurate :p
14:13 < la_kriston> ki'e rodo
14:13 < la_kriston> co'o
14:14 < zipcpi> So la'e zo coi = something that the word {coi} refers to
14:14 < Ilmen> zipcpi: it sounds more abstract with du'u; «la du'u» sounds more adequate for philosophical work title
14:14 < Ilmen> zo'o ru'e
14:15 < Ilmen> la du'u zasti ji kau na zasti
14:15 < zipcpi> Well I guess it depends on what the title is describing
14:15 < zipcpi> Like I think even {lo jbobau cu mo} is du'u :p
14:16 < zipcpi> Maybe {su'u} is safest so we don't have to deal with this semantics lol
14:16 < zipcpi> When all we want to do is quote a title
14:16 < Ilmen> la'au is adequate for "lo jbobau cu mo", as it contains a question word
14:17 < zipcpi> True
14:17 < Ilmen> "la nu lo jbobau cu mo" just doesn't work
14:17 < zipcpi> lol
14:17 < ldlework> it doesn't?
14:17 < ldlework> oh the question
14:17 < ldlework> ju'inai
14:18 < Ilmen> mi pu ciska lo cmalu pagbu be la'au lo jbobau cu mo li'u
14:18 < niftg> coi mo coi ma
14:19 < Ilmen> .i sa'e lo vo jbopre cu finti lo selsa'a prosa
14:19 < ldlework> Ilmen: je'e
14:20 < Ilmen> mi pu ciska lo pagbu poi selpau zo gumri
14:20 < Ilmen> lu ca ro lo nu citka lo lojbo gumri si ke santa mledi cu pilno lo smuci ki'u lo nu .oi lo forca cu mucti ja'e lo nu lo nu jgari na cumki li'u
14:21 < Ilmen> li'o
14:21 < Ilmen> .i jicmu fa lo gismu terbri nu xamsku
14:21 < Ilmen> .i lo forca cu mucti ki'u lo nu no da marji tersu'i zo forca
14:22 < Ilmen> %)
14:22 < Ilmen> en:forca
14:22 < mensi> forca = x1 is a fork/fork-type tool/utensil for purpose x2 with tines/prongs x3 on base/support x4.
14:22 < Ilmen> en:smuci
14:22 < mensi> smuci = x1 is a spoon/scoop (tool) for use x2, made of material x3.
14:22 < Ilmen> lo smuci cu se marji .i lo forca cu se marji no da za'a dai :P
14:23 < niftg> ta'o mi kucli tu'a zo sfofa mu'a ji'a
14:24 < niftg> mo'a terbri
14:24 < Ilmen> na nabmi pe'i .i ku'i lo gismu na terbri simxu sarci
14:24 < Ilmen> .i ba'e la'e di'u cizra
14:25 < Ilmen> .i ta'o nai ku'i mi na caucni lo marji te sumti
14:25 < Ilmen> .i ku'i cizra fa lo nu ge so'o gismu cu marji se sumti gi so'o drata na co'e
14:26 < Ilmen> .i mu'a zo jubme jo'u zo stizu
14:26 < zipcpi> So apparently they dislike "because reasons" is because it's an unmarked sumti-raising sa'enairu'e :p
14:26 < zipcpi> "Correct" English would be "because of reasons"
14:27 < Ilmen> In French we'd just say «Parce que.» = "Because."
14:28 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:28 < ldlework> mu'i lo mukti
14:28 < ldlework> motivated by motivations
14:28 < Ilmen> mu'i ma kau
14:28 < ldlework> woah
14:28 < ldlework> severe deja vu
14:28 < dutchie> the one i personally am most familiar with is "because i'm your mother, that's why" zo'o
14:33 < Ilmen> mu'i zi'o doi kucli dukse
14:34 < Ilmen> zo'o
14:37 < uainot> new nick
14:38 < uainot> (for a time...)
14:38 < rutytar1> ma pu cmene
14:39 < uainot> ctefaho?
14:39 < uainot> (I literally just switched)
14:39 < rutytar1> mi na certu lo irci
14:39 < Ilmen> coi la ki'umanak
14:40 < uainot> ah, well "X is now known as Y" means a nick change
14:41 < rutytar1> i'a
14:46 < rutytar1> the english "not" would be spelled "nat" in lojban though, right?
14:46 <@xalbo> Yes.
14:46  * Parse34 is now know as ctefaho
15:36  * nuzba @ro_bot_: ロジバン トワ ジンコウゲンゴノヒトツ ノコトデス [http://bit.ly/1CfPeGX]
16:10 < ctefaho> netsi splitsi?
16:10 < Parse34> incredible
16:12 < ctefaho> netsi spelitsi*
17:10  * nuzba @willingtheweird: I am looking to learn lojban with someone or some people. If interested, please message. [http://bit.ly/1GvkiX8]
17:28  * nuzba @Stefan100: @willingtheweird You could visit us at the lojban channel (with the same name) on freenode on IRC [http://bit.ly/1esoJZE]
17:30  * ctefaho kicks nuzba
17:30 < ctefaho> ssshhh
17:35 < ldlework> ctefaho: xu do du la'oi Stefan100
17:35 < ctefaho> ja'a go'i
17:36 < ctefaho> old twitter account I haven't touched in ages
17:36 < ctefaho> that's my second post in like 5 years
17:36 < ctefaho> first one was "Checking out this new twitter thingy"
17:51 < bigcentaur> .i ze'o cu carvi
18:05  * nuzba @fotono: #lojban da lo ka ve ciksi kei ko pinka pe'u .i ma mabla http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Complement_to_causation_sumtcita [http://bit.ly/1HZFJSg]
18:09 < rutytar> coi
18:12 < bigcentaur> coi
19:58  * nuzba @bripre: #lojban ke'u mamamabla .i mamamabla .i mamamabla do http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Complement_to_causation_sumtcita [http://bit.ly/1H2i9FJ]
21:15 < niek> coi
21:51 < zipcpi> Hey that "right-grouping" tanru marker we talked about is already defined. It's {ke'ei}
21:51 < zipcpi> It's... unclear though. Does it lock right grouping, or does it only mark one tanru?
21:52 < zipcpi> It also mentions lujvo; but pe'i lujvo should remain untouched
21:52 < zipcpi> It's silly to refactor all lujvo for right-grouping
23:10  * nuzba @zvevohi: doila'au @fotono do'upe'ixa'omo'uvimcu loropasimlu belokamabla be'onoila'ajaijalge lorarbau nuza'uzeiselsmu kupo'ofa'o #jbobau [http://bit.ly/1L4IfYt]
23:58 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/uei'e Not sure what the negation should be, or if it even makes sense to have one
--- Day changed Fri Jun 19 2015
00:30 < zipcpi> {no'o} should be PA4 too
00:31 < gleki> elmaho:pa4
00:31 < gleki> selmaho:pa4
00:31 < mensi> cmavo: da'a, du'e, ji'i, mo'a, rau, ro, ro'oi, so'a, so'e, so'i, so'o, so'u, su'e, su'o, su'oi, xo,
00:31 < mensi> xo'e
00:31 < gleki> selmaho:no'o
00:31 < gleki> en:no'o
00:32 < zipcpi> la mensi ba'o oicli'a
00:34 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers
00:35 < gleki> yes, ne'e
00:35 < zipcpi> We don't have a PA for "extremely"
00:35 < gleki> en:ne'e
00:35 < mensi> ne'e = [CAI] polar opposite scalar negator; equivalent to to'e but in selma'o CAI
00:35 < gleki> en: ne'e
00:35 < mensi> ne'e = [CAI] polar opposite scalar negator; equivalent to to'e but in selma'o CAI |>>> See also to'e |>>>
00:35 < mensi> gleki
00:35 < zipcpi> Yeah I found it
00:35 < gleki> hm, but two syllables
00:35 < gleki> actually they can't be reconciled, these two systems
00:36 < zipcpi> The va'e?
00:36 < gleki> to'e gleki and uinai
00:36 < zipcpi> Oh yeah that
00:36 < zipcpi> Well attitudinals are "special"
00:36 < gleki> so nai=to'e
00:37 < gleki> and na'e doesnt exist in cnima'o
00:37 < zipcpi> But not when it comes to selbri or sumtcita
00:37 < gleki> in sumtcita nai is like na'e/na
00:37 < zipcpi> Exactly
00:37 < zipcpi> That's why I only qualified this for selbri and sumtcita
00:37 < zipcpi> Attitudinals are "special"
00:38 < zipcpi> We'd gonna have to fork Lojban to fix that
00:38 < gleki> oh, you want ki'une'e for to'e ki'u
00:38 < zipcpi> Yes
00:39 < gleki> idk, it's all a mess here.
00:39 < zipcpi> Eh... so'ai*va'e
00:41 < gleki> va'ei :P
00:42 < zipcpi> Yeah that works too... maybe I'll add a note
00:42 < gleki> ui = sei mi gleki. uinai = sei mi to'e gleki. looks like [0;1] is converted into [-1;+1]
00:43 < zipcpi> "Note: {va'e} may also be replaced by {va'ei*}; difference is that {PAva'e} acts as a selbri, while {PAva'ei} acts as a sumtcita."
00:44 < zipcpi> Er, double ast for va'ei
00:45 < zipcpi> Question is should {nova'e} be {no'e} or {na'e}
00:45 < gleki> va'e is fuzzy logic.
00:45 < gleki> i think you want si'e
00:46 < zipcpi> No, si'e is fractional
00:46 < zipcpi> pimusi'e = xabna
00:46 < zipcpi> Err...
00:46 < zipcpi> Not xabna
00:46 < zipcpi> xadba
00:49 < noncomcinse> coi
00:50 < gleki> krasi: xadba
00:50 < mensi> xadba = .i zo'oi ban banzuxe'o .i zo'oi xaf bangenugu .i zo'oi ada banxe'inu .i zo'oi mitad bansupu'a .i zo'oi pal
00:50 < mensi> banru'usu .i zo'oi nisfu bangaru'a
00:51 < noncomcinse> ma mo fasnu
00:52 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers
00:55 < ldlework> zipcpi: strong scaler intensifier => superlative scaler
00:55 < ldlework> traji
00:55 < zipcpi> No, traji means "most out of some set"
00:56 < ldlework> right, "this is the highest amount I could feel this emotion"
00:56 < zipcpi> It's not meant for emotions
00:56 < zipcpi> "Note that though attitudinals use NAI/CAI as well, they do not follow this system, but have their own defined scales."
00:56 < ldlework> I understand
00:57 < ldlework> banli over carmi at least
00:58 < zipcpi> I did put a question mark there; because it is common usage, although I feel it is doubtful
00:58 < ldlework> using carmi to mean tcetce?
00:58 < ldlework> is common?
00:58 < zipcpi> Maybe I should add a qualifier, but I'm out of asterisks as it is
00:59 < ldlework> you don't think banli is zmadu banli?
00:59 < zipcpi> Maybe it's maljbo
00:59 < ldlework> banli?
00:59 < zipcpi> No, carmi
01:00 < zipcpi> Eh maybe I'll just drop carmi and leave tcetce
01:00 < zipcpi> banli is probably usable, but means a lot of other things as well
01:01 < zipcpi> That's why I want to make the lujvo {tsana'o} instead of just {cnano}
01:02 < zipcpi> Or maybe cairna'o is a better lujvo
01:02 < zipcpi> *camna'o
01:03 < zipcpi> Well, as for mentioned maljbo-carmi, see {camselci'i}
01:04 < ldlework> I just don't think carmi fits whatsoever
01:04 < zipcpi> I'm starting to agree
01:04 < zipcpi> I already dropped it
01:05 < zipcpi> From the page
01:05 < ldlework> carmi is about saturation and luminescence and bloom and such
01:06 < zipcpi> Oh you mean {camna'o}?
01:06 < zipcpi> Do you prefer {tsana'o}?
01:06 < zipcpi> I don't even know if there's a brivla meaning "scale"
01:06 < zipcpi> scale of intensity
01:06 < ldlework> what do you need the lujvo for?
01:07 < zipcpi> X1 is of normal intensity of X_2 (ka)
01:07 < zipcpi> Basically fills the spot between mutce and milxe
01:07 < ldlework> that's... cnano
01:08 < zipcpi> ... I should actually read definitions
01:08 < zipcpi> ki'e o'anairu'e
01:08 < ldlework> tolrai - ruble - milxe - cnano - mutce - tcetce - traji
01:10 < ldlework> we should make that a chart or some thing in la jbogu'e
01:12 < ldlework> ei sipna .i co'o
01:12 < zipcpi> co'o
01:15 < zipcpi> ... maybe that means I found another purpose for ctefa'o-s "pei'a"
01:16 < zipcpi> Which isn't added yet
01:19 < zipcpi> Yeah I think I'll add it, then leave a note for him
01:39 < gleki> i cant login into vrici today
01:41  * nuzba @2048k: which conlang is the internet using these days because i'm pretty sure it's neither esperanto nor lojban http://t.co/93S2UsI6bO [http://bit.ly/1ISxvdw]
01:47 < gleki> it uses broken english
01:57 < zipcpi> exp: so'isaiva'e
01:57 < mensi> (CU [{<so'i sai> BOI} va'e] VAU)
01:57 < zipcpi> exp: so'icaiva'e
01:57 < mensi> (CU [{<so'i cai> BOI} va'e] VAU)
01:57 < zipcpi> ... maybe that should replace {so'ai}
01:57 < zipcpi> Yeah don't think {so'ai} is needed anymore
03:23 < zipcpi> Oh I just realized that there is already a problem with the "sumtcita not very good for tanru" problem. {xo'i}
03:23 < zipcpi> Turns any sumtcita into a brivla
03:23 < zipcpi> *already a solution
03:24 < zipcpi> Though we're not quite sure what the resulting brivla would be for many of the non-BAI :p
03:25 < zipcpi> (ze'oi} is also another solution, but it's purposefully defined vaguely
03:29 < zipcpi> lol and now Lojban has yet another way to ask why
03:29 < zipcpi> {ko'au ma}
03:29 < zipcpi> {ko'au ma ma'a zasti} -> "Why do we exist?"
03:40 < Ilmen> en: ko'au
03:41 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
03:47 < gleki> so'V themselves are a problem
03:48 < gleki> "Rlpowell" has requested an account and is waiting for confirmation.
03:49 < rlpowell> Thanks!
03:49 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/User:Robin_Lee_Powell
03:49 < rlpowell> Also, going to bed.
03:49 < gleki> ^ this was created manually. i guess now the content needs to be transferred from there.
03:49 < rlpowell> Ah.
03:49 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/User:Rlpowell
03:49 < gleki> ^into this
03:50 < gleki> then  the first link can be redirected to the second
03:50 < rlpowell> OK.
03:50 < gleki> but im not going to deal with the biography of rlpowell :)
03:51 < ctefaho> coi
03:58 < ctefaho> coi la .dutcy'is.
04:15 < zipcpi> fau'u la ctefa'o mi zerle'a pe'a zo pei'a pe do, ki'u lo nu mi facki lo za'umoi kosmu be cy sei zoizoi http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers zoi
04:16 < zipcpi> do'oi ctefaho
04:19 < ctefaho> well I can use something else for pei'a
04:20 < zipcpi> No, it is fine
04:20 < ctefaho> and perhaps even nuke pei'o
04:20 < zipcpi> pei'a can be used both for your purpose and mine
04:20 < ctefaho> busy with other things right now, improving emotional communication is a lower priority;)
04:20 < zipcpi> I defined it so that it can be used for both
04:21 < zipcpi> {na'oi} fits right in too
04:21 < ctefaho> hmm well no time to think it out now
04:21  * ctefaho -> lo zarci
04:21 < ctefaho> (co'o)
04:30 < zipcpi> Crap {pai'e} already exists as {je'ai}
04:35 < zipcpi> Ah well that means less cmavo space hogged by the BSFK
04:44 < zipcpi> I dunno though... though {je'ai} technically hasn't changed, it now asks a very different question than it did before because of all the new na'e
04:44 < zipcpi> *NAhE
04:44 < zipcpi> So it might be confusing. What does la korpolorxu say
04:44 < zipcpi> 20 results
04:45 < zipcpi> Also dunno how many of those are using them as substitute of {je'a}
04:45 < zipcpi> I don't really like the sound T.T
04:46 < zipcpi> coi la .niftyg.
04:47 < niftg> coi la zipcpi
04:48 < zipcpi> mi ca'o finti lo cnino ke nilje'u valsi ciste sei zoizoi http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers zoi
04:48 < zipcpi> ku'i mi senpi tu'a zo {je'ai}
04:48 < zipcpi> na mutce simsa lo preti valsi
04:49 < zipcpi> sei jijnu
04:50 < zipcpi> iepei
04:50 < mensi> ei mi tugni
04:50 < zipcpi> coi la menli
04:50 < zipcpi> mi ca'o finti lo cnino ke nilje'u valsi ciste sei zoizoi http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers zoi
04:51 < zipcpi> ku'i mi senpi tu'a zo {je'ai} .i na mutce simsa lo preti valsi sei jijnu .i .iepei
04:51 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
04:57 < Ilmen> en: va'ei
04:57 < mensi> va'ei = [ROI] converts number to scalar tag; specifies the value on fuzzy logic scale; to the degree (n) on scale ...
04:57 < mensi> |>>> gleki
04:57 < Ilmen> coi la zipcpi
04:57 < zipcpi> coi
04:58 < Ilmen> I'm also interested by how to handle scales in Lojban
04:59 < Ilmen> va'i mi ji'a se cinri lo du'u ta'i ma kau smusku lo ckiku sepi'o lo jbobau
05:00 < Ilmen> pe'i lo sampu traji cu me lo namcu selbrivla to mu'a zo nilbra toi
05:01 < Ilmen> .i pe'i cumki fa lo nu skicu fe mu'a zo barda sepi'o zo nilbra
05:02 < zipcpi> zo je'ai pei
05:02 < zipcpi> mi na birti
05:02 < Ilmen> .i ba'a lo barda cu poi'i lo nilbra be ke'a cu dubmau lo cnano nilbra
05:02 < zipcpi> mi puzi finti zo pai'e
05:02 < Ilmen> .i ba'a lo no'e barda cu cnano se nilbra
05:03 < Ilmen> .i ba'a lo to'e barda cu poi'i lo nilbra be ke'a cu dubme'a lo cnano co'e
05:03 < Ilmen> pei
05:03 < zipcpi> ku'i zo gleki na simsa
05:04 < Ilmen> mi na birti lo du'u je'u pei kau lo si'o gleki cu me'oi bipolar ckiku .i cumki fa lo nu na co'e
05:04 < zipcpi> ki'u ma do pilno zo ckiku
05:05 < Ilmen> .i ku'i lo simsa be lo si'o pritu jo'u lo si'o zunle zo'u ba'a .ei me'oi bipolar
05:05 < Ilmen> doi la zipcpi mi skudji zo ckilu
05:05 < Ilmen> .u'u .u'i
05:05 < Ilmen> mo'a roi pilno fa mi za'a dai
05:05 < zipcpi> u'i
05:06 < zipcpi> zo je'ai ji zo pai'e
05:07 < Ilmen> en: pai'e
05:07 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/pai'e
05:07 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
05:07 < zipcpi> mi sevzi ke tolzau co'e
05:07 < zipcpi> ku'i mi na birti
05:08 < Ilmen> va'o lo nu me'oi .bipolar. ckilu zo'u lo cnano namcu na'o ku me li no
05:08 < Ilmen> .i pe'i na se tolmapti lo pu se stidi be mi
05:08 < Ilmen> .i lo to'e broda noi cnano dubme'a co'e cu se nilbroda lo nonme'a
05:09 < Ilmen> pei
05:09 < zipcpi> ie
05:11 < zipcpi> zo je'ai je zo pai'e cu preti valsi do'e ma'oi na'e
05:11 < Ilmen> ba'a nai mi pu finti lo velski pe lo nu'o zasti brivo poi sepi'o ke'a ka'e galfi lo ni zei brivo lo barda zei brivo
05:11 < Ilmen> sei sisku
05:11 < zipcpi> zo je'ai pu zasti jeku'i cu no'e cafne pilno
05:11 < zipcpi> .y. se pilno
05:12 < Ilmen> « x1 is greater in amount x2 (relation between x1 and a number) than the average amount among x3 » ("na'ozma"?)
05:12 < Ilmen> « lo (se) me'au x2 be x1 cu dubmau lo voi ki (lo selki'i be) x2 cnano x3 »
05:13 < Ilmen> ku'i na'e bredi velski .u'i
05:13 < Ilmen> .i ji'a mi na birti lo du'u xu kau zo cnano je'a mapti
05:13 < zipcpi> mi zmanei le sance pe zo pai'e
05:13 < zipcpi> .y. .y~~~.
05:13 < Ilmen> .i ba'a nai ru'e lo drata jbopre cu jinvi lo du'u zo cnano cu smuni frica ja'e lo nu na mapti .i ku'i mi co'u morji
05:13 < zipcpi> oiro'e
05:14 < Ilmen> en: cnano
05:14 < mensi> cnano = x1 [value] is a norm/average in property/amount x2 (ka/ni) among x3(s) (set) by standard x4. |>>> Also mean,
05:14 < mensi> normal, usual; (x3 specifies the complete set).  See also tcaci, fadni, kampu, lakne, tarti, rirci. |>>>
05:14 < mensi> officialdata
05:15 < zipcpi> mu'a lu mi cnano lo ka gleki li'u
05:15 < zipcpi> ju'ocu'i
05:15 < Ilmen> ba'a su'o jbopre na tugni fi lo du'u lo cnano cu namcu
05:15 < Ilmen> *ba'a nai
05:15 < zipcpi> xy'y
05:16 < zipcpi> pe'isai lo'e gismu cu sampu ei se smuni
05:16 < Ilmen> .i ku'i mi djica lo cmaci cnano brivo .u'i
05:16 < zipcpi> je'esai
05:16 < Ilmen> .i ba'a .ei mi finti lo drata sei snura
05:17 < Ilmen> ju'o nai zo nacna'o .a su'o simsa
05:19 < zipcpi> pau do zmanei zo je'ai ji zo pai'e
05:19 < Ilmen> .i mi pu jbobau skicu zo cnano fau lo nu sruma lo du'u cmaci brivo .i la'a lo mi lojbo velski na mapti zo cnano
05:20 < Ilmen> .i doi zy sance je'i smuni zmanei
05:20 < zipcpi> sance .i smudu'i
05:22 < Ilmen> mi na birti
05:22 < zipcpi> rore ra cu me ma'oi na'e moi ke preti valsi
05:23 < Ilmen> .i cumki fa lo nu toltcetce zmanei zo je'ai .i ku'i mi no'e djuno
05:25 < Ilmen> jbo: ve'ai
05:25 < Ilmen> jbo: va'ei
05:25 < zipcpi> simsa zo va'e .iku'i sumtcita
05:26 < Ilmen> sanji
05:26 < zipcpi> zo va'ei cu me ma'oi roi .iku'i zo va'e cu me ma'oi moi
05:26 < Ilmen> pei lu mo'e ko'a va'ei broda li'u smudu'i lu ko'a jei broda li'u
05:26 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
05:27 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
05:27 < Ilmen> ma'oi roi ĭi ru'e .i tcita ma
05:27 < zipcpi> tcita le ckilu
05:28 < Ilmen> pe'i pei na srana lo nilyje'u
05:28 < Ilmen> si jezyje'u
05:28 < Ilmen> jbo: va'e
05:28 < zipcpi> pe'iru'e .i ku'i mi pu casnu ka'ai la gleki
05:28 < mensi> va'e = [MOI] galfi lu'e lo namcu lo selbrisle .i x1 klani le namcu x2 noi ckilu |>>> ckilu; mei, moi, si'e |>>>
05:28 < mensi> xorxes
05:29 < Ilmen> en: va'e
05:29 < mensi> va'e = [MOI] convert number to scalar selbri; x1 is at (n)th position on scale x2. |>>>
05:29 < mensi> officialdata
05:30 < Ilmen> ja'o na'e simsa lu ja'a xi xo'e li'u
05:31 < zipcpi> .y. pe'iru'e lo nilyje'u cu ctaipe lo ckilu
05:31 < Ilmen> noi lo ka jezyje'u cu ckilu
05:31 < zipcpi> .y.
05:31 < zipcpi> ju'ocu'i mi srera pilno zo ctiape
05:32 < zipcpi> .y.
05:33 < zipcpi> Problem is how to express things like "His strength is 18", or "His power is over 9000". Gleki assured me that {va'ei} is good enough for those
05:33 < Ilmen> ta'o do jinvi lodu zo no'e zo noi'e smuni frica ma
05:33 < zipcpi> Even thought it's not *quite* fuzzy-logic-truth-value?
05:33 < zipcpi> lo du'u mi noi'e gleki cu du'u mi cnano lo ka gleki
05:34 < Ilmen> Well with va'ei, the scale has to be specified as part of its terbri
05:34 < Ilmen> zipcpi: But is that different from {mi no'e gleki}?
05:34 < zipcpi> lo du'u mi no'e gleki cu du'u mi ckaji lo jbini be lo ka gleki kei ce lo ka to'e gleki
05:35 < Ilmen> ja'o pei ganra zmadu
05:35 < Ilmen> tau zo noi'e
05:36 < zipcpi> .i va'o lo pamoi mi gleki
05:36 < zipcpi> .iku'i va'o lo remoi mi na gleki
05:36 < zipcpi> mi ckaji le jbini
05:37 < Ilmen> pe'i pei lo no'e gleki cu gleki sei se cfipu
05:37 < zipcpi> pe'inai
05:38 < Ilmen> la'a xagmau fa lo nu tcila zmadu skicu lo smuni do'e lo do papri kei .e'u
05:39 < zipcpi> xy'y ai mi pensi
05:39 < Ilmen> .i ta'o xoi na'e zabna cu smuni frica fa zo nai .i so'o roi dukti smuni .i so'o roi natfe smuni
05:39 < zipcpi> "Note that though attitudinals use NAI/CAI as well, they do not follow this system, but have their own defined scales; in particular, {nai} tends to more often act as a polar negator rather than a denial negator with them."
05:40 < Ilmen> With BAI, it's a contradictory negator though
05:40 < zipcpi> Er... I always thought with bai it's just na'e
05:40 < Ilmen> With UI, it's polar negator usually. Dunno which is the most common
05:41 < zipcpi> Oh yeah contradictory is na'e
05:41 < zipcpi> simple denial
05:41 < Ilmen> zipcpi: {to'e ri'a nai} = xoi na to'e se rinka...
05:41 < zipcpi> ie
05:41 < zipcpi> smudu'i lu na'eto'eri'a li'u pe'i
05:42 < Ilmen> pe'i ru'e na'e dunli
05:42 < Ilmen> ku'i ba'a nai mi'o pu na'e tugysi'u lo simsa pu za .i cumki fa lo nu mi naldra jimpe tau zo na'e
05:43 < zipcpi> zo na'e smuni simsa zo na jeku'i na cfagau lo sko'opu
05:43 < e`ogan> How would I say "exactly/precisely" in lojban as a reply to previous sentence? Is {je'e} enough?
05:43 < zipcpi> {je'u}
05:43 < zipcpi> Or {je'usai}
05:43 < e`ogan> What's the semantic difference?
05:43 < Ilmen> Also replying {drani} works too
05:44 < zipcpi> {je'u} is like "Indeed."
05:44 < Ilmen> je'u = true, je'u sai = very true
05:44 < Ilmen> so there's more emphasisi
05:44 < Ilmen> *-sis
05:44 < niftg> pe'i zo je'e zo'u na sinxa lo nu tugni
05:44 < Ilmen> ĭe
05:44 < e`ogan> is sai then a part of emotional descriptor?
05:45 < zipcpi> {je'e} just means "received and understood"
05:45 < Ilmen> e`ogan: Yes
05:45 < Ilmen> Or rather sai is an intensifier suffix
05:45 < Ilmen> added to free words such as je'u
05:45 < Ilmen> or attitudinals
05:45 < zipcpi> Technically {je'usai} is two words {je'u sai}
05:46 < e`ogan> Online lojban dictionaly is slow again
05:46 < Ilmen> ui = happy (interjection), ui sai = very happy (interjection)
05:46 < zipcpi> People often run related cmavo together
05:46 < Ilmen> e`ogan: Yeah, it's pretty frequent
05:47 < e`ogan> Is there an app for lojban dictionary that would run offline?
05:47 < Ilmen> Actually Lojban doesn't need whitespaces, you can stick together all the words provided you mark explicitly stessed syllables
05:47 < zipcpi> Yeah I think I'm supporting pai'e, then adding a note that je'ai already exists but I hate the sound
05:47 < Ilmen> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/
05:48 < zipcpi> Ugh the servers are down
05:48 < Ilmen> zipcpi: you can add "synonymous to {je'ai}", and add a similar note to {je'ai}, "synonymous to {pei'a}"
05:48 < zipcpi> pai'e
05:48 < zipcpi> pei'a is the suffix form
05:48 < zipcpi> in CAI
05:48 < Ilmen> .u'u je'e
05:49 < Ilmen> I have trouble with sutsis' cache though
05:49 < zipcpi> And was first suggested as an attitudinal question e.g. A: {ui} B: {uipei'a} (Yay! / How happy are you?)
05:49 < Ilmen> it always complain I'm offline, when I actually am
05:50 < zipcpi> Same thing with {na'oi}; first suggested for attitudinals
05:50 < zipcpi> But I found it fits this system quite well
05:50 < zipcpi> Ugh yeah the system's spoffing it up again
05:51 < zipcpi> (hey I just loaned a word from Lojban to English :p)
05:51 < e`ogan> "Gateway timeout"...
05:51 < zipcpi> We must make it mainstream
05:51 < zipcpi> "spoffing it up" lol
05:52 < niftg> spofygau?
05:52 < zipcpi> spofu ja spofygau
05:53 < zipcpi> "I spoffed the computer." "The computer spoffed."
05:53 < zipcpi> mi du'eva'e se xajmi
05:55 < Ilmen> tersmus: cumki fa lo nu fanva fi lo lojyskebau lo jbobau
05:56 < tersmus> nu[fanva( , ,c0,c1)](c2);  jbobau(c1);  lojyskebau(c0);  cumki(c2)
05:58 < Ilmen> tersmus: ro mlatu cu mabru gi'e nai cipni
05:58 < tersmus> FA x1:(mlatu(_)). (mabru(x1) /\ !cipni(x1))
06:01 < niftg> .u'i ru'e me'oi ascii ke lojyske sinxa lo kanxe
06:03 < niftg> kanxe bu ?
06:03 < zipcpi> Eh, I'll just return {je'ai} to its original, ignorable definition lol
06:03 < zipcpi> "NAhE question"
06:04 < zipcpi> Won't throw any support behind it
06:04 < zipcpi> Ugh JVS spoffed again
06:04 < zipcpi> lol such a fun word
06:08 < dutchie> dangerously close to "spaff"
06:09 < zipcpi> I don't know that word
06:09 < dutchie> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Spaff&defid=6903155
06:09 < zipcpi> Is it a vulgar Britishism?
06:10 < zipcpi> Apparently
06:10 < zipcpi> I dunno I don't think it's that close
06:10 < zipcpi> Of course, that word is not part of my culture, so I won't know
06:11 < zipcpi> Where are you from, Dutchie?
06:12 < dutchie> i doubt there is much overlap between british people of the right age and lojbanists
06:13 < dutchie> english
06:13 < tersmus> FA x1:(mlatu(_)). (mabru(x1) /\ !cipni(x1))
06:14 < dutchie> haha
06:14 < zipcpi> So you are British?
06:14 < dutchie> pe'i la tersmus cu spofu
06:15 < dutchie> yes
06:15 < zipcpi> Cool
06:15 < Ilmen> ŭa pu smadi lo du'u do dotco
06:15 < Ilmen> noi ja'o jitfa
06:17 < dutchie> so'i lo prenu cu smadi lo du'u mi dotco
06:19 < zipcpi> Dutchie, look upon my new attempt to destroy Lojban (zo'o) http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers
06:19 < dutchie> .i mi se cmene zoi gy. Josh Holland gy. bau lo glibau
06:19 < zipcpi> mi pu smadi lo du'u do fetsi i'au u'ise'i
06:26 < Ilmen> faumlu fa lo nu lo ka fetsi cu mutce co zilrirci lo jbopre xoi cizra
06:28 < dutchie> u'i
06:35 < zipcpi> Actually I'm starting to have second thoughts even for non-bipolar scalar brivla like {barda}. {barda na'oi} just means it's big in a way that you're emphasizing is not {ru'e} or {sai}
06:35 < zipcpi> Or {cai}
06:35 < zipcpi> {barda ne'e} / {no'e barda} means that it is between what you'd call "big" and what you'd call "small"
06:35 < zipcpi> Of course this is... very fuzzy
06:35 < zipcpi> But there's a clear position of scale
06:36 < zipcpi> to'e - no'e - [na'e] - [je'a] - rei'e - noi'e - sai'e - cai'e
06:36 < zipcpi> Everything to the right of je'a is je'a
06:37 < zipcpi> Everything to the left of na'e is na'e
06:37 < dutchie> sounds useful
06:38 < zipcpi> Full scale: cai'eto'e - sai'eto'e - noi'eto'e - rei'eto'e - no'e - [na'e] - [je'a] - rei'e - noi'e - sai'e - cai'e
06:38 < zipcpi> Or you can put no'e between na'e and je'a
06:39 < zipcpi> In fact that probably looks better
06:40 < zipcpi> Oh oops mixed up {ne'e} and {no'e} above
06:40 < zipcpi> I meant {barda cu'i} / {no'e barda}
06:56 < gleki> e`ogan: i think http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/index.html is still online ready to be cached
06:57 < e`ogan> ki'esai
06:57 < e`ogan> But I am already using it
06:57 < Ilmen> gleki: what's the best method to cound the Lojban definition for a specific language?
06:58 < e`ogan> mi kirsku la .gleki.
06:58 < Ilmen> hm, or better, how to count lojban words, regardless of the languages they're defined in?
06:59 < Ilmen> But counting the Lojban words defined in English would already give a good estimate
07:01 < e`ogan> english definition of a "word" is wonky
07:01 < e`ogan> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8niIHChc1Y
07:02 < e`ogan> Convenient video from a linguist about it
07:03 < Ilmen> There are also Lojban-only definitions, but most of the words have been defined only in English
07:03 < Ilmen> There are words defined only in Lojban but not in English, though
07:03 < Ilmen> en: klama
07:03 < mensi> klama = x1 comes/goes to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5. |>>> Also travels, journeys,
07:03 < mensi> moves, leaves to ... from ...; x1 is a traveller; (x4 as a set includes points at least sufficient to constrain the
07:03 < mensi> route relevantly).  See also cadzu, bajra, marce, vofli, litru, muvdu, cpare, cmavo list ka'a, pluta, bevri, farlu,
07:03 < mensi> limna, vitke. |>>> officialdata
07:04 < Ilmen> jbo:klama
07:04 < mensi> klama = lo ka klama cu ka ce'u goi x1 zukte lo ka ce'u muvdu ce'u xi re goi x2 ce'u xi re goi x3 ce'u xi re goi x4 fi'o
07:04 < mensi> marce ce'u xi re goi x5
07:04 < Ilmen> es:klama
07:04 < mensi> klama = x1 va/viene a x2 desde x3 vía ruta x4 usando medio/vehiculo x5
07:05 < Ilmen> ja:klama
07:05 < mensi> klama = x1 は x2 （終点）に x3 （起点）から x4 （経路）を x5 （方法）で行く／来る
07:11 < gleki> en: 
07:11 < mensi> 19127 da se tolcri: a, a'a, a'acu'i, a'anai, abata'adj, abgad, abniena, abu, acaman, aclotlu, admine, advarka, adverbi,
07:11 < gleki> en: coi
07:11 < mensi> adverbivla, adverbu, a'e, a'enai, aftobuso, aftostopi, agbakate, agmasto, ai, a'i, a'icu'i, aicu'i, aidji, aigne, ainai,
07:11 < mensi> a'inai, aiste, aitco, aitxero, aizdo, akcoloti, akmela, akrobat, aksiptrina, akti, alba'aka, albatro, albuma,
07:11 < mensi> alcamacrike, aldeia, alfabeta, alga, algoritma, alkanse, alminiu, alna, alpaka, altamru, altare, altfor, altrici,
07:11 < mensi> alxataini, alzaitu, ambergri, ambigu'o, amble, ambuci, ambulance, amfite'atro, amfora, amgidala, amnio, amniota,
07:11 < mensi> ampigravle, ampute, amsake, amtisti, amxari, anci, andiroba, angeli, angila, anji, ankabuta, ankla, anli, anmonia, ...
07:11 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello. |>>> officialdata
07:11 < Ilmen> ue
07:11 < gleki> 19 127 words?
07:11 < gleki> that's it mostly.
07:11 < gleki> almost no words not defined in english
07:11 < Ilmen> e`ogan: ^
07:12 < gleki> ja: 
07:12 < mensi> 2444 da se tolcri: a, a'a, a'acu'i, a'anai, abu, a'e, a'enai, ai, a'i, a'icu'i, aicu'i, ainai, a'inai, a'o, a'onai, au,
07:12 < mensi> a'u, a'ucu'i, aucu'i, aunai, a'unai, ba, ba'a, ba'acu'i, ba'anai, bacru, badna, badri, ba'e, bafcolkercrakre, bai, ba'i,
07:12 < mensi> bajra, bajyjvi, bakfu, bakni, bakri, baktu, balji, balni, balre, balvi, balzai, bancu, bandu, banfi, bangu, banjupunu,
07:12 < mensi> banli, banro, banxa, banzu, ba'o, ba'oi, bapli, barda, bargu, barja, barkla, barli'a, barna, bartu, basna, basti, batci,
07:12 < mensi> batke, bau, ba'u, ba'ucu'i, ba'unai, bavmi, bavmyckafi, baxseljibri, baxso, be, be'a, bebna, be'e, bei, be'i, ...
07:12 < gleki> ru: 
07:12 < mensi> 2850 da se tolcri: a, a'a, a'acu'i, a'anai, abu, a'e, a'enai, aftobuso, agmasto, ai, a'i, a'icu'i, aicu'i, ainai, a'inai,
07:12 < mensi> aitco, aitxero, akcoloti, akti, aleksandras, aleksandyr, alekSEIS, algoritma, alinas, alionas, alisas, alpaka, ambulance,
07:12 < mensi> amfora, amgidala, anas, anastasi,as, andREIS, angeli, angelinas, anste, anxodi, a'o, a'oi, a'onai, aptci, arda, arinas,
07:12 < mensi> arTIOM, arTUR, arxivo, arxokuna, asna, atcu, atkuila, au, a'u, a'ucu'i, aucu'i, aufklerunge, aunai, a'unai, ba, ba'a,
07:12 < mensi> ba'acu'i, ba'anai, ba'au, baba, baca'a, baca'o, bacru, badna, badri, ba'e, bai, ba'i, bajra, bakfu, bakma'i, bakni,
07:12 < mensi> baknrzebu, bakri, baktu, balji, balnema, ...
07:12 < gleki> f@: 
07:12 < mensi> 2881 da se tolcri: a, a'a, a'acu'i, a'anai, abu, a'e, a'enai, ai, a'i, a'icu'i, aicu'i, ainai, a'inai, a'o, a'onai, au,
07:12 < mensi> a'u, a'ucu'i, aucu'i, aunai, a'unai, ba, ba'a, ba'acu'i, ba'anai, bacru, badna, badri, ba'e, bafcolkercrakre, bagyce'a,
07:12 < mensi> bai, ba'i, bajli'a, bajra, bakcange, bakfu, bakni, bakri, baktu, balcu'e, balji, balni, balre, balvi, bamvinji, bancu,
07:12 < mensi> bandu, banfi, bangu, banjikske, banli, banro, banxa, banzu, ba'ostu, bapli, bapu, barda, bargu, barja, barkla, barna,
07:12 < mensi> bartu, basna, basti, basygau, batci, batkakpa, batke, batkyci'a, bau, ba'u, ba'ucu'i, ba'urtadji, bauske, bavlamdei,
07:12 < mensi> bavmi, baxso, be, ...
07:12 < zipcpi> coi durka42 .i le bauspo fazykamni ru'i zukte sei zoizoi http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers zoi
07:12 < gleki> heh, french even exceeded russian. gleki needs to work harder but that wont happen anytime soon.
07:12 < durka42> coi oi
07:13 < gleki> coi oidai
07:14 < zipcpi> ro le do cmavo poi pu'i se snigau cu se ponse mi
07:14 < zipcpi> bu'a'a'a'a'a'a
07:14 < Ilmen> en: 19127, jbo: 3254, f@: 2881, ru: 2850, es: 2602, ja: 2444, eo: 1457
07:14 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
07:15 < zipcpi> durka42: I also invented a Lojban->English fu'ivla :p
07:15 < zipcpi> "spoff"
07:15 < durka42> oh?
07:15 < durka42> haha
07:15 < zipcpi> Definition: spofu ja spofygau
07:15 < durka42> I spoffed your window with a baseball, oohoo
07:15 < zipcpi> "I spoffed the computer"
07:15 < zipcpi> "The computer spoffed"
07:16 < Ilmen> ua
07:16 < e`ogan> Hm 19 127 words... that's not much to learn
07:16 < durka42> my response to that wiki page is basically that yes {va'e} is great and not enough people know about it
07:16 < durka42> s/know about it/use it regularly
07:16 < phenny> durka42 meant to say: my response to that wiki page is basically that yes {va'e} is great and not enough people use it regularly
07:19 < lablanu> ma smuni lo se tcaci
07:19 < lablanu> en: tcaci
07:19 < mensi> tcaci = x1 is a custom/habit/[ritual/rut] of x2 under conditions x3. |>>> Also: x1 is customary/usual/the practice.  See
07:19 < mensi> also fadni, kampu, lakne, jinzi, ckaji, cnano, tarti, ritli, javni, zekri. |>>> officialdata
07:19 < durka42> lo smuni cu smuni
07:19 < zipcpi> "What is the meaning of.... those who have habits?"
07:20 < zipcpi> Also {kosmu} might be more to your liking
07:20 < durka42> except nobody will understand because it was invented yesterday
07:20 < zipcpi> lol
07:21 < zipcpi> Maybe so, but it's so useful
07:21 < zipcpi> No need to zi'o off pilno, finti, or zukte
07:22  * ctefaho cu cilce tolcanci
07:23 < lablanu> How could I translate "The habit of fucking characterizes humans"?
07:23 < durka42> lo nu ta'e gletu cu jinzi lo remna
07:23 < durka42> s/lo remna/lo'e remna
07:23 < phenny> durka42 meant to say: lo nu ta'e gletu cu jinzi lo'e remna
07:24 < gleki> jb: tcaci
07:24 < mensi> tcaci = tcaci — x1(property of x2)  is a custom or habit of  x2(entity)
07:24 < mensi> :lo tcaci — custom, habit. lo se tcaci — having a habit.
07:24 < mensi> :ra se ke xlali tcaci lo ka batci lo jgalu — He has a bad habit of biting his fingernails.
07:24 < mensi> :Related words: fadni, kampu, lakne, jinzi, ckaji, cnano, tarti, ritli, javni, zekri
07:24 < durka42> jbo:ta'e
07:24 < mensi> ta'e = [TAhE] fi'o jai ve'a tcaci
07:24 < durka42> ta'e => tcaci
07:24 < zipcpi> I'm not even the first one to have the idea; selpa'i mentioned it on his blog, and the gismu came from that mystery-IRC-bot (though ctefaho and I decided to reverse the places)
07:25 < durka42> yeah
07:25 < durka42> so it's consistent with all the other causation words except {jalge}
07:25 < zipcpi> Mhm
07:26 < durka42> I like your mnemonic "cosmic smuni" except it reinforces the mabla tendency I already had to pronounce it as "kazmu"
07:28 < zipcpi> lol
07:28 < ctefaho> aaand so we don't have to say "seko'au"
07:29 < zipcpi> My dialect makes it a lot closer to {kosmu} than {kazmu}
07:29 < zipcpi> I did define {seko'au} though
07:29 < ctefaho> syllable_countr--;
07:29 < zipcpi> It also has a useful meaning
07:29 < ctefaho> well yeah, but ko'au is a lot more useful iepei?
07:29 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
07:29 < zipcpi> Yeah
07:29 < durka42> en:ko'au
07:29 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
07:29  * ctefaho slaps mensi around a bit with a large trout
07:30 < ctefaho> hmm I need to jboify that script
07:30 < dutchie> ie
07:31 < gleki> where in vlasisku are the links to CLL?
07:31 < durka42> gleki: https://github.com/lojban/vlasisku/blob/master/vlasisku/data/cll.yml
07:31 <@xalbo> {kosmu} feels philosophically wrong to me. Events and objects generally do not have purpose, and when they do, there is a purposeful agent who should have a place there.
07:31 < gleki> wait i knew that
07:31 <@xalbo> Unless I'm completely missing the point.
07:32 <@xalbo> ma zo kosmu kosmu ba'e fi do
07:32 < gleki> cll:ba'e
07:32 < gleki> selmaho:bahe
07:32 < mensi> cmavo: ba'e, ba'ei, za'e, zai'e
07:33 < gleki> selmaho:ba'e
07:33 < mensi> .i lu ba'e li'u cmavo zo'oi BAhE
07:33 < mensi> http://lojban.github.io/cll/19/11/
07:33 < gleki> indeed mensi was already familiar with those links
07:33 < ctefaho> xalbo, I think you are confusing purpose with volition
07:33 < durka42> mensi knows everything
07:34 < ctefaho> think/believe
07:34 <@xalbo> ctefaho: Is it possible to have the former without the latter?
07:34 < gleki> so it's about selmaho, not about cmavo
07:34 < durka42> guess so
07:35 < ctefaho> I think you can have volition with a cause just as much as a purpose
07:35 < zipcpi> xalbo: It's teleological
07:35 < durka42> .w teleological
07:35 < phenny> "A teleology is an account of a given thing's purpose." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological
07:35 < durka42> lol
07:35 < zipcpi> All it does is assign a "purpose" to an "object/event"
07:36 < zipcpi> It doesn't imply lo pilno, lo zukte, or lo finti
07:36 < ctefaho> "I will kill you because you ate my cat" vs "I will kill you so you won't eat cats anymore"
07:36 < zipcpi> The latter technically could be {tezu'e}
07:36 < ctefaho> one is with purpose, one is with cause, both are volition
07:37 < zipcpi> First one is {ki'u}
07:37 < durka42> both of those seem like definitely {zukte}
07:37  * ctefaho thinks of zukte-3 as ko'au anyway
07:37  * ctefaho runs
07:37  * ctefaho si cu sutra bajra
07:37 < durka42> not really since zukte3 comes from zukte1's mind
07:38 <@xalbo> Huh, reading the wikipedia article on teleology makes me basically say "All these famous philosophers are complete morons. How could anyone be so stupid?"
07:38 < ctefaho> .u'isai
07:39 < durka42> yep, sounds like a lojbanist
07:39 < ctefaho> .u'icai
07:39 <@xalbo> So more likely I just don't understand. But it feels so *obviously* wrong.
07:40 < zipcpi> Look... "Why do we exist?" Depending on your beliefs, {tefi'i} / {ki'u} may or may not be acceptable, but {tezu'e} and {tepi'o} obviously isn't
07:40 <@xalbo> If I kill you so that you don't eat cats, the purpose is *mine*. *I* am the one with the purpose there. I'm saying that {kosmu} lacks a place for that.
07:40 < ctefaho> it is the purpose of the action of killing
07:40 < durka42> I'm definitely with xalbo on the cat example
07:41 < durka42> some of the other examples in the wikipedia article make sense to me for {kosmu}, I think
07:41 < ctefaho> well think about it some more
07:41 < durka42> like aristotle's thing about the {kosmu} of an acorn
07:41 < ctefaho> i really don't know how else to explain it
07:41 <@xalbo> I feel that it is a feature of Lojban, not a bug, that it dissolves the question "Why do we exist?" into separate questions, instead of conflating them all together.
07:41 < durka42> it's like a tersmu
07:42 < zipcpi> But then that would force me to frame a question in a way that only makes sense based on your beliefs
07:42 < durka42> are you going for a "larger purpose" of the killing?
07:42 < durka42> like, God told you to kill me?
07:42 < durka42> but then there is still a terkosmu
07:42 < durka42> you kill me because *you* want me to stop eating cats
07:43 < zipcpi> I don't agree with the cat example either
07:43 < ctefaho> I guess it is because I think in Core-Cases and you do not
07:43 < durka42> hmm
07:43 < ctefaho> I have since long nuked zukte-3 from my mind
07:43 < durka42> what's a Core Case
07:43 <@xalbo> "Do you mean what state of affairs led to us being here? Or do you mean for what purpose were we intended, and if so, who do you claim was doing the intending? Or do you mean what goals should we set for ourselves?"
07:43 < ctefaho> durka42: A concept of mine to seperate what belongs in FA and what belongs in BAI
07:43 < zipcpi> {ri'a} is not {ko'au}
07:44 < ctefaho> ri'a is before an act, ko'au is after
07:44 < zipcpi> kosmu isn't meant to replace rinka
07:44 <@xalbo> No, but both are paraphrases of "Why do we exist?"
07:44 < zipcpi> Well, OK. "For what purpose do we exist?"
07:45 < durka42> I think lablanu answered that a while ago :p
07:45 < gleki> please send me an email when you answer that question
07:45 < lablanu> How did I do that?
07:46 < zipcpi> Does a purpose *need* an agentive place? Is it dependent on there being a user (pilno), an active agent (zukte), or to be the intention of a creator (finti)?
07:46 <@xalbo> Again, I think that question presupposes an intentional agent. Purpose exists in the mind of someone or something that intend a particular purpose, it doesn't attach to something on its own.
07:46 < durka42> yeah
07:46 <@xalbo> How can something have a purpose *without* an agent? Does purpose just come out of nowhere?
07:46 < lablanu> Nvm, I rember
07:47 < zipcpi> OK... so you're saying it's {tezu'e}; but {zukte} implies that an agent is doing it.
07:47 < zipcpi> Or going to do it, or has done it
07:47 < zipcpi> All questions that often aren't useful
07:47 <@xalbo> "This rock was clearly intended for me to use to hit you with. But not intended *by* someone, it just has an intrinsic purpose of being used to hit you. Sucks to be on the seldarxi side of fate, dude."
07:47 < durka42> aristotle's acorn example is more interesting to me
07:47 < durka42> there's no obvious volitional agent
07:48 < lablanu> Separate intended purpose and actual purpose.
07:48 < durka42> on the other hand {rinka} and {jalge} are quite adequate to describe the lifecycle of an oak tree
07:49 <@xalbo> The acorn example is an interesting one.
07:50 < durka42> lablanu: what's "actual"? who decides? :p
07:50 < lablanu> Time.
07:51 <@xalbo> That's not purpose, that's {jalge}. Unless you have the arrow of causation backwards, and are arguing that things have a purpose whatever they end up doing, in which case that seems pretty circular.
07:52 < afurrow> the acorn shows the same basic misunderstanding of evolution that people persist in making
07:52 < afurrow> it doesn't have a purpose, but it looks like something that would happen with a purpose
07:52 < durka42> congratulations! you have invented religion
07:53 < afurrow> exactly.  Religion is the missing agent in "intrinsic purpose"
07:54 < latro`a_> it seems that it needn't have an agent that's actually there
07:55 < latro`a_> but it needs to have an agent that decides that this thing that the object does is its "purpose", whether that agent is a participation in the activity or not
07:55 < durka42> like a tersmu
07:55 < zipcpi> That's {ma'i}
07:55 < latro`a_> as already pointed out, if you follow an abrahamic faith (for example), this agent could always be God
07:56 < latro`a_> s/participation/participant
07:56 < phenny> latro`a_ meant to say: but it needs to have an agent that decides that this thing that the object does is its "purpose", whether that agent is a participant in the activity or not
07:56 < latro`a_> oh, that's a bot
07:56 < latro`a_> I was confused for a moment
07:56 < lablanu1> Purpose is attributed.
07:57 < latro`a_> that's a short way of saying what I said
07:57 < latro`a_> I think
07:57 < lablanu1> fi'i
07:58 < zipcpi> By the way I'm Christian, so I would have no objections to {te finti}. But in a more down-to-earth way, something can gain a "purpose" beyond the intention of its creators
07:58 < latro`a_> sure, this is what I mean, some sort of attributor is required, but the attributor needn't be a user, or a creator, or ...
07:58  * ctefaho is a Satanist
07:58 < ctefaho> Fight?
07:58 < latro`a_> and the attributor needn't be infallible, as te smuni shows
07:59 < zipcpi> So you want a te smuni that's basically just {ma'i}?
07:59 < zipcpi> *te kosmu
08:00 < latro`a_> it's more specific than ma'i; the type that goes in ma'i has never been very clear to me anyway
08:00 < zipcpi> Heh...
08:01 < latro`a_> in watching the formation of this word, I'm trying to fathom how one would teach it to a child without actively starting a lesson
08:01 < latro`a_> because the vast majority of the time in the real world, you would want the specific word
08:01 < latro`a_> or at least the more specific word than this one
08:01 < zipcpi> The problem is that even
08:01 < zipcpi> "What is this calculator for?"
08:01 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Can you give an example of something that gains a purpose beyond the intention of its creators, but where there isn't a person (or other intentional agent) attributing that purpose to it?
08:02 < zipcpi> xalbo: Well if you really want a ma'i-like "attributor" in x3 I suppose that won't be too damaging
08:03 < latro`a_> I must stress the word "attribute" here; it's dangerous when we keep saying "intentional agent" to assume that the object to which the purpose is attributed cu jai te zukte
08:03 < zipcpi> But even "What is this calculator for?" - {terpli} still implies someone is using it
08:03 <@xalbo> "x3 attributes purpose x1 to object/event x2"
08:03 < latro`a_> and now we're back to the tense problem
08:03 < gleki> so strange. xalbo and latro'a discussing again philosophical issues. like many years ago zo'oru'e
08:04 < durka42> zipcpi: indeed what is a calculator for if noone is using it?
08:04 < latro`a_> sorry, the *placed* tense problem, that we were talking about yesterday
08:04 <@xalbo> "What is this calculator for?" is (at least) two distinct questions: "What did the people who created this calculator intend it to be used for?" and "Why would I want to use this calculator?"
08:04 < zipcpi> The problem is that {terpli} implies too much. Sure it might not be {ca'a se pilno} now, but it is still too heavily implied
08:05 < latro`a_> if all humans get teraflop arithmetic chips inserted into their skulls at birth, does a calculator have a purpose?
08:05 < gleki> jbo: akti
08:05 < mensi> akti = x1 ca'a zilpilno x2 |>>> ko catlu fe ji'a zo pilno |>>> gleki
08:05 < latro`a_> (my version of the "tree falls" story)
08:05 < zipcpi> ... I don't think akti is best defined by zi'o
08:05 < zipcpi> In fact probably nothing is best defined by zi'o
08:06 < latro`a_> zil- can be sharply defined, though
08:06 <@xalbo> I'd definitely say that defining something based on a *lujvo* with {zi'o} is a shitty idea.
08:06 < latro`a_> if we want
08:06 < latro`a_> but yes, that seems like a shorthand, not a true definition
08:06 < latro`a_> sorry, zilBRIVLA can be sharply defined
08:06 < zipcpi> zilpilno isn't defined
08:07 < latro`a_> zil- itself cannot, which is part of the point
08:07 <@xalbo> It's far from immediately obvious to me what place is {zi'o}'d out in {zilpilno}
08:07 <@xalbo> I'm guessing in this case it's p2, but how would I know that without already knowing the kosmu of {akti}?
08:08 < latro`a_> x1 in this case; that's supposedly the default
08:08 < latro`a_> but then that's a convention
08:08 < latro`a_> that hasn't been codified
08:08 < latro`a_> it's "achieving its use" without anyone using it
08:09 < latro`a_> (personally I'm OK with zil being tied to x1, but the actual semantics of the new brivla should be made precise if you're going to make a lujvo)
08:09 < zipcpi> But fine then I'll add the te kosmu just to keep you guys happy; at least until someone formalizes ma'i
08:09 < latro`a_> (the semantics of {broda be zi'o} are not precise)
08:09 < latro`a_> (intentionally)
08:10 < zipcpi> mo'u stika
08:12  * nuzba @cogas_uasanbon: I failed to correct {relxilma'e} in Japanese (http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/relxilma'e). mi na ka'e dragau zo relxilma'e #jbovlaste #lojban [http://bit.ly/1BsuIHS]
08:12 < zipcpi> At least a rarely-used x3 place can never be as problematic as zi'o-ing the agent-place of pilno, finti, or zukte
08:26 < lablanu1> How to say "X does Y in the same way as Z"?
08:26 < durka42> lablanu1: simsa or dunli
08:28 < lablanu1> I'm trying to translate "I define God in the same way as Aristotle".
08:29 < lablanu1> xu lu mi simsa la .aristotlis lo ka tamgau lo cevni li'u drani
08:29 < durka42> en:tamgau
08:29 < mensi> tamgau [< tarmi gasnu ≈ Shape do] = g1 defines t2 into form t1.
08:29 < durka42> ie
08:29 < durka42> {ka ce'u tamgau lo cevni makau} to be explicit
08:30 <@xalbo> I would think the tamgau2 would be either {lo ka cevni} or {zo cevni} or something, but I don't entirely understand {tamgau}.
08:30 < lablanu1> Could anyone explain {ce'u} to me?
08:31 < zipcpi> The pronoun that indicates the focus of the {ka} abstraction
08:31 <@xalbo> But it doesn't seem like you're actually taking a particular cevni and then altering it. You're altering what it is you consider to be sufficient to satisfy cevni1, no?
08:32 < durka42> lablanu1: in this case, {ce'u} gets "filled in" with dunli1 and dunli2, like {mi tamgau lo cevni} and {la .aristotl. cu tamgau lo cevni}
08:32 < lablanu1> Yup. I am defining God, after all.
08:32 < zipcpi> {lo ka ce'u vecnu} = The property of being a seller / "seller-ness"
08:33 < zipcpi> {lo ka vecnu ce'u} = The property of being sold / "sold-ness"
08:33 < zipcpi> {ce'u} is usually assumed to fill the first empty spot if omitted
08:34 < lablanu1> Oh, so {ce'u} marks what is in the abstraction place.
08:34 < durka42> yes
08:34 < lablanu1> I think I finally got it.
08:36 < lablanu1> lo xekri prenu pu ckaji lo ka vecnu ce'u
08:36 < lablanu1> xu mi drani
08:40 < durka42> drani
08:41 < lablanu1> uu
08:41 < zipcpi> Though there are gismu for "white/black skinned"; though I don't know what their status is
08:41 < zipcpi> Can't recall them off the top of my head
08:42 < lablanu1> How to translate "should"?
08:42 < zipcpi> Should has many meanings
08:43 < lablanu1> About "black/white skinned", {masku} and {kalpi}
08:43 < lablanu1> Both experimental
08:43 < zipcpi> Right, I didn't pay attention to their experimentalness
08:45 < zipcpi> Some "experimental" words are more experimental than others though
08:45 < zipcpi> Like {kanpe}, {xa'o}, and {ja'ai} might as well be considered part of the core language
08:45 < lablanu1> uesai
08:46 < lablanu1> ie
08:46 < lablanu1> I mean the "x1 should do x2 in order to achieve state x3" meaning of "should"
08:47 < zipcpi> Hm there is {bilga} but the place structure doesn't quite match. I think your place matches {nitcu} better
08:47 < lablanu1> Although "x1 should do x2 according to social rules x3" would also be good to know.
08:48 < zipcpi> Yeah, first is nitcu, second is bilga
08:49 < lablanu1> So, obligation and necessity.
08:54 < lablanu1> Does jukpa2 have to be food? Could it be drink?
08:55 < durka42> seems like it could be drink
08:55 < zipcpi> ctefaho: You really do have to be careful about deleting places in your sublanguage. Just because a BAI could *roughly* fit in, doesn't mean it actually fits. Like even me, who likes {kosmu} so much, really doesn't think {ko'au} is an adequate replacement for {tezu'e}
08:55 < lablanu1> Using "drink" like that might imply that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true.
08:56 < zipcpi> They are near-synonyms, but not full-synonyms
08:56 < zipcpi> But go ahead and do what you want to {te batke}
08:57 < lablanu1> How to express the amount of necessity?
08:59 < lablanu1> I know about {lo ni nitcu}, but how to use it in a sentence in an understandable way(all places filled).
09:02 < lablanu> en: nitcu
09:02 < mensi> nitcu = x1 needs/requires/is dependent on/[wants] necessity x2 for purpose/action/stage of process x3. |>>> No
09:02 < mensi> implication of lack.  See also banzu, cidja, claxu, pindi, xebni, sarcu, lacri, djica, taske, xagji. |>>>
09:02 < mensi> officialdata
09:02 < zipcpi> Hmm... what sentence do you want to use it in?
09:03 < lablanu> "I need water to brew tea."
09:05 <@xalbo> {mi nitcu tu'a lo djacu lo nu jukpa lo tcati} makes sense to me; I don't see where amount of necessity enters into it.
09:06 < lablanu> I don't agree that {lo nitcu be da cu djica lo nu ponse da}
09:07 <@xalbo> I didn't claim that.
09:08 < lablanu> That was a comment on officialdata.
09:08 < gleki> pls someone ask cogas in Twitter why he failed to correct a japanese def in JVS. was that a technical error?
09:09 <@xalbo> "[wants]" there is in [brackets] as something of a warning. That's not the typical meaning of "want" as {djica}, that's the rather archaic meaning as {claxu}.
09:10 < lablanu> What form does nitcu2 need to be in?
09:12 <@xalbo> I'm not certain; a {nu} abstraction feels right to me, but that's why I cheated and used {tu'a} :)
09:13 <@xalbo> .i mi nitcu lo nu mi ponse lo djacu vau lo nu jukpa lo tcati
09:13 < gleki> jb: nitcu
09:13 < mensi> nitcu = nitcu — x1(entity)  needs  x2(clause, property of x1)  for purpose  x3(property of x1)
09:13 < mensi> :mi nitcu lo ka volve lo zdani vau lo ka cpacu lo ckiku — I need to return home to get the keys.
09:13 < mensi> :Related words: banzu, cidja, claxu, pindi, xebni, sarcu, lacri, djica, taske, xagji
09:15 <@xalbo> "This want of tools made every work I did go on heavily..." (from Robinson Crusoe, as an example of the meaning of "want" in the def'n of {nitcu})
09:15 < lablanu> Does your sentence imply the person wants to brew tea?
09:15 <@xalbo> Not at all.
09:15 < lablanu> But do people automatically assume that?
09:17 <@xalbo> Do you assume that from "I need water to make tea"? It's very much the same thing.
09:17 < lablanu> So in order to be clear, I have to explicitly express if and/or how much I want to brew tea?
09:20 < lablanu> To me, there are at least two ways of interpreting that. One is like "I want to make tea. I need water to make tea." and the other is like "I need water to make tea(if I ever want to make tea).".
09:21 <@xalbo> I think the Lojban permits both meanings.
09:21 < lablanu> For the same word?
09:23 <@xalbo> It's probably more the latter, with pragmatics saying that if you're pointing out that need now, it's probably for a reason (ie, you're intending to make tea now).
09:24 < lablanu> Oh, so you could just express the time of necessity to change the context?
09:26  * nuzba @cogas_uasanbon: マア確かに「そんな気がする」ってのは {pe'i}で代用してた節はあるので、結構使えるかもしれないが、いやはやしかし　http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/jei'u [http://bit.ly/1Gnc8N9]
09:28 < lablanu> e.g. {mi ca nitcu tu'a lo djacu fi lo nu jukpa lo tcati} ~ "I need water(now) in order to make tea and I intend to make tea."
09:28 < lablanu> and {mi nitcu tu'a lo djacu fi lo nu jukpa lo tcati} ~ "I need water if I want to make tea."
09:29 <@xalbo> I'm not sure.
09:30 < lablanu> I just don't like multiple meanings that have too dissimilar implications.
09:31 < lablanu> And what happens when I omit nitcu3? {mi nitcu tu'a lo djacu} vs. {mi ca nitcu tu'a lo djacu}
09:31 < ldlework> I'm going with xalbo that there probably doesn't need to be an explicit secondary semantic inherent in the speech
09:32 < ldlework> And that it's up to pragmatics
09:32 < ldlework> The only thing that it asserts is that you need water to make tea.
09:32 < ldlework> It doesn't contain more information than that. So what sense should be used for interpretation comes down to context and other effects.
09:33 < gleki> mi nitcu lo djacu lo nu ai jukpa lo tcati
09:33 < dutchie> ie
09:33 < lablanu> *slow clap*
09:33 < gleki> i lo djacu cu jai sarcu lo nu jukpa lo tcati
09:50 < lablanu> Still it might be a slight paradigm shift. Stereotypes don't go away easily.
09:51 < ldlework> what is?
10:31 < BaalTondral> hey
10:31 < BaalTondral> so I watched ldlework's intro video
10:31 < BaalTondral> it's nice :)
10:33 < ldlework> BaalTondral: thanks.
10:33 < ldlework> BaalTondral: if you ever want some direct lessons let me know
10:41  * nuzba @uitki: zipcpi: Yet another gadri article - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1QGKO7O]
10:47 < hamnox> what forms are relevant to answering questions?
10:48 < Ilmen> hamnox; Either a complete sentence, or saying only the requested information
10:49 < hamnox> Idlework asked a xu, I wanted to say 'yes, your statement is correct' but couldn't remember if there was a way to do that
10:49 < hamnox> succintly, i mean
10:49 < Ilmen> For example, {ma cikna} ("Who is awake?") can be answered by {la .djan.} ("John") alone, or by a complete sentence, {la .djan. cu sipna}
10:50 < Ilmen> hamnox: Yes/no question can be answered with {go'i}, {na go'i} or {ja'a go'i}
10:51 < Ilmen> You can also say {jetnu} ("true") or {jitfa} ("false"), or use {je'u} or {je'u nai}
10:52 < Ilmen> {go'i} repeats the previous sentence, so replying {go'i} to a yes/no question is just like repeating the previous sentences as an assertion
10:53 < hamnox> sweet!
10:54 < Ilmen> hamnox: The English "Yes." is {ja'a go'i}, and the English "No." is {na go'i}
11:14  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK To-Do - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_To-Do by Cirko - skari2 [http://bit.ly/1ChV5LD]
11:16 < Zluglu> coi
11:17 < Zluglu> how would you translate the concept of Olifantenpaadjes / desire path?
11:27 < niftg> (mi ca'o tcidu fi lo prosa be la'oi desire-path ku pe la'oi Wikipedia)
11:32 < niftg> .u'i .ua .uenai so'i tanru cu ka'e se smuni la'oi Olifantenpaajes
11:35 < beilu> Um... may I ask a question about basic Lojban grammar? Or should I ask in #skule?
11:35 < beilu> ckule*
11:36 < dutchie> either is fine
11:36 < dutchie> here is probably better as something of an argument is raging in #ckule
11:37 < beilu> A couple people are arguing about pragmatics in ckule so I'd rather not but in right now
11:37 < ctefaho> you can but in here
11:37 < beilu> I'm wondering of the exact different between "cu" and "ku"
11:37 < beilu> I read a few wave lessons and then read the crash course
11:38 < beilu> and when introducing turning words into nouns, one used "ku" and the other used "cu"
11:38 < beilu> Is there an important different?
11:38 < dutchie> there is
11:38 < beilu> difference*, excuse me
11:38 < dutchie> {ku} is a terminator corresponding to {la}, {le}, {lo} and similar words
11:39 < dutchie> {cu} is a separator that flags that the main selbri (~= verb) is coming up
11:39 < Ilmen> Zluglu: Maybe nunguklu'a
11:39 < Ilmen> "erosion path"
11:39 < beilu> Oh, I see. So I should always use "cu" before the main selbri
11:39 < dutchie> that's the usual way of doing it
11:39 < dutchie> but {lo nanmu ku klama} is still right
11:40 < dutchie> it's just that {cu} is more flexible so tends to be used more often
11:40 < dutchie> exp: lo nanmu ku klama
11:40 < mensi> ([lo nanmu ku] [CU {klama VAU}])
11:40 < Ilmen> Zluglu: or dzuguklu'a (cadzu guska pluta, walk erosion path)
11:40 < dutchie> exp: lo nanmu cu klama
11:40 < mensi> ([lo nanmu KU] [cu {klama VAU}])
11:40 < beilu> I see. Thank you. I'll probably understand the difference with more practice as well
11:40 < dutchie> both are inserted conceptually, but only one is necessary
11:40 < dutchie> which one you miss out is up to the speaker
11:41 < Ilmen> beilu: In actual practice, "cu" is used much more often because it's more convenient
11:41 < Ilmen> Sometimes a single "cu" suffice where you would need two "ku" or other terminators
11:41 < Ilmen> *suffices
11:42 < Ilmen> However, there are cases where "ku" is necessary but "cu" cannot be used
11:42 < Ilmen> (especially within a tanru)
11:43 < niftg> .i'e zo dzuguklu'a
11:43 < beilu> Oh, okay. I'm still trying to get used to the grammar a bit, so I don't understand it all but thanks for clearing it up more
11:44 < beilu> Do you think crash course is a better start than the wave lessons?
11:44 < ctefaho> "cu" can also be thought of as specifying a sub-sentence/clause when you use them with "and/or/etc"
11:45 < ctefaho> but if there is only one "cu" around there is only one main sentence
11:49 < dutchie> en:xi
11:49 < mensi> xi = [XI] subscript; attaches a number of letteral string following as a subscript onto grammar structures.
11:49 < dutchie> ^^ should that not be "number or letteral"
11:49 < beilu> wow they're still arguing
11:50 < dutchie> and if so, how can i fix it? can i just register on jvs and change it?
12:01 < niftg> la'a a record of the officialdata ji'a can be changed by any user .i ku'i mi na zanru sei stace
12:05 < ctefaho> beilu: yeah over and over
12:05 < ctefaho> welcome to lojban
12:07 < beilu> thanks. If I wasn't as interested in learning the language as I am, I might have reconsidered learning it now.
12:07 < beilu> I'm thinking back to that xkcd comic
12:07 < ctefaho> naaaaaaaaah there are not *just* endless debates;)
12:07 < ctefaho> which one?
12:08 < beilu> The Lojban one of course
12:09 < ctefaho> yeah, well, I meant link?
12:09 < beilu> Oh, sorry
12:09 < beilu> here: https://xkcd.com/191/
12:09 < ctefaho> ki'e
12:10 < ctefaho> (=Thanks)
12:10 < beilu> I have my dictionary tab up haha
12:11 < beilu> Though I don't know the proper response to ki'e. Is there one?
12:11 < ctefaho> god its broken lojban
12:11 < dutchie> beilu: je'e
12:11 < beilu> ki'e
12:11 < dutchie> which means "received and understood"
12:12 < beilu> That's pretty neat
12:12 < dutchie> so can be applied not just to {ki'e}
12:12 < ctefaho> {zo'o ta jitfa .i .e'o xu do pendo mi}
12:12 < ctefaho> lol well I get it
12:12 < ctefaho> the zo'o is because he uses ta
12:12 < ctefaho> for jitfa
12:13 < dutchie> beilu: note the response is *not* {fi'i} ("welcome") which is to be used only for actually welcoming someone somewhere
12:14 < ctefaho> fi'i is like saying "Hospitality to you!"
12:14 < beilu> dutchie: Yeah, I would imagine it wouldn't be considering that depending on the language, the response to "thank you" is different.
12:16 < beilu> there should be a Lojban debate channel, since all that arguing in ckule seems like it should be disallowed
12:16 < dutchie> i mostly only mentioned it to show off another fun lojban vocative :
12:16 < dutchie> :)
12:17 < dutchie> in theory they should be arguing in here and you should be asking your questions in #ckule
12:17 < dutchie> but sadly this is the internet sometimes
12:17 < beilu> "sometimes"
12:18 < beilu> That reminds me: I have another question
12:19 < beilu> Lojban vocabulary is really difficult for me to memorise especially considering that there isn't a lot of Lojban audio floating around
12:19 < dutchie> i choose to remain optimistic and to hope that at times it is a positive place
12:20 < beilu> How did you go about learning words?
12:20 < zipcpi> ... I apologize
12:20 < beilu> zipcpi: it's all your fault
12:20 < zipcpi> lol
12:20 < beilu> just nod
12:21 < dutchie> beilu: personally i have an anki deck that i add new words to as i encounter them
12:21 < dutchie> http://ankisrs.net/
12:21 < beilu> Oh, I forgot about anki
12:21 < beilu> I used that for Japanese, it's pretty great
12:22 < beilu> Perhaps I could record myself and use the recording to help me remember the words. I don't memorise well just visually.
13:44 < zipcpi> OK sorry everyone; we're moving that crazy discussion from #ckule to here
13:45 < zipcpi> Now #ckule can be used for it's proper purpose :p
13:46 < zipcpi> ldlework: "the readers and commentors of the book" ; well, that's what jo'au gadganzu {le'e} is meant to solve
13:46 < Ilmen> So the discussion raged for over two hours without a break?
13:46 < Ilmen> o_O
13:46 < zipcpi> Actually we changed topics
13:47 < zipcpi> But it still was a continuous convo
13:47 < zipcpi> All about rather un-#ckule-like topics
13:48 < zipcpi> ldlework: You can use {ra} at the cost of some ambiguity
13:48 < ldlework> zipcpi: no I haven't mentioned them
13:49 < ldlework> le'e isn't relevant at all
13:49 < ldlework> if you mean the readers and commentors
13:49 < ldlework> oh you mean the book
13:49 < zipcpi> I meant "of that book"
13:49 < ldlework> so you're suggesting to use ra twice
13:49 < zipcpi> ... no
13:49 < ldlework> then it doesn't solve anything
13:49 < zipcpi> What are you trying to simplify here?
13:50 < ldlework> my annoyance is having to be-fill two selbri that use the same x2 argument
13:50 < zipcpi> .i si'u ji'a re lo mi ctuca po'u la'o gy. J. L. Austin gy. je la'o gy. P. F. Strawson gy. le se cutka cu mutce se xamgu lo certu se stidi be so'i tcidu je te pinka be le'e se cukta
13:50 < zipcpi> Hmm... let me think
13:50 < ldlework> that only fills pinka2
13:50 < ldlework> "The readers and those who commented on the book."
13:50 < zipcpi> Oh your tanru {tcidu je te pinka}
13:51 < zipcpi> Yeah I can see how that might be problematic
13:51 < ldlework> exp: tcidu je te pinka
13:51 < mensi> (CU [tcidu {je <te pinka>}] VAU)
13:51 < ldlework> wait wtf
13:51 < ldlework> does it create a tanru?
13:51 < zipcpi> It's technically a tanru
13:51 < ldlework> u'e
13:51 < ldlework> then... I guess... technically one be is fine o_O
13:51 < Ilmen> Use gi'e or jecu in order to avoid tanru
13:52 < ldlework> Ilmen: but then you have to fill x2 with the same sumti anyway
13:52 < ldlework> if anything tanru allows us to specify it once and just depends on pragmatics
13:52 < ldlework> which isn't the worst thing
13:52 < ldlework> since its probably obvious
13:52 < Ilmen> fa X fe Y broda gi'e brode --- here, X and Y are shared
13:52 <@xalbo> The downside of unifying all the connectives. People then get surprised when the "tanru-internal" conenctives are actually tanru-internal.
13:52 < ldlework> o.O
13:52 < zipcpi> OK what I think he meant to say is...
13:52 <@xalbo> en:je
13:52 < mensi> je = [JA] logical connective: tanru-internal afterthought and.
13:52 < ldlework> xalbo: the not-tanru-internal doesn't fix the problem...
13:52 < ldlework> so.... no
13:53 < zipcpi> so'i tcidu be le'e se cukta jo'u so'i te pinka be sebu
13:54 < zipcpi> E
13:54 < zipcpi> so'i tcidu be le'e se cukta *be'o* jo'u so'i te pinka be sebu
13:54 < Ilmen> sebu ki'a
13:55 < zipcpi> Err... is {cy} the usual way for to lerfu-pronoun {le'e se cukta}?
13:55 < zipcpi> By the way this is jo'au gadganzu zo le'e, if you're wondering
13:55 < Ilmen> Maybe. I don't use lerfu back-reference pronouns
13:56 < zipcpi> That makes our little problem even more complicated then :p
13:56 <@xalbo> le se cukta goi da so'i de poi tcidu gi'a te pinka vau da zo'u de da mutce xamgu
13:56 < zipcpi> goi da?
13:56 <@xalbo> I just made that up. It may be a horrible idea.
13:57 <@xalbo> A way of binding to a KOhA that has scope only over the current sentence.
13:57 < Ilmen> You can use poi'i to bind to ke'a
13:58 < Ilmen> well here that doesn't work well as there's a poi
14:00 < Ilmen> You can use {da po'u le se cukta}
14:00 < zipcpi> So you actually meant "those that read and commented on that book"?
14:00 < AbAeterno> There are two ways to fix the {be} double filling problem: 1) Using {ke ... ke'e}: {lo ke broda ja brode ke'e be ko'a}. 2) Anything that creates a sub-bridi, e.g. {poi'i} (or NOI): {lo poi'i broda ja brode ko'a} gives you  a sumti that refers to the things that broda'd or brode'd ko'a, or both. In both cases, make sure to account for De Morgan.
14:01 < zipcpi> read the book, and commented on that book
14:01 < zipcpi> Then your sentence is *probably* fine, and I just misread it
14:02 < AbAeterno> Also note that {broda je brode be ko'a} only puts {ko'a} in brode2, not in broda1, because{be} has precedence.
14:02 < zipcpi> Oh...
14:02 < zipcpi> ua
14:03 < zipcpi> Well my 'mistake' was just attaching {be} to the last word too strongly, but turns out that is actually how it's defined
14:03 < Ilmen> camxes: broda je brode be da
14:03 < camxes> ([broda {je <brode (¹be da BEhO¹)>}] VAU)
14:03 < Ilmen> You could have asked Camxes.
14:03 < Ilmen> :)
14:03 < zipcpi> lol
14:04 <@xalbo> {da po'u} is nice. I may have to use that more often.
14:06  * nuzba @selpahi: ia bu'o la .itku'ile lo rarbau cu dunli ba'ucu'i .i go'i fi su'anai lo ka lo remna ka'e se bangu .i sa'u ko na mo'icli lo gredile | #lojban [http://bit.ly/1Ciez31]
14:07 < Ilmen> .u'i
14:07 < Ilmen> ŭa nai ki'u ma koinde lo ka na mo'icli
14:07 < ldlework> ke ke'e seems heavy handed but makes sense
14:07 < Ilmen> *koinde fi
14:10 < Ilmen> I wonder if it would be possible and desirable to have ke-less ke'e
14:10 < zipcpi> I don't think it would break anything?
14:11 < zipcpi> ke ke'e only has scope within the tanru
14:11 < Ilmen> camxes: broda .i je ke brode
14:11 < camxes> ([broda VAU] [i je {ke brode KEhE} VAU])
14:12 < Ilmen> camxes: broda .i je ke mi brode
14:12 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
14:12 < Ilmen> ju'i nai
14:20 < niftg> du'u lo gredile pe lo itku'ile cu mokau .a'u .i to'u {lo ki'a gredile}
14:32 < Ilmen> lo vlaspi gredile .i lo nu creze'a tu'a lo .itku'ile cu se sarcu lo nu mo'icli lo so'o barda ke valsi pagbu ke'e gredile
14:43 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/u'ene'e
14:43 < zipcpi> Essentially, taking Curtis's idea for {uau nai}
14:44 < zipcpi> And forcing it on {u'e} without having to reassign {u'enai}
14:44 < zipcpi> Downside is that this would make the only attitudinal cluster to use {ne'e}
14:46 < niftg> lo itku'ile cu rafsi bangu vau xu se'o ju'ocu'i
14:47 < zipcpi> mi djuno so'usai da pe lo itku'ilybau
14:48 < niftg> fau'u nu'orju'o
14:49 < zipcpi> Ilmen: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/u'ene'e
14:49 < zipcpi> <zipcpi> Essentially, taking Curtis's idea for {uau nai}
14:49 < zipcpi> <zipcpi> And forcing it on {u'e} without having to reassign {u'enai}
14:49 < zipcpi> <zipcpi> Downside is that this would make the only attitudinal cluster to use {ne'e}
14:49 < durka42> coi
14:49 < zipcpi> coi
14:51 < e`ogan> coi
16:04 < zipcpi> Hmm... I'm beginning to think that the KOhA2 to mean "this entire document/text" may be useful. The only problem is that it'd be so rarely used outside of formal texts
16:04 < zipcpi> {dei'ei}?
16:05 < durka42> staaaahp
16:05 < zipcpi> lol
16:05 < durka42> can you even remember all the cmavo you've invented this week
16:05 < zipcpi> lol
16:05 < zipcpi> I'm beginning to be Curtis x.x
16:08 < zipcpi> I just can't help myself though; like even the scalar modifier thingy was due to bouncing ideas off of Gleki and ctefa'o
16:10 < ctefaho> how about writing them new cmavo ideas down on paper and see if they still seem as good ideas after one week?
16:10 < zipcpi> The thing is that I only half seriously suggested the scalar modifier system
16:11 < zipcpi> But then the ideas just kept getting bounced around
16:11 < zipcpi> And {zai'e/zi'ai} in particular is a very ooooooold idea
16:12 < zipcpi> Though my first iteration was just to suggest giving a rafsi to {za'e}
16:13 < ctefaho> as for me I just realized what inalienable possession really means...
16:14 < ctefaho> there is like a mental shockwave going on right now
16:14 < ctefaho> this helps Sumtcita'a so much
16:14 < ctefaho> aaaaaand I got a cat in my face again
16:14 < ctefaho> too cute too close
16:16 < zipcpi> And {ze'oi} is just... yeah, really needed to stem the tide of nonce-zei-tanru
16:18  * ctefaho hugs zo po'e so hard it bleeds semantics
16:18 < zipcpi> Unfortunately it's not a sumtcita
16:20 < zipcpi> Anyway I think {xo'onai} is usable for {sei stace}; even though it's not really to'e me'oi sarcastic, I'm not sure why one would need "dishonestly..." as a discursive
16:20 < zipcpi> Liars aren't usually that honest :p
16:22 < zipcpi> xo'onai isn't defined as a cluster though...
16:22 < zipcpi> only mentioned as part of the definition of xo'o
16:23 < ctefaho> ko define det
16:23 < zipcpi> det?
16:23 < ctefaho> swedish for "it"
16:25 < ctefaho> Lojenska
16:27 < ctefaho> ska for swedish Svenska
16:27 < zipcpi> OK I have to go. co'o
16:28 < zipcpi> {xo'onai} defined now
16:28 < zipcpi> And appropriate gloss words added
16:28  * ctefaho is going to start using po'e for everything and nothing will make me stop
16:32 < e`ogan> .i zoi gy. <good luck> gy. xe fanva ma la lojban
16:32 < ctefaho> is {lo mi pendo} equivalent to {lo pendo pe mi} or {lo pendo ne mi}? I can't find the definition
16:33 < ctefaho> it should be ne but...can't find it
16:35 < e`ogan> en: pendo
16:35 < mensi> pendo = x1 is/acts as a friend of/to x2 (experiencer); x2 befriends x1. |>>> See also bradi, xendo, nelci, prami, bradi.
16:35 < mensi> |>>> officialdata
16:37 < ctefaho> e`ogan, is that name irish, btw?
16:37 < e`ogan> Irish variant of my name, yes
16:37 < ctefaho> that/you
16:37 < ctefaho> ah
16:37 < e`ogan> I am not irish though
16:37 < ctefaho> so you are not irish then?:p
16:37 < ctefaho> ah
16:37 < ctefaho> si ua
16:38  * ctefaho kicks CLL *and* BPFK sections
16:38 < ctefaho> I can't find it anywhere!
16:38 < e`ogan> I like how it sounds the most out of all the Eugene, Yvain, Uxio, Zhenya, Evgen and such
16:40 < ctefaho> I see
16:41 < ctefaho> me, I took "stefan" (meaning "list of sails") and improved it to "ctefan" (meaning night-sail) to "ctefa'o" (meaning night-end)
16:55 < ctefaho> uai co'o rodo
16:55 < e`ogan> en: rodo
16:55 < mensi> 6 da se tolcri: brodo, fiprtetrapleurodo, sparodo'ipoksi, bangaruxu, banju'udu, dinso
16:56 < ctefaho> (rodo means "all-you")
16:56 < demize> e`ogan: rodo is really {ro do}
16:56 < e`ogan> je'e
16:58 < e`ogan> co'o
17:44  * nuzba @fotono: @cogas_uasanbon srana la'e di'e i zoizoi https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/165 zoi i cazaku mina'o galfi .oi la'o zoi gloss word zoi da poi flica milxe [http://bit.ly/1ew3kPh]
17:48  * nuzba @fotono: @cogas_uasanbon srana la'e di'e i zoizoi https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/165 … zoi i cazaku mina'o galfi .oi la'o zoi gloss word zoi da poi frica milxe [http://bit.ly/1GbbRxC]
19:24 < rlpowell> Tene: yum command to do "I don't care what config yo uthink you see; reinstall this package and overwrite all local configs"?
19:25 < rlpowell> Whoops, mischan.
19:28 < rlpowell> Yes, lojban.org is down; sorry.
22:06  * nuzba @ataccoTnirepuoC: 最近言語にあまり時間とれてない Eしたい lojbanしたい ラテン語は帰って [http://bit.ly/1K2qlot]
22:08  * nuzba @uitki: CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/CLL,_aka_Reference_Grammar,_Errata by Rlpowell [http://bit.ly/1dViZH7]
23:51 < zipcpi> e`ogan: You here?
23:52 < zipcpi> I've added a "gloss" to my scalar modifier words so that even those not well-versed yet in Lojban jargon can still get something out of it :p
23:52 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers
23:53 < zipcpi> To summarize, this system is meant to unify two types of scalar modifiers; one prefix, and one suffix. Before, the list was incomplete; some people began filling the holes. I just filled in the rest of them
23:55 < zipcpi> Hmm "liminal" may be more jargony than "midpoint", but probably would cause less confusion with {noi'e/na'oi}
23:56 < zipcpi> Dunno what to do about {nova'e} though
23:56 < zipcpi> I suspect a simple linear scale isn't quite enough for that
23:57 < gleki> a new selmaho MUhOhOI that attaches two numbers to create a 2D scale
23:58 < zipcpi> Nah... there is that official cmavo that is used for coordinates; but I can't remember it off the top of my head
--- Day changed Sat Jun 20 2015
00:00 < zipcpi> And it would be nice to have a system that connected the same things that connectives too, but able to accept a PA for e.g. "one of these"; believe we were discussing that yesterday. The intricacies required to make the grammar work is a bit beyond me though T.T
00:01 < zipcpi> Maybe I'll bring it up in the mriste
00:02 < gleki> one of these like in pa je'e'e'e'i ko'a ko'e = ko'a jonai ko'e?
00:02 < zipcpi> Yeah
00:02 < gleki> isnt that {me}
00:03 < zipcpi> Doesn't work for sumtcita
00:03 < zipcpi> Or sentences... or all the other things that connectives connect
00:03 < zipcpi> Especially under Selpahi's system
00:04 < gleki> ge'e
00:04 < zipcpi> Also {pa me ko'a ce ko'e} is uncertain when ko'a or ko'e has multiple referents
00:04 < zipcpi> Probably doesn't mean {ko'a jonai ko'e}
00:06 < zipcpi> ta'oru'e How do I define {mi'oi} in terms of {mi}, {do}, and {lo drata be mi e do}?
00:06 < zipcpi> mi jo'u do...
00:06 < gleki> I can easily add links to CLL to la sutysisku but i have no clue where to put them.
00:06 < zipcpi> Need something that's like both {ju} and {jo'u}, or another alternative
00:06 < gleki> what is mi'oi?
00:06 < gleki> en: mi'oi
00:06 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
00:06 < zipcpi> Inclusive we
00:07 < zipcpi> Can be mi'o or ma'a
00:07 < zipcpi> But never mi'a
00:07 < gleki> so mi'o ja ma'a?
00:07 < zipcpi> Yeah, which is how I defined it right now
00:07 < gleki> or otherwise mi'o ju lo drata
00:08 < zipcpi> Hm
00:08 < gleki> i think i just answered that it's equal to mi'o
00:08 < gleki> tersmus: mi'o ju lo drata cu cikta
00:08 < tersmus> Parse error at 5
00:08 < zipcpi> It is? mi'o is {mi ce do}
00:08 < zipcpi> Or {mi jo'u do}
00:08 < gleki> tersmus: mi'o u lo drata cu citka
00:08 < tersmus> drata(c0);  citka(mi'o)
00:09 < gleki> {u ko'a} is eliminated
00:09 < zipcpi> Oh
00:09 < zipcpi> Yeah {ju} doesn't mean what we want it to mean
00:09 < gleki> then idk what you want
00:10 < zipcpi> mi'o ju lo drata : This sentence is true for us (me and you), whether or not it is true for others
00:10 < gleki> = mi'o
00:10 < zipcpi> Not "we (me and you, possibly including others)"
00:10 < gleki> you probably want {mi'o a ma'a}
00:11 < zipcpi> Yeah that's perfectly serviceable. Just wanted a {va'i} second definition
00:11  * zipcpi shrugs
00:13 < zipcpi> What I want is something that combines the senses of {ju} and {jo'u}, or another alternative, seeing that this construction might be useful for other things
00:13 < zipcpi> Something like "and possibly"
00:14 < gleki> jbo: ma'a
00:14 < mensi> ma'a = [KOhA3] mi jo'u do jo'u lo drata be mi .e do |>>> selpahi
00:14 < gleki> jbo: mi'o
00:14 < mensi> mi'o = [KOhA3] mi jo'u do |>>> selpahi
00:15 < zipcpi> "Me and John, and possibly Jane"
00:16 < gleki> mi ce la djon ce ka'ebo la djein
00:17 < zipcpi> Does that work for the {va'i} definition? *scratches head*
00:17 < zipcpi> Replacing la djon with do
00:17 < zipcpi> and la jdein with lo drata be mi e do
00:17 < zipcpi> exp: mi ce la djon ce ka'ebo la djein
00:17 < mensi> ([mi {ce <la djon KU> <ce ka'e bo (¹la djein KU¹)>}] VAU)
00:19 < gleki> exp only
00:19 < gleki> gerna: mi ce la djon ce ka'ebo la djein
00:19 < zipcpi> Right
00:19 < mensi> (0[{mi ce <(1la djon)1 (1ce ka'e bo)1 (1la djein)1>} VAU])0
00:19 < gleki> huh
00:20 < gleki> tcepru: mi ce la djon ce ka'ebo la djein
00:20 < gleki> tcepru: mi ce la djon
00:20 < zipcpi> {bo} is funny :p
00:20 < gleki> tcepru: mi ce la djon cu co'e
00:20 < gleki> yacc: mi ce la djon cu co'e
00:20 < mensi> ({mi ce <la djon>} cu {co'e VAU})
00:20 < gleki> yacc: mi ce la djon ce ka'ebo la djein
00:20 < mensi> ({mi ce <[la djon] [ce ka'e bo] [la djein]>} VAU)
00:20 < gleki> i see
00:20 < gleki> caha still can
00:21 < zipcpi> Well, guess I'll add it for now
00:21 < zipcpi> If JVS would stop spoffing up
00:23 < zipcpi> But yeah {bo} is crazy-overloaded, and for once it's not because Selpahi made it that way
00:23 < zipcpi> It was part of the original definition
00:23 < zipcpi> *Selpahi or Xorxes
00:31 < zipcpi> Yeah JVS doesn't want to work at all right now
00:32 < zipcpi> "DBI connect('dbname=jbovlaste;host=morji','jbovlaste',...) failed: could not connect to server: Connection refused"
01:23 < akmnlrse> exp: mi ja do ja do'e ke ti
01:23 < mensi> ([{mi <ja do>} {ja do'e ke ti KEhE}] VAU)
01:37 < zipcpi> JyVySy za'o na akti
01:37 < zipcpi> uinai
01:38 < zipcpi> ta'eta'eta'eta'e spofu
01:42 < zipcpi> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4288653 Did I use tense-sumtcita right here?
01:42 < zipcpi> Need to add {sreji'i}; useful lujvo that
01:42 < zipcpi> "I thought this (but I was wrong)"
01:47 < zipcpi> But wow what an example of layered tenses
01:47 < zipcpi> You'd think someone translated from that into the English :p
02:00 < zipcpi> coi la cliva kunoi tsuku
02:03 < zipcpi> Grr.... must... not... come... up.... with... a dozen more cmavo to add while JVS is down.... zo'o
02:04 < cliva> coi mi'e zvasta
02:04 < zipcpi> coi
02:16 < zipcpi> https://faculty.unlv.edu/jwood/unlv/Articles/SearleWhatIsASpeechAct.pdf Hmm oh dear how am I supposed to translate "illocutionary" if we aren't even going to define it
02:17 < zipcpi> Just introduce it with za'e and continue?
02:17 < zipcpi> some za'e-fu'ivla
02:18 < cliva> ie
02:18 < cliva> .idlokuti
02:22 < zipcpi> exp: me'oi illocutionary cei za'e itloku
02:22 < mensi> (CU [{me'oi ~} {cei <za'e itloku>}] VAU)
02:23 < cliva> .u'e nu pilno zo cei
02:23 < cliva> co pa moi lo se viska be mi
02:24 < zipcpi> {cei} can be actually useful for these kinds of texts; where we just borrow a technical-but-difficult-to-define concept
02:24 < zipcpi> In fact it's better to just quote the English for the first time then cei-assign it, since we are describing what Austin used
02:25 < zipcpi> exp: mela'ezoi gy illocutionary act gy cei za'e itlokuzu'e
02:25 < mensi> (CU [{me <la'e (¹zoi gy gy¹) LUhU> MEhU} {cei <za'e itlokuzu'e>}] VAU)
02:26 < zipcpi> Then just use {itlokuzu'e} for the rest of the text
02:34 < zipcpi> ... they forced me to add a te kosmu... but what about te krinu
02:35 < zipcpi> Well, I guess "objectively", something can be a sufficient justification for something else, without an actor?
02:35 < zipcpi> Not sure
02:37 < zipcpi> I dunno though... I still feel like krinu deserves a te krinu. Especially if kosmu has a te kosmu
02:38 < zipcpi> {ma'i} doesn't even fit so well
02:42 < zipcpi> I dunno how {ji'a} or {po'o} works when attaching to {fa}... {srana fa ji'a zo mi'ai} = "Also related is {mi'ai}"?
02:43 < zipcpi> Attaching ji'a/po'o to the entire place rather than a single sumti is probably helpful
02:43 < zipcpi> But what if {fa} was a sumtcita instead
02:43 < zipcpi> Hmm.... problem
02:44 < zipcpi> Because ji'a/po'o has another meaning when attached to sumtcita (and theoretically might have the same meaning with FA too, as in "this place is also/only applicable", though that is rather difficult to use.)
02:47 < zipcpi> Of course, we can always break out {fu'e fu'o}... oiru'e
03:01 < noncomcinse> .i mi pu zi zi co'a sanji lodu'u   lu .i na sélvai fa kó li'u   lu .i na mórji fa kó li'u   zmadu pe'i loka la'oi .Frozen. zo'u: fanva mapti
03:24 < ctefaho> coi
03:25 < noncomcinse> coi la ctefaoh
03:25 < noncomcinse> sa la ctefaho
03:26 < ctefaho> camxes: la noncomcinse
03:26 < camxes> ([la noncomcinse KU] VAU)
03:26 < ctefaho> coi la noncomcinse
03:27 < noncomcinse> do mo
03:28 < ctefaho> am confused and trying to make sense of something
03:28 < noncomcinse> Make sense of what?
03:29 < ctefaho> this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_possession
03:29 < noncomcinse> je'e
03:29 < noncomcinse> That's {po}, right?
03:29 < ctefaho> po'e
03:30 < ctefaho> lo besna po'e mi
03:30 < noncomcinse> Inalienable possession can only exist to a certain extent.
03:31 < ctefaho> Do you know if {lo mi pendo} = {lo ne mi pendo} = {lo pendo ne mi}?
03:31 < ctefaho> I think it is but I can't find the definitions
03:31 < noncomcinse> I believe {lo mi pendo} would be {lo pendo pe mi}.
03:31 < ctefaho> err no it is po'e
03:31 < zipcpi> ...
03:32 < noncomcinse> Eh?
03:32 < ctefaho> at least that's what real languages consider to be po'e
03:32 < ctefaho> dunno what weird lojban definition you are used to
03:33 < zipcpi> "often"... we don't know what pattern they actually use
03:33 < noncomcinse> je'u
03:33 < noncomcinse> I've never heard that {lo ko'a broda} = {lo broda po'e ko'a}
03:33 < zipcpi> Nah, that would make {lo mi ckule} be problematic
03:33 < ctefaho> I said ne not po'e
03:34 < noncomcinse> {lo ckule pe mi} would be problematic?
03:34 < ctefaho> depends on what you mean
03:34 < zipcpi> No, I meant the po'e interpretation, but that's not on the table anymore
03:34 < noncomcinse> Yeah, okay.
03:34 < ctefaho> lol the cll and bpfk even backs me up on this
03:34 < ctefaho> for body parts
03:35 < noncomcinse> if lo <SUMTI> broda -> lo broda po'u <SUMTI> that breaks everything
03:35 < zipcpi> The body parts is fine... not so sure about friends
03:35 < noncomcinse> Backs you up on what?
03:35 < noncomcinse> I'm confused, I'm not sure what we're discussing.
03:35 < ctefaho> well I am not confused anymore
03:35 < ctefaho> po'e is love
03:35 < ctefaho> praise po'e
03:36 < ctefaho> I just want to know for sure that {lo mi ckule} is ne and not pe
03:36 < zipcpi> But most body-part gismu already has a place for its inalienable owner, so I often just use {lo risna be mi} instead
03:36 < noncomcinse> ctefaho: What difference would it make if it was {ne}?
03:36 < ctefaho> ehm, you don't know the difference between ne and pe?
03:37 < noncomcinse> I do
03:37 < zipcpi> ... I'm not sure about ne vs pe. I think pe is often better because ne is like "A school (which is associated)", while pe is like "A school that is associated with me"
03:37 < ctefaho> zipcpi: ne vs pe is noi vs poi
03:37 < zipcpi> Yes, I know their semantic difference
03:37 < zipcpi> I'm just saying that I tend to prefer the p-variations over the n-variations even when the n-variations might be better
03:38 < zipcpi> Because the n-variations are parenthetical
03:38 < noncomcinse> {pe} specifically refers to a specific school because I am associated with it, {ne} refers to a specific school which I am unrelatedly going to.
03:38 < noncomcinse> zipcpi: Can I get an example of where N might be better?
03:38  * ctefaho runs away and cuts off even more gismu places
03:39 < zipcpi> Well, roughly, it is the difference between "the school that I go to" (p), vs "the school, which I go to," (n)
03:39 < zipcpi> ne/noi is parenthetical
03:40 < zipcpi> Only gives additional information, not qualifies the sumti
03:40 < noncomcinse> If I was talking about the school that I go to, I'd use {pe}.
03:40 < zipcpi> I'd agree
03:41 < noncomcinse> Or better, {lo ckule be fi mi}
03:41 < zipcpi> Well, it's a bit like how English materials will tell you how to distinguish between those two phrases
03:41 < zipcpi> "Is the sentence still as accurate if you remove the "which" clause?"
03:41 < noncomcinse> Honestly, if you can use {ne}, then {pe} will work.
03:42 < zipcpi> I tend to agree; that's why I tend to overuse the p-variants :p
03:42 < noncomcinse> Because if it IS incidentally the N-clause, then the P-clause still remains true.
03:42 < ctefaho> again read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_possession
03:42 < ctefaho> not going to say anymore
03:42 < ctefaho> also brb
03:42 < zipcpi> I've already brought up that it's descriptive, not prescriptive
03:43 < zipcpi> "often"
03:43 < zipcpi> Doesn't tell us which languages consider "friend" an inalienable possession, or how many
03:43 < zipcpi> Besides, {be} already fits {pendo} very well
03:43 < ctefaho> did you read more than the first 3 sentences?
03:44 < zipcpi> Doesn't negate what I've said
03:44 < zipcpi> It's descriptive, not prescriptive
03:44  * ctefaho stops trying
03:45 < noncomcinse> .i noda su'ode birtymau
03:46 < zipcpi> It's just most of the gismu where "inalienable possession" applies already has usable {be} places
03:46 < zipcpi> So in practice {po'e} is hardly ever used
03:47 < ctefaho> zipcpi: yes exactly
03:48  * ctefaho co'oru'e for real now
03:49 < noncomcinse> A lot of cmavo have that problem.
04:15 < zipcpi> Ugh I'm really getting JVS withdrawals
04:21 < noncomcinse> What's that?
04:24 < zipcpi> jbovlaste
04:25 < noncomcinse> I mean, the withdrawls
04:27 < zipcpi> It's like I have these edits I need to make, this word I want to add
04:27 < zipcpi> And it's itching in my brain
04:27 < zipcpi> Scared to forget them
04:27 < noncomcinse> je'e
04:30 < cliva> USE ORG MODE sei out of lo lo nei ku anus cu tavla
04:31 < zipcpi> org mode?
04:32 < cliva> Some Emacs mode that I keep hearing about yet never try out because I grew up on vim
04:32 < noncomcinse> .i mi ji'a pilno la .vim.
04:36 < niftg> ca'o co'a tcidu fi lo itku'ile nuncki ke catni kibypapri
04:38 < niftg> fu'i ru'e bu'o lo ka djuno fi lo rusko bangu na sarcu
04:53  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa niftyg fa
04:54 < niftg> mi la vreji cu kansa lo nu pinfu la alga
04:58 < niftg> la vreji pe la mumble ge'u jo'u la vreji pe lo se irci cu tunba zo'o ju'ocu'i
04:58 < niftg> tunbysi'u
04:59 < zipcpi> exp: mi jo'u do jo'u jubo lo drata
04:59 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "d" found.
04:59 < zipcpi> exp mi jo'u do jo'u ubo lo drata
04:59 < zipcpi> exp: mi jo'u do jo'u ubo lo drata
04:59 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "d" found.
05:04 < niftg> ru'a lo pu'u genturfa'i cu simsa lo ctiru'e .i lo nu jarco lo ka gentufa fliba cu simsa lo nu vamtu kafke
05:04 < zipcpi> u'i
05:08 < niftg> ca'o dragau lo vo'a tcica se jinvi seja'e lo nu tcidu fi lo danfu be fi'e lo itku'ile finti
05:12 < niftg> mu'a tu'a lo si'o zengau lo nu pensi kei lo ni sutra cu na te zukte tu'a lo itku'ile lo finti be ri cu'u ri
05:22 < gleki> next time please immediately ping rlpowell when lojban.org or jbovlaste or any other services there are down
05:28 < niftg> la'oi http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/how-to-learn-ithkuil zo'u le pamoi cu me la'o gy Quit your job gy .u'i cai
05:29 < niftg> .u'u zo zoi se claxu
05:31 < zipcpi> u'i mi puxa'o tcidu
05:32 < zipcpi> aipeise'i mi fanva i'auzo'oru'e
05:34 < zipcpi> aupei do crebi'o le itku'ilybau .i frili .i nitcu la'edi'e po'o
05:34 < zipcpi> tu'e
05:36 < zipcpi> pamai ko co'u se jibri
05:41 < niftg> le remoi ku ji'a xajmi li'anairu'edai
05:46 < zipcpi> .i remai ko erve le se sitna ke gerna cukta jacu prigau le kibro ca'irvei .i .y~~~. ba'a la'edi'u jdima su'oda do .iseki'ubo e'uru'e ko gasnu le remoi pu tu'a le pamoi
05:48 < zipcpi> pu lo nu no'a le pamoi ?
05:48 < niftg> .i'e doi fanva
05:53 < Ilmen> coi
05:53  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
05:53 < niftg> coi
06:04 < Ilmen> ca'e mi co'a jundi tau la .mambl.
06:05 < gleki> Ilmen: ta'o la skaip ca farvi i ca ti na nitcu lo ka instali la skaip i lo brauzero cu jai sarcu to ku'i ti'e lo cmalu ke sidju tutci ca'o jai sarcu fai lo ka se instali toi
06:05 < gleki> https://web.skype.com
06:05 < Ilmen> ǔa xa'o ba'o fasnu
06:07 < zipcpi> za'a le jbogu'e ja'a simsa lo'e xo'iba'o softo gugde .i go'i fi lo ka le teknologi pe ce'u ta'e spofu
06:09 < gleki> nolspofu a'o
06:09 < Ilmen> xu di'a se nabmi
06:09 < zipcpi> la jbovlaste ca spofu
06:10 < Ilmen> ŭa ǔenai
06:10 < zipcpi> ze'u spofu
06:10 < zipcpi> ze'a lo so'imei cacra
06:10 < gleki> zipcpi: sarcu lo nu roroi zi jungau la robin i ku'i va'o ku mi ba'o jungau
06:39 < e`ogan> zipcpi, sorry for not marking my absence
06:40 < e`ogan> That glossary makes it much better for newbies like me
06:42 < Ilmen> coi
06:43 < _mukti_> coi la .ilmen.
06:43 < durka42> coi la mukti
06:43 < Ilmen> e`ogan: there's a vocal chat in Lojban happening now on Mumble
06:43 < _mukti_> coi la durkavore
06:43 < durka42> coi la ilmen
06:43 < durka42> coi la e'ogan
06:43 < gleki> en: nix
06:43 < mensi> nix = Miss |>>> Cf. nixli, nanl, naun, nim. |>>> totus
06:44 < gleki> xm
06:44 < _mukti_> It's been 2 months today since the end of the LLG meeting. I intend to publish a draft of the minutes today.
06:44 < gleki> en: mister
06:44 < mensi> naun = Mr./Mister
06:44 < _mukti_> Been working on them for a while.
06:44 < durka42> ui
06:44 < gleki> Mr., Miss and Missis are the word i havent added to eng2jbo dictionary yet.
06:45 < gleki> but what are they?
06:45 < durka42> gleki: lo nolraitrututra pe loi .naun.? :p
06:45 < gleki> en: nim
06:45 < mensi> nim = Ms. |>>> Cf. ninmu, nix, nanl, naun. |>>> totus
06:45 < durka42> en: nol
06:45 < mensi> nol = Sir/Madam |>>> Cf. nobli, nilnim, nolnaum. |>>> totus
06:45 < gleki> en: nanl
06:45 < mensi> nanl = Master |>>> Cf. nanla, nix, naun, nim. |>>> totus
06:45 < durka42> in english "title" or "honorific"
06:46 < durka42> in lojban just... cmevla
06:46 < gleki> why those cmevla i wonder
06:46 < gleki> i could be just lo io nanmu
06:46 < gleki> it could be just lo io nanmu
06:46 < durka42> also {ga'i}
06:47 < gleki> .dict miss
06:47 < phenny> miss — noun: 1. A failure to hit, 2. A failure to obtain or accomplish — verb: 1. (trans., intransitive) To fail to hit, 2. (trans.) To fail to achieve or attain
06:47 < gleki> .dict Miss
06:47 < phenny> miss — noun: 1. A failure to hit, 2. A failure to obtain or accomplish — verb: 1. (trans., intransitive) To fail to hit, 2. (trans.) To fail to achieve or attain
06:48 < gleki> .dict Ms
06:48 < phenny> Couldn't get any definitions for ms at Wiktionary.
06:48 < gleki> .dict Ms.
06:48 < phenny> ms. — noun: 1. (in bibliographies) Abbreviation of manuscript
06:48 < gleki> ge'e
06:49 < gleki>  Miss Used as a courtesy title before the surname or full name of a girl or single woman.
06:50 < gleki> Used as a form of polite address for a girl or young woman <-- definitely doi UI
06:50 < ctefaho> "Miss Miss"
06:50 < ctefaho> <3 natlang
06:52 < durka42> Major Major
06:52 < Ilmen> ke'u ca'o jbobau vokta'a do'e la .mambl. doi ka'e se cinri
06:52 < gleki> lo io ninmu be fa la alis ~= Mrs. Alice
06:53 < gleki> Ilmen: xu da jai gau vreji
06:53 < Ilmen> la vreji cu vreji
06:53 < Ilmen> si rejgua
06:53 < Ilmen> .oi
07:06 < e`ogan> Ilmen, thank you for the info, but I am currently busy in the work/rental/family related chats and calls to have a Mumble on top of it all
07:06 < zipcpi> gleki: Yeah I think it's hard to translate titles into Lojban
07:06 < e`ogan> I agree
07:06 < Ilmen> na nabmi doi la .e'ogan.
07:07 < Ilmen> .i mi jungau po'o
07:07 < e`ogan> Titles are hard to translate between languages in general too
07:07 < Ilmen> (No problem, Eogan, I was just letting know)
07:07 < zipcpi> You can say {io}... but it's.... kinda flimsy. I don't think {io} should be used as a mere courtesy without actually wanting to express respect
07:07 < e`ogan> There is always a certain play on words that just can't be matched
07:09 < e`ogan> When is tis .i necessary and what it is for?
07:09 < Ilmen> {.i} is the sentence separator/fence
07:09 < zipcpi> Just wait till the Japanese or Korean version of me and/or Curtis adds a bunch of cmavo to emulate honorifics :p
07:09 < zipcpi> .i is like a spoken period
07:10 < zipcpi> Lojban "punctuation" is spoken
07:10 < e`ogan> I see
07:10 < e`ogan> Eloquent in a way
07:10 < Ilmen> e`ogan: Lojban has no defined prosody (except stress), all the information is conveyed by the phoneme sequence
07:10 < durka42> zipcpi: ga'i'o'e: elliptical/unspecified honorific
07:10 < zipcpi> durka42: u'i
07:11 < Ilmen> So Lojban do not rely on prosody or punctuation marks to show sentences boundaries
07:11 < Ilmen> @ e`ogan
07:11 < Ilmen> *doesn't
07:11 < e`ogan> I think honorifics can be pointed the same way the japanese own pointer words work
07:12 < e`ogan> watashi <--wa
07:12 < e`ogan> Same way
07:14 < e`ogan> I just noticed that I have different voices for every language...
07:15 < e`ogan> And I can't decide if lojban should sound russian, greek or hebrew (all of which seem to match phonetics of lojban the most)
07:16 < e`ogan> **(I don't speak hebrew, but I know how it sounds, because I had a hebrew GF some time ago and even learned a few phrases myself)
07:17 < Ilmen> Well you should listed to some Lojban spoken material first
07:17 < Ilmen> *listen
07:17 < e`ogan> I already did
07:17 < Ilmen> Even if you don't understand a word
07:17 < Ilmen> je'e
07:17 < Ilmen> (okay)
07:17 < e`ogan> Probably 20 videos from youtube
07:17 < e`ogan> Including the lojban songs
07:17 < Ilmen> .i'e
07:18 < Ilmen> There is also that: http://mw.lojban.org/mw/index.php?title=Recordings_of_live_Lojban_discussions
07:18 < e`ogan> They sound as a mix of harsher slavic (greek, russian, belarus) and hebrew pronunciation to me as I have suspected
07:19 < zipcpi> lol Lots of people have noted the slavic similarity
07:19 < zipcpi> Heck it even influenced the fictional country name, "Lojbanistan"
07:19 < e`ogan> The {y} though is a bit wonky and tends to range from o to u in moths of different speakers
07:19 < gleki> i didnt notice because im slavic myself.
07:20 < zipcpi> lol
07:20 < zipcpi> uenai
07:21 < e`ogan> I the russian crash course {y} was suggested to be the russian "bl" sound (which foreigners have hard time figuring out)
07:21 < gleki> it's the first time i see this respelling of it, lol.
07:21 < Ilmen> Is it a [ɨ] sound?
07:21 < gleki> Copy this: ы
07:21 < e`ogan> Which is neither o, nor u
07:21 < zipcpi> Hmm... some people pronounce {y} closer than others
07:22 < zipcpi> I don't know how I sound like speaking Lojban
07:22 < e`ogan> I was lazy, gleki: too much work opening the translit
07:23 < _mukti_> Draft minutes are posted: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/LLG_2014_Annual_Meeting_Minutes
07:23 < gleki> e`ogan: only non stressed ы. but that's fine since {y} in Lojban is nonstressed.
07:23 < e`ogan> My native is russian, but I have heavy influence by Lithuanian and German
07:23 < Ilmen> ы is [ɨ], right?
07:23 < _mukti_> Please let me know if you think I've missed anything important, or incorrectly described anything.
07:23 < Ilmen> @ e`ogan
07:23 < Rodericus> e`ogan: Greek is not Slavic.
07:24 < e`ogan> je'e la .ilmen.
07:24 < Ilmen> {je'e} is "I've received and understood what you said"
07:24 < e`ogan> Rodericus, sure, but it is equally as "harsh" and rhotic as russian
07:25 < Ilmen> {ie} (agreement) would maybe be more suitable there, e`ogan :)
07:25 < e`ogan> Oh, my bad
07:25 < e`ogan> Mixed those up
07:25 < zipcpi> It's OK. Learning how to say "yes" is one of the first hurdles :p
07:25 < e`ogan> I need to do a cheat sheet on those
07:25 < zipcpi> Because "yes" can have several translations depending on situation
07:25 < e`ogan> I know them, but the japanese iie gets in the way
07:26 < e`ogan> Because it is "no"
07:26 < zipcpi> lol
07:26 < e`ogan> Weird I know
07:26 < zipcpi> Yeah I've heard of that
07:26 < Rodericus> e`ogan: Does it to you? To me not at all. MAybe because I speak it.
07:26 < e`ogan> They are literally opposite for a similare phoneme
07:26 < zipcpi> Actually I don't think sajgau is really good for "show"... I think zgagau is better
07:27 < gleki> _mukti_: as for proficiency test in modern condition some e-tests would better suit instead. there are already online learning resources measuring your ability in languages so you wont have to always start your study from level A1
07:27 < zipcpi> sajgau is more like "make you aware of something; alert"
07:27 < gleki> Republication of "What is Lojban?" <-- oh my.
07:28 < zipcpi> la .lojban. *cu* mo? :p
07:28 < gleki> Gleki adocated using a wiki <-- adocated? I never adocated. i even dont know what it is :)
07:28 < zipcpi> advocated
07:28 < zipcpi> Typo
07:28 < ctefaho> edocated
07:28 < e`ogan> That is adorkable
07:28 < gleki> the lojban community <-- I guess  Lojban needs to be capitalized always
07:28 < Ilmen> zipcpi: {gasygau} would be "make somebody perceive", wherease {zgagau} would be {make somebody volitionally observe}
07:29 < zipcpi> Hmm...
07:29 < zipcpi> rafsi: gas
07:29 < mensi> zo ganse se rafsi zo'oi gas
07:29 < zipcpi> OK... this might be difficult
07:29 < zipcpi> It might be better to just make a zi'evla
07:29 < gleki>  non-english-speaking <-- same here
07:29 < zipcpi> Cause trying to force-fit a gau-lujvo might weaken their regularity
07:30 < idafyaid> Hey guys. How can I learn Lojban?
07:31 < _mukti_> You've come to the right place. :)
07:31 < Ilmen> Well, you can by reading Lojban courses, learning vocabulary and asking questions here on IRC @idafyaid
07:31 < gleki> idafyaid: mw.lojban.org/papri/Learning and ask us more questions
07:31 < e`ogan> coi la .idafyaid.
07:31 < durka42> ua
07:32 < zipcpi> How was {arco} used anyway?
07:32 < durka42> no da za'o mumblyzva
07:32 < durka42> en: arco
07:32 < mensi> 17 da se tolcri: jarco, fagytabno, banpulusu, cidni, cipra, fa'irgau, ja'orca'o, je'urja'o, jvinu, lanli, mipri, simlu,
07:32 < mensi> tabno, ticyja'o, tigni, vidnyja'o, zgana
07:32 < zipcpi> Not defined
07:32 < zipcpi> It was a variant of {jarco} that some people used, or so I was told
07:32 < idafyaid> Are you an US-based community?
07:32 < durka42> ue oisai la jbovlaste cu mrobi'o
07:32 < durka42> idafyaid: very international
07:32 < Ilmen> durka42: I'm on Mumble, but Niftg left some time ago
07:32 < idafyaid> Or are there any Asians and Europeans?
07:32 < zipcpi> je'u doi durka
07:32 < e`ogan> No idafyaid it is international
07:33 < idafyaid> Where are you from?
07:33 < Ilmen> idafyaid: I'm in western Europe
07:33 < idafyaid> Ilmen: Meaning?
07:33 < Ilmen> idafyaid: And there are a few Japanese people out there too
07:33 < Ilmen> idafyaid: France
07:33 < idafyaid> I am from Eastern Europe :P
07:33 < e`ogan> I am russian from Lithuania, living in Germany (multiling)
07:33 < idafyaid> Oh, salut
07:33 < zipcpi> JyVySy spofu ze'a lo cacra be li so'i
07:33 < durka42> Ilmen: xu kibyse'u cenba
07:34 < idafyaid> Any Romanians here?
07:34 < Ilmen> I'm on the Zbaga server, durka42
07:34 < durka42> zipcpi: xu da pu jungau la camgusmis
07:34 < zipcpi> ti'e la gleki cu go'i
07:34 < durka42> Ilmen: ua .i mi pu pilno la jinme
07:34 < e`ogan> I think not
07:34 < idafyaid> I am Romanian :P
07:34 < Ilmen> la jinme di'a .akti xu doi la .durka42s
07:34 < gleki> la'a la camgusmis ca sipna
07:35 < Ilmen> durka42: zbaga.ax.lt:64738
07:35 < durka42> Ilmen: curmi lo nu mi jorne
07:35 < e`ogan> fi'i
07:35 < Ilmen> je'e
07:35 < e`ogan> Welcome idafyaid
07:35 < idafyaid> hey
07:35 < e`ogan> The actual language learning is outsourced to #ckule
07:36 < Ilmen> idafyaid: Unfortunately I haven't seen any Romanian-speaking Lojbanist for a while. But I think there used to be at least one
07:36 < e`ogan> To not spam this chat
07:36 < idafyaid> Oh, I see
07:36 < durka42> questions are fine in both channels
07:36 < durka42> Ilmen: self-signed certificate?
07:37 < Ilmen> There is also #jbosnu for Lojban-only chat
07:37 < e`ogan> But you are free to ask about lojban in here too, sure
07:37  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa durka42 fa
07:37 < e`ogan> It's just will be answered very shortly
07:37 < Ilmen> durka42: I don't know; It's Cirko's server
07:37 < e`ogan> In #ckule you will have it layed out for you in far more details, bit by bit
07:38 < e`ogan> And before that I'd suggest a crash-course lojban course reading/watching
07:38 < e`ogan> It helps a lot
07:39 < idafyaid> e`ogan: I really like Russian girls lol Met some in Germany
07:39 < zipcpi> durka42: I'm getting JVS withdrawals uinai
07:39 < durka42> probably a good thing
07:40 < zipcpi> lol
07:40 < zipcpi> Surprisingly I have no new cmavo to add yet :p
07:41 < zipcpi> 1 brivla, and some intended edits
07:42 < zipcpi> {sreji'i}
07:42 < durka42> xu lo ka sreji'i cu ka jinvi lo jitfa
07:43 < zipcpi> je'u
07:44 < zipcpi> ba'a kosmyka'u fa tu'a lu mi pu sreji'i li'o li'u
07:45 < zipcpi> "I thought that...", where there is strong implication that "but I was wrong"
07:45 < _mukti_> tanru with abstractors
07:45 < Ilmen> idafyaid: On the Learning resources page Gleki gave you, there are links to the Wave Lessons and The Crash Course
07:45 < idafyaid> I see
07:45 < zipcpi> Meh... if it's gonna be a tanru I expect to use it quite often
07:46 < _mukti_> mi nu penmi do gleki
07:46 < zipcpi> exp: mi nu penmi do gleki
07:46 < mensi> (mi [CU {<nu (¹CU [penmi {do VAU}]¹) KEI> gleki} VAU])
07:47 < zipcpi> ... that's really tough
07:47 < zipcpi> left branching tanru really doesn't help with this parse
07:47 < _mukti_> I was trying to figure out how this would work the other day when I was away from a parser
07:47 < _mukti_> Trying to think of ways to say "nice to meet you
07:48 < zipcpi> mi gleki le nu penmi do
07:48 < _mukti_> And that's the first formulation I came up with (aside from {le} which I don't use)
07:48 < zipcpi> Or just {ui mi penmi do}
07:48 < zipcpi> I use {le} for deixis
07:49 < gleki> yeah, forgetting about {lo} is quite common. this evaporates when one thinks of what is noun and what is verb both in English (or any other SAE language) and Lojban.
07:49 < zipcpi> {le} for me indicates there is contextual information that is specific but unspecified
07:49 < _mukti_> And then I thought, what if I front loaded the "meeting"
07:50 < zipcpi> Certainly {lo} can do that too, but I find the additional marker can be nice sometimes
07:51 < zipcpi> Contextual information that refers to a specific referent
07:52 < _mukti_> I have a problem with the notion of a specific referent, in that it seems to me that it clashes with xorlo's notion of no quantifiers
07:52 < zipcpi> I'm... not sure how xorlo solves that problem, or why {le} would break that
07:52 < _mukti_> If we are to say that {le} quantifies, then there's no problem. But I think if we are both to maintain that it does not and then talk about it having a specific referent, we are contradicting ourselves
07:53 < Ilmen> _mukti_: As far as I can tell, it's about fetching the brodas that are relevant to the current situation, maybe something like "lo dei broda"
07:53 < _mukti_> I read "fetching the brodas that are relevant" as a form of subjective quantification
07:54 < gleki> if relevant to the current UD then it's PA broda
07:54 < zipcpi> It has to be unless you want to run to everything you want to talk about and physically touch them and say "the one I'm touching right now"
07:55 < _mukti_> I think it's also worth noting that it's hardly ever desirable to discuss things not relevant to the current situation
07:55 < zipcpi> Erm... how about "Cats have four legs"
07:55 < zipcpi> Or "I like plays" (in general, vs a particular play)
07:56 < _mukti_> "I like plays" can be analyzed in a number of different ways.
07:56 < zipcpi> Or "Which apple do you want?" "Any apple."
07:57 < _mukti_> I think you're on to the extensional vs. intensional debate which I think is what gave rise to xorlo.
07:58 < _mukti_> It was raised in loglan with the example of waiting for a taxi.
07:58 < zipcpi> All xorlo did, as I understood it, was to pack both the non-specific/generalized case and the specific case into {lo}
07:58 < _mukti_> With the old gadri, there was no economic way to say what we usually mean by "I am waiting for a taxi"
07:58 < durka42> {tu'a} solves a lot of it
07:58 < _mukti_> You would say: "There is at least one taxi such that I am waiting for it.
07:59 < durka42> mi denpa tu'a pa taksi => mi denpa lo nu pa da poi taksi zo'u da tolcanci
08:00 < _mukti_> durka42: Yes, you could definitely say it, but the argument which seems to have prevailed is that usage didn't want to explicitly abstract intensional objects.
08:00 < _mukti_> That argument drove Nick Nicholas crazy.
08:00 < durka42> heh
08:01 < _mukti_> And some months back, Oz revived and expanded Nick's arguments
08:01 < zipcpi> And xorlo-{lo} is all well and good; I still use it the most. Context is usually pretty powerful. But sometimes it's nice to have a concise way of distinguishing the generalized case from the specific case
08:02 < zipcpi> The other piece of the puzzle that we haven't brought up, is {lo'e}
08:02 < zipcpi> It is like the opposite of {le} in many ways
08:03 < _mukti_> I'm not opposed to claiming {le} for the usage that you and cadgu'a have proposed, but if we do so, I do think it is necessary to explicitly address quantification.
08:03 < _mukti_> Which is to say {le} would no longer belong to the "no implicit quantifiers" club.
08:03 < zipcpi> Oh so you know about it... ok
08:04 < _mukti_> But hey, I'm just talking out of my hat. I'm not a member of BPFK. :)
08:04 < _mukti_> Or BPSK, for that matter. ;)
08:04 < zipcpi> But why must it be so? Just treat the inner/outer quantifiers like you would with {lo}; since {lo} is supposed to be able to talk about both specific things and non-specific things
08:04 < zipcpi> BSFK actually :p
08:04 < durka42> and the greatest part about the BPFK, Milo kept saying, was that everyone had a share
08:06 < zipcpi> Why must {le} have a special quantification system just because it split-off the specific-referent-use of {lo}? I'm not quite seeing the argument
08:06 < _mukti_> If le has enumerated referents, it has quantification, no?
08:06 < zipcpi> But {lo} also *can* have enumerated referents?
08:07 < zipcpi> Help me out here... is {ro lo re prenu} = {ro da poi me lo re prenu}?
08:07 < _mukti_> {lo} elides the notion of quantification if no outer quantifier is provided, so yes, it can. But it sounds like the {le} you propose is always implicitly quanitifed.
08:08 < zipcpi> I don't see how
08:08 < durka42> zipcpi: that expansion is right
08:08 < zipcpi> All le is meant to be is "Hey there is something I actually want to talk about, not speaking in the general case"
08:09 < zipcpi> I don't see why it *has* to treat quantifiers differently
08:09 < zipcpi> {lo} still means what it always meant post-xorlo
08:09 < _mukti_> Well, perhaps I misunderstand the proposal. But if I don't, I understand it as asserting that a speaker uses {le brode} to reference specific entities that they have in mind.
08:09 < durka42> mukti's argument (as I understand it) is that if it's in your mind, there must be a referent, so you can't say there's no quantifier
08:10 < zipcpi> And I think that doesn't make much sense, because with xorlo you also use {lo} that way
08:10 < _mukti_> Yes, I'm saying that there is a subjective, referential quantifier implied.
08:10 < _mukti_> With xorlo you can use {lo} that way, because quantification is elided -- it is neither affirmed nor denied.
08:11 < _mukti_> Subjective quantifiers are cool.
08:12 < _mukti_> I can see a use for an explicit "the ones I'm thinking about" PA.
08:12 < _mukti_> And it could be used in a formal definition of the proposed {le} as the implicit outer quantifier.
08:12 < zipcpi> Hmm... how about {xe'enai}?
08:13 < _mukti_> en: xe'e
08:13 < mensi> xe'e = [UI3b] discursive: any/non-specific - specific |>>> (pa xe'e prenu) = "any one person / one non-specific person",
08:13 < mensi> (pa xe'enai prenu) = "one specific person". See itca, steci, su'anai |>>> spheniscine
08:13 < zipcpi> pa xe'enai
08:13 < durka42> but inventing a word with the wished-for definition doesn't answer the philosophical question or whether it makes sense or not
08:13 < durka42> s/or whether/of whether
08:13 < phenny> durka42 meant to say: but inventing a word with the wished-for definition doesn't answer the philosophical question of whether it makes sense or not
08:14 < zipcpi> Maybe... just helping him out with his talking about a PA
08:14 < durka42> oh sorry I didn't read all of the backscroll
08:14 < _mukti_> So, I'm not familiar with {xe'e}... and the whole specific/general question gets us into bergu quickly
08:14 < zipcpi> lol
08:14 < _mukti_> So sticking to quantification
08:15 < _mukti_> If {du'e} makes sense, I think the notion of having a quantifier which represents the attention of the speaker makes sense
08:16 < zipcpi> I'm not sure it is a "number" though, not even in the sense that {du'e} is
08:16 < _mukti_> Well, let's pursue the idea that it is not a number.
08:16 < _mukti_> Can you have non-enumerated referents?
08:17 < _mukti_> Can you say "I like cats", but neither have as your object the intensional notion of cat, nor an enumerable quantity of cats?
08:17 < _mukti_> Is there some third way that I'm neglecting?
08:17 < zipcpi> All I'm proposing is that {le broda} = {xo'e lo xo'e broda poi itca jepoi mi aidji lo ka casnu ke'a}
08:18 < zipcpi> For "I like cats", it's {mi nelci lo'e mlatu}
08:18 < durka42> that sounds like the intensional notion of catitude
08:19 < _mukti_> Have you read the discussions about {lo'e cinfo cu xabju lo friko} ?
08:19 < zipcpi> As far as I understand it {lo'e} is already used that way; but not everyone is aware of it
08:19 < zipcpi> "Lions (speaking generally) live in Africa"
08:19 < zipcpi> I don't see why not
08:19 < zipcpi> Good enough for a children's textbook
08:20 < _mukti_> And that formulation has satisfied some, but others reject the idea of having to operate through a platonic device like {lo'e cinfo}.
08:21 < zipcpi> Well... I think that's kinda too bad. I'm not sure what the status is on how "generalizations" work in FOPL, but we need them
08:21  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa durka42 fa
08:22 < _mukti_> Aside from the intensional/extensional debate, rejection of singularizing devices seems to have been another motivator in the adoption of xorlo.
08:22 < zipcpi> My current solution is to generate a virtual entity that represents the object of generalization
08:22 < _mukti_> {lo'e} is analagous to the mass and set constructors in its function as a singularizer
08:23 < zipcpi> So {lo'e mlatu cu se tuple vo da} would assign four legs (which happen to be virtual), to the generalized virtual entity
08:24 < _mukti_> Yes, I would understand that sentence as describing some kind of prototype
08:25 < durka42> er
08:25 < durka42> that sentence doesn't work unless {lo'e} has scope
08:26 < _mukti_> zipcpi: Have you read Oz's essays?
08:26 < _mukti_> http://blog.nomei.la
08:26 < zipcpi> durka: Maybe it does. "one" virtualized entity?
08:27 < zipcpi> I dunno. What happens if you replace {lo'e} with {lo}?
08:28 < _mukti_> {lo'e ... } : There are four things such that they are legs of the prototypical cat.
08:29 < zipcpi> I just don't quite understand the logic of it... {lo} is "magic"; it can refer to both specific and non-specific, and also "magically" elides scope
08:29 < zipcpi> So why does semantically separating the specific sense from the non-specific sense, suddenly break the magic?
08:30 < durka42> {lo} doesn't magically elide scope
08:30 < durka42> it doesn't have scope
08:30 < zipcpi> Fine
08:31 < zipcpi> What I said still applies; why does separating the two senses in a way that's convenient, suddenly break the spell?
08:33 < _mukti_> It looks like there's no way to steer clear of the specific/non-specific debate now.
08:33 < _mukti_> So what do we mean by specific?
08:34 < zipcpi> The brodas that I wish to talk about now, and no other brodas.
08:34 < _mukti_> How do I refer to the brodas that I don't wish to talk about now?
08:35 < zipcpi> There are basically three cases, as far as I can tell
08:36 < zipcpi> Either you have specific referents in mind that you wish to talk about, you are generalizing and making a platitude, or you're just referring to "any two brodas" in the abstract, like "Give me any two apples"
08:36 < zipcpi> Replace two by any PA in the last example
08:37 < zipcpi> "Either you have specific referents in mind that you wish to talk about" - "Did you like the play?" (likely the one you just watched)
08:37 < _mukti_> I can think of another case: You're not generalizing but speaking of definitions.
08:37 < zipcpi> Ah... yes... that's what I assigned to {lo'i} under my system
08:38 < zipcpi> Though that breaks past usage... mostly in examples trying to force themselves to use {lo'i} though T.T
08:39 < _mukti_> So when you say "I like plays", how do either you or the listener know if you are referring to a specific body of plays or not?
08:39 < zipcpi> In English, the naked plural is used as an idiomatic way to refer to "plays in general"
08:40 < _mukti_> Ok, well we happen to be speaking English, which ironically, I'm less interested in discussing. If you say {mi nelci lo ro broda} ...
08:41 < zipcpi> Which is probably incorrect
08:41 < _mukti_> Oh?
08:41 < zipcpi> Because even the greatest fan of plays, probably doesn't like *all* plays
08:41 < _mukti_> Ok, so that's plays. But let's talk about the ever lovable broda.
08:42 < zipcpi> I don't see how substituting {draci} for any other brivla changes that
08:42 < zipcpi> That often times {mi nelci lo ro broda}, asserts way too much
08:43 < _mukti_> So if you or I say {mi nelci lo ro broda}, do either of us know whether you mean that you love each and every broda, or if it is broda-ness that you love?
08:43 < zipcpi> I think it's the former
08:44 < _mukti_> And you're entitled to that opinion. But I have my doubts you really know what you mean. :)
08:44 < durka42> I also think it's the former
08:45 < _mukti_> Well, it's clear if you use an outer quantifier.
08:46 < _mukti_> But with the inner quantifier, you're not making any commitment to "specific" referents.
08:47 < _mukti_> You're committing to the notion that your referent(s) zilkancu li ro
08:47 < zipcpi> Right I kinda starting to see... {lo ro broda} -> {xo'e lo ro broda}?
08:47 < zipcpi> That's... rather semantically shaky though
08:48 < _mukti_> I'm not familiar enough with {xo'e} to venture whether it's equivalent to no quantifier
08:49 < durka42> {lo si'o broda} doesn't appear anywhere though
08:49 < _mukti_> durka: Say more?
08:49 < durka42> you said {lo ro broda} means broda-ness
08:50 < gleki> Lions live in Africa = ta'e ku lo cinfo cu xabju la afrik
08:50 < _mukti_> No, I didn't mean to imply that.
08:50 < durka42> but even if there is some implicit outer quantifier, then you get some number out of all the brodas
08:50 < durka42> but I don't see where broda-ness could come from
08:50 < durka42> you were saying {mi nelci lo ro broda} might mean that I like broda-ness
08:51 < _mukti_> What I mean is that in {mi nelci lo ro broda}, {lo ro broda} could be an expression of something besides an enumerable quantity of "specific" brodas
08:53  * nuzba @uitki: LLG Meetings - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/LLG_Meetings by Mukti - /* Minutes */ [http://bit.ly/1GcsXvj]
08:53  * nuzba @uitki: new-fi'o - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o by Ctefaho [http://bit.ly/1K2OD1G]
08:53 < _mukti_> One of the reasons that is so is that there is no requirement for the referents of {lo ro broda} to satisfy {broda} distributively
08:53 < durka42> it might be a mass of brodas, yeah
08:54 < zipcpi> gleki: The sumtcita is great, but doesn't solve the problem of what {lo cinfo} refers to
08:56 < gleki> lo cinfo refers to lions
08:57 < zipcpi> Lions in particular, or in general?
08:58 < gleki> just lions, any number
08:59 < zipcpi> If all lions died, can we still generalize about them?
08:59 < gleki> similarly, {ta'e ku la gleki arxokuna cu xabju la rusko gugde} although there is only one Gleki Arxokuna in the universe.
08:59 < zipcpi> Must we always talk about some particular number of lions?
08:59 < gleki> no, the number of lions may change due to births and deaths.
09:00 < zipcpi> Exactly... {lo} is ambiguous that way. Which isn't necessarily bad; sometimes we don't want to think too hard about whether to use {le}, {lo'e}, or whatever else
09:00 < zipcpi> Erm, no... I meant what if lions don't exist at all; can't one still generalize about them?
09:01 < zipcpi> Can I say "I like unicorns"?
09:01 < gleki> everything exists, even unicorns whether or not in your mind.
09:01 < durka42> if you say that, unicorns exist in the universe of discourse, it's a non-problem
09:03 < gleki> li'a
09:03 < gleki> i li'a
09:04 < zipcpi> My point is it's an ambiguity that is often acceptable but sometimes needs to be disambiguated; and gadri is probably the most handy way we have of doing that
09:05 < gleki> why {i ta'eku} doesnt solve that?
09:05 < zipcpi> Because all it does is add the sense "Habitually" to the sentence
09:07 < zipcpi> It still doesn't say whether you are referring to some specific lions, or lions in general. It's probably fine for the children's textbook example, but must we find the right sumtcita or poi-abstractors everytime we want to separate these two senses?
09:15 < zipcpi> ta'o doi gleki What, if anything, have you done regarding my detri-system vs xornunsep in your study materials?
09:17 < zipcpi> Hm apparently nothing yet
09:17 < zipcpi> I have no suggestions; just curious.
09:18 < rlpowell> jbovlaste fixed.
09:18 < durka42> ua
09:19 < Ilmen> As far as I can tell, the "specific" meaning wanted by the users of {le broda} implies they want a subset of {lo broda}, so it would be expended as {lo broda poi....} followed by something appropriate
09:19 < Ilmen> I don't really see why outer quantification would be involved
09:19 < zipcpi> I mean if I were you I would just go in and replace all the {li}s with {li'ei}s, but relying on an experimental selma'o in a study material introduces its own problems
09:20 < Ilmen> be it {lo broda pe dei}, {lo broda poi .itca...}, {lo broda poi me'oi salient...} or whatever is appropriate
09:22 < gleki> {ta'eku lo cinfo cu xabju abu} says that in "most" situations lions live in Africa
09:22 < Ilmen> A demonstrative is deictic, so I guess something like nau or dei must be part of the expansion
09:22 < gleki> zipcpi: as for detri system i only added {xi} in CC
09:22 < Ilmen> ru'a ru'e
09:23 < Ilmen> mu'o
09:24 < zipcpi> Ah I see it
09:24 < gleki> zipcpi: should i use PAbu instead?
09:24 < zipcpi> No definitely not
09:25 < zipcpi> That would make de'i li ny rebu nobu pabu mubu
09:25 < zipcpi> Which is.... yuck
09:25 < gleki> why, only one bu is needed
09:25 < zipcpi> de'i li ny xi renopamu ly xi ze
09:26 < zipcpi> Er, oops
09:26 < zipcpi> exp: de'i li ny xi renopamu ly xi ze
09:26 < mensi> ([{de'i <li (¹ny BOI [xi {re <no pa mu>} BOI]¹) LOhO>} {ly BOI <xi (¹ze BOI¹)>}] VAU)
09:26 < zipcpi> ... fail
09:27 < gleki> exp: li ny pa recibu
09:27 < mensi> ([{li <ny BOI> LOhO} {<pa re> BOI} {ci bu} BOI] VAU)
09:27 < zipcpi> Also fail
09:27 < gleki> indeed
09:28 < gleki> how is it supposed to work then?
09:28  * durka42 wonders what this new-zi'e is that ctefaho mentions
09:29 < zipcpi> I don't know. The only two solutions apparent to me are:
09:29 < zipcpi> 1. Implement Guskant's variant, with her auto-pe'o system
09:29 < zipcpi> Or 2. Use {li'ei}
09:29 < gleki> exp: li ny py
09:29 < mensi> ([li {<ny py> BOI} LOhO] VAU)
09:30 < gleki> exp: li ny xi re py
09:30 < mensi> ([{li <ny BOI (¹xi [re BOI]¹)> LOhO} {py BOI}] VAU)
09:30 < gleki> this makes no sense
09:30 < ctefaho> durka42: not my idea, Ilmen's idea and la cliva's implementation
09:30 < zipcpi> There is joi'i but do we want to put that between every operator?
09:30 < durka42> ctefaho: but what is it? :)
09:30 < ctefaho> (it relies on the new connective system for a free zi'e)
09:30 < ctefaho> well it gives "soi" semantics
09:30 < ctefaho> instead of xoi
09:31 < ctefaho> Top scope vs... xoi scope?
09:31 < durka42> so it prefixes to a sumtcita to make it a scope-escaper?
09:31 < gleki> exp: li ny xi re ce ny xi re
09:31 < mensi> ([li {<ny BOI (¹xi [re BOI]¹)> <ce (¹ny BOI [xi {re BOI}]¹)>} LOhO] VAU)
09:31 < gleki> wth
09:31 < zipcpi> off: li ny xi re ce ny xi re
09:31 < mensi> ([li {<ny BOI (¹xi re BOI¹)> <ce (¹ny BOI [xi re BOI]¹)>} LOhO] VAU)
09:31 < ctefaho> yeah, and other things
09:32 < ctefaho> I am not 100% sure how it works, am thinking of writing a new-zi'e page too unless Ilmen or cliva gets to it
09:32 < durka42> a "scope leaper" as selpa'i calls it http://selpahi.weebly.com/archive-pre-2014/recycling-some-coi-cmavo-not-coi-or-coi
09:32 < durka42> la cliva cu du ma
09:32 < durka42> xu du la cirko
09:32 < Ilmen> la'a go'i
09:32 < durka42> si'au ro da poi na du la selpa'i cu du la cirko
09:33 < Ilmen> .u'e xu mi du la cirko zo'o
09:33 < ctefaho> Ilmen, can you explain to durka42 how new-zi´e works exactly?
09:33 < zipcpi> I'd much rather like to have a UI that expresses non-veridicality (a discursive "I describe") [lol and I just invented {ju'acu'i}]
09:33 < ctefaho> with cliva's new use of zi'e
09:33 < ctefaho> gtg, brb
09:33  * ctefaho co'o
09:34 < zipcpi> Oh just now Robin saying that JVS actually got into my head lol
09:34 < Ilmen> Basically the idea was to have a flag for saying "this adverbial/quantifier has topmost scope", as if it were declared before all the other ones in the same bridi
09:34 < zipcpi> Now to continue the nu bauspo :p
09:34 < Ilmen> but that's just an idea
09:34 < durka42> Ilmen: makes sense to me
09:34 < durka42> Ilmen: mi na klama lo banka zi'e ki'u lo nu carvi ?
09:35 < gleki> which parser supports auto-pe'o? zantufa? which version of it?
09:35 < Ilmen> Ni idea whether BAhE or UI makes most sense
09:35 < Ilmen> *No
09:35 < gleki> zo banxe
09:35 < durka42> banxa
09:36  * durka42 revokes zipcpi's JVS privileges
09:36 < zipcpi> lol nooooooo
09:40 < zipcpi> Gleki: http://guskant.github.io/gerna_cipra/zantufa-0.1.html
09:41 < gleki> zipcpi: how it can help detri system?
09:41 < zipcpi> cu'u la .guskant. te'i li pi'e 2015_ny 06_ly 10_dy 09_cy 56_my
09:41 < zipcpi> _ = xi I suppose
09:42 < zipcpi> She also moved pi'e to VUhU
09:42 < gleki> somewhat worse
09:43 < zipcpi> Mayhaps so
09:43 < zipcpi> Not very economic with the syllables
09:43 < durka42> you don't even need the {xi}s, do you
09:44 < zipcpi> Hmm... I suppose technically not. Oh yeah I remember now
09:44 < durka42> cu'u la .guskant. te'i li pi'e 2015 ny 06 ly 10 dy 09 cy 56 my
09:44 < zipcpi> With auto-pe'o {li'ei} ~= {li joi'i}
09:44 < durka42> or even cu'u la .guskant. te'i li pi'e ny 2015 ly 06 dy 10 cy 09 my 56
09:44 < durka42> the way your proposal originally was, just with an extra {pi'e}
09:45 < zipcpi> exp: de'i li pe'o joi'i ny renopamu ly xa dy pano
09:45 < mensi> ([de'i {li <pe'o joi'i (¹[ny BOI] [{re <no pa mu>} BOI] [ly BOI] [xa BOI] [dy BOI] [pa no] BOI¹) KUhE> LOhO}] VAU)
09:45 < zipcpi> {li'ei} ~= {li pe'o joi'i}
09:46 < zipcpi> Not an exact replacement though; VUhU in particular would make it act in strange ways
09:46 < durka42> right
09:47 < zipcpi> We could just say that all VUhU should have {bu} though in "arbitrary character strings"
09:48 < zipcpi> Probably won't be quite as disruptive as putting {bu} after every PA
09:53 < durka42> hmm does {pe'o} affect {bi'o}?
09:53 < durka42> if you're expressing a date range
09:53 < zipcpi> I don't even know T.T
09:53 < durka42> exp: de'i li pe'o joi'i ny renopamu ly pa bi'o ci
09:53 < mensi> ([de'i {li <pe'o joi'i (¹[ny BOI] [{re <no pa mu>} BOI] [ly BOI] [pa BOI] [bi'o {ci BOI}]¹) KUhE> LOhO}] VAU)
09:53 < zipcpi> {bi'o} already works funny
09:53 < zipcpi> Even before xornunsep
09:54 < durka42> seems okay there...
09:54 < durka42> exp: de'i li ny renopamu ly pa bi'o ci
09:54 < zipcpi> huh
09:54 < durka42> whoops I spoffed everything
09:54 < zipcpi> lol
09:55 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [uU] or [yY] but "i" found.
09:56 < zipcpi> off: de'i li ny renopamu ly pa bi'o ci
09:56 < mensi> ([de'i {li <(¹[ny {re no pa mu ly pa}] BOI¹) (¹bi'o [ci BOI]¹)> LOhO}] VAU)
09:56 < zipcpi> It... parses but doesn't quite break correctly?
09:57 < zipcpi> Incidentally what is the convention for inclusive vs exclusive
09:57 < zipcpi> pe'i inclusive should be the default
09:57 < zipcpi> CLL says there is no default but I think that's mabla
09:58 < durka42> oh yeah there's gotta be a default
10:01 < durka42> zipcpi: see the BPFK's discussion of {ga'o} and {ke'i}
10:01 < durka42> still doesn't say what the default is, but the examples imply inclusive
10:01 < zipcpi> Ah
10:02 < zipcpi> Anyway the {bi'o} thing
10:02 < zipcpi> THat means the way I defined {li'ei} is inadequate
10:02 < zipcpi> I think the best solution right now is to say {li'ei} is just shorthand for {me'o pe'o joi'i}
10:02 < zipcpi> And worry about the weird VUhU interactions later
10:03 < durka42> not sure I understand
10:03 < durka42> that's the way {bi'o} always parsed
10:03 < durka42> camxes: li pa bi'o re
10:03 < camxes> ([li {<pa BOI> <bi'o (¹re BOI¹)>} LOhO] VAU)
10:03 < zipcpi> No bi'o is fine; I'm talking about {li'ei}
10:03 < zipcpi> Oh... well.
10:03 < zipcpi> That.
10:03 < durka42> what breaks li'ei
10:04 < zipcpi> exp: li pe'o joi'i pa vu'u pa
10:04 < mensi> ([li {pe'o joi'i <(¹pa BOI¹) (¹vu'u [pa BOI]¹)> KUhE} LOhO] VAU)
10:04 < zipcpi> exp: li pe'o joi'i pa vu'u pa by
10:04 < mensi> ([li {pe'o joi'i <(¹[pa BOI] [vu'u {pa BOI}]¹) (¹by BOI¹)> KUhE} LOhO] VAU)
10:04 < zipcpi> exp: li pe'o joi'i pa by vu'u pa
10:04 < mensi> ([li {pe'o joi'i <(¹pa BOI¹) (¹by BOI¹) (¹vu'u [pa BOI]¹)> KUhE} LOhO] VAU)
10:04 < zipcpi> Ah
10:05 < zipcpi> exp: li pe'o joi'i pa by vu'u
10:05 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "u" found.
10:05 < zipcpi> Which means {li'ei} will still follow some of the mekso grammar
10:05 < zipcpi> But I guess we can live with that for back compatibility with {bi'o}
10:07 < zipcpi> I'll just add [Tentative proposal: {li'ei} = {me'o pe'o joi'i}] to my li'ei and li'ai
10:07 < durka42> well
10:08 < durka42> not that I understand mekso grammar at all
10:08 < durka42> but the parser probably doesn't really check for {pe'o}
10:08 < zipcpi> Me neither
10:08 < durka42> the parse may be a lie, is what I'm saying
10:08 < durka42> you're changing {li pe'o joi'i} to {me'o pe'o joi'i}?
10:08 < zipcpi> Same selma'o
10:09 < durka42> 'cause that's not any grammatical difference
10:09 < zipcpi> Technically me'o is for character strings
10:09 < zipcpi> Or was
10:09 < durka42> me'o is for unevaluated me
10:09 < durka42> me'o is for unevaluated mex
10:09 < gleki> in toaq dzu there are no such problems ti'esai
10:09 < gleki> i mean with detri
10:09  * durka42 hands gleki the irrelevant crown for today
10:10 < zipcpi> lol
10:10 < durka42> zipcpi: but if you're talking about a date it's probably not just a string of digits
10:10 < durka42> so {li} seems more appropriate
10:10 < durka42> but idk
10:10 < durka42> I don't even support the proposal that makes {li'ei} necessary so I'll bow out of this :)
10:10 < zipcpi> True... but I'm not sure I want both a {li} and {me'o} version of {li'ei}
10:11 < gleki> there are still many problems e.g. {lo se masti} sould return a number but then how to inject it into li-clause?
10:11 < zipcpi> I did argue that yes, dates are "numbers", so {li} was semantically appropriate
10:11 < zipcpi> na'u?
10:12 < zipcpi> No wait that's to turn into VUhU
10:12 < gleki> exp: i re su'i mo'e lo se masti
10:12 < zipcpi> {mo'e}
10:12 < zipcpi> Y.eah
10:12 < mensi> (i [re BOI] [su'i {mo'e <lo (¹se masti¹) KU> TEhU} BOI])
10:12 < gleki> exp: li re su'i mo'e lo se masti
10:12 < mensi> ([li {<re BOI> <su'i (¹mo'e [lo {se masti} KU] TEhU¹) BOI>} LOhO] VAU)
10:14 < zipcpi> Fine then I'll define {li'ei} as "irregular number or arbitrary character string"
10:14 < zipcpi> Essentially ramming the {li} and {me'o} senses together
10:16 < durka42> that's... horrible :)
10:16 < zipcpi> zbusufukai xu
10:17 < zipcpi> Well then... if you can convince them to stop spoffing LI/LOhO, then this won't be necessary :p
10:17 < durka42> I don't actually see why the me'o version is ever necessary
10:17 < durka42> I tried and failed :(
10:18 < zipcpi> You think {li'ei} can always mean a number?
10:18 < durka42> sure why not?
10:19 < zipcpi> What do we use for spelling an arbitrary string of characters then, like a password?
10:20 < durka42> hmm good point
10:20 < durka42> I was only thinking about dates
10:21 < zipcpi> So... either we ram the senses together, or the BSFK claims another cmavo
10:21 < durka42> I guess the question is whether you can always tell the senses apart by the context
10:22 < zipcpi> That's a good point...
10:22 < durka42> obviously (?), lo detri is a number while lo lerpoijaspu is a character string
10:23 < zipcpi> Yes...
10:23 < durka42> so maybe it's fine
10:28 < zipcpi> Yeah maybe... the distinction between an "irregular number" and "arbitrary character string" is often hazy anyway... which one would license plates fall into? Or phone-numbers?
10:28 < zipcpi> In programming languages they would all be defined by character strings, then handled by the correct objects
10:29 < zipcpi> Only regular numbers get treated as numbers
10:29 < durka42> probably license plates and phone numbers are strings
10:29 < durka42> you can't add them
10:29 < durka42> and they can have leading zeros which must be preserved
10:29 < durka42> also social security "numbers" and zip codes
10:30 < zipcpi> True...
10:30 < durka42> sometimes phone numbers start with "+" ... oisai
10:30 < durka42> that must be vu'ubu I guess
10:30 < durka42> er, su'ibu
10:31 < zipcpi> What about addresses like {11A}?
10:31 < durka42> same deal
10:31 < durka42> you can't add them
10:32 < zipcpi> But technically it is a {moi}... maybe?
10:32 < zipcpi> Over here "11A" commonly replaces "13"
10:32 < durka42> though in some sense, 11A + 1 is 11B, but that depends on the building layout
10:32 < durka42> eh?
10:32 < durka42> not 12A?
10:32 < zipcpi> Nah, we do even/odd splitting
10:32 < zipcpi> One side of the road gets even numbers, the other side gets odd
10:33 < zipcpi> Applies even if there is only one side of the road; then the other half just doesn't exist
10:35 < zipcpi> I thought you did even/odd splitting in America? But I dunno about the 11A/13 thing
10:36 < durka42> oh, yeah sure
10:37 < durka42> no we just skip floor 13 in old superstitious buildings
10:37 < durka42> 11, 12, 14
10:37 < zipcpi> Right
10:41 < b_jonas> oh! I did ask a related question about this previously. In Pratchett's *Color of Magic*, Rincewind was housed in room number 7A in the university for similar superstitious reasons. I asked what number that room would have if they spoke lojban there. I wondered between {li 7 .a bu} or {li 7 by.} or {li 7 xi .a bu boi} or {li 7 xi by. boi}
10:43 < ctefaho> coiru'e
10:43 < ctefaho> si
10:45 < zipcpi> b_jonas: Yes, and now xornunsep is going to make that even more complicated :p
10:46 < zipcpi> But yeah I know how you feel about grammar changes so I don't think there is much need to go into that
10:46 < zipcpi> I myself support xornunsep *except* for what it does to arbitrary character strings and irregular numbers
10:48 < b_jonas> so what do you think the room number would be?
10:48 < zipcpi> ... well I'd prefer the xi-less version. But I'm speaking from the viewpoint of a world that isn't completely Lojbanized, and there are irregular-number systems everywhere that would be difficult to xi-ize in any algorithmic manner
10:49 < durka42> {li 7 bu .abu} is another option
10:49 < durka42> it's what xorxes would suggest
10:49 < durka42> but it's kinda gross
10:49 < zipcpi> But it's ugly; because it breaks symmetry with the numbers that do *not* have a letter
10:49 < zipcpi> Well technically {li'ei} does that...
10:50 < zipcpi> But it's less bad than adding bu after every nacle'u especially in a longer string
10:50 < b_jonas> zipcpi: I don't really like {xi} for this either these days, though I don't claim it's completely wrong. let me tell why.
10:50 < zipcpi> Oh semantically I think either is fine
10:50 < zipcpi> I just prefer xi-less because I'm lazy
10:50 < ctefaho> Ilmen: so not yet really decided about UI-form or BAhE form? About new-zi'e
10:51 < zipcpi> And also because like I said, xi-iziation doesn't extend to all irregular-number-systems
10:51 < Ilmen> I'm not pondering about it, but feel free to do so
10:52 < Ilmen> @ ctefaho
10:52 < durka42> or a new selma'o that only attaches to sumtcita
10:52 < ctefaho> doi Ilmen, ah, well, I hadn't seen it considered to be in BAhE form before
10:52 < b_jonas> This opinion of mine specifically contradicts CLL, but I think {xi} should not be used to make mathematical indices in formulas. It should be used only to qualify cmavo (or similar) to build new cmavo (with the same grammar as what it qualifies), for purposes like qualifying what of multiple possible referents it refers to, or to make up new grammatical particles when there aren't enough single-word ones.
10:53 < ctefaho> durka42: yeah that would probably make more sense than a pure UI
10:53 < durka42> what do you use for mathematical indices then?
10:53 < ctefaho> (unless it was to be for non-sumtcita too but I don't think so, doi Ilmen?)
10:53 < durka42> well
10:53 < durka42> at least we should come up with a list of things it can modify!
10:53 < b_jonas> For making an index in formulas, a mekso operator should be used, one that probably deserves a new cmavo for brecity, or sometimes plain concatenation when that is clear enough and the index is simple.
10:54 < Ilmen> ctefaho: It could be used with quantifiers too (PA broda, PA da...)
10:54 < b_jonas> I mean that should be used, I'm not using anything yet because I haven't tried to say such things.
10:54 < durka42> it sounds like... a sumtcita
10:54 < ctefaho> durka42: yeah:d
10:54 < b_jonas> However, I have other strange ideas about mekso that I haven't explained to anyone yet but should eventually try to explain.
10:54 < durka42> or a LAhE!
10:54 < durka42> camxes: +exp la'e ca da la'e pa broda
10:54 < camxes> ([{la'e <ca da> LUhU} {la'e <(¹pa BOI¹) broda KU> LUhU}] VAU)
10:54 < b_jonas> This is only a part, and probably not the strangest one.
10:56 < ctefaho> Well I can probably put together some new-zi'e page later, just wanted to know what to say in new-fi'o
10:56 < b_jonas> durka42: no, the whole point is that there's no _complete_ list of cmavo that {xi} can modify or how it can modify them. we can have a list of common ones (in a dictionary), but people can make up new ones as needed, just like how they can build new predicate words with {zei}.
10:56 < b_jonas> sure, we should list some useful ones, and in fact CLL also lists some, and there are others.
10:57 < durka42> yes
10:57 < b_jonas> but it's not a list closed in the grammar. that's why {xi} is a free modifier, it can attach to almost everything, thus it's ideal for making up new semantics without modifying the _syntax_ of the grammar.
10:58 < b_jonas> of course, I'm not saying that that's completely analogous to lujvo-making, and I certainly wouldn't want to encourage overusing either indexed particles or lujvo,
10:58 < b_jonas> but it's there for when I need it.
10:58  * durka42 doesn't see how that precludes its use in math
10:59 < b_jonas> I say when I need it, because my primary goal is to figure out how I should use lojban, and convincing others to use them in a similar way is a secondary goal.
11:00 < b_jonas> durka42: yes, I didn't tell why I don't want to use it in math. it's partly because I think the semantics isn't approperiate, and I think Iverson was eventually _right_ when he finally figured out that indexing arrays should be an ordinary operator rather than special bracket syntax;
11:01 < zipcpi> Does {sene'i} mean "contains"?
11:01 < b_jonas> and partly because the grammar of {xi} is a bit ugly which makes it inconvenient to use. the ugliness is required to make it both able to attach to almost any particle yet make it brief, but it's not needed for indexing mathematical variables, which can be much more common in some mathematical contexts.
11:01 < b_jonas> (or physics context)
11:02 < durka42> jbo:ne'i
11:02 < mensi> ne'i = [FAhA3] fi'o se nenri
11:02 < zipcpi> You know maybe la samyuan should define xo'iTAG "brivla" for all non-BAI sumtcita. Link them to real-brivla synonyms if applicable
11:02 < b_jonas> I could also say that {xi} clearly doesn't make it easy to distinguish between subscript and superscript indexing, and iirc it's easier to do that with operators.
11:02 < durka42> zipcpi: yeah I guess so
11:03 < durka42> vlaste: superscript
11:03 < vlaste> ga'u'au = mekso n-ary operator: append contravariant (upper) indices to tensor
11:03 < durka42> oi kurtyvla
11:03 < b_jonas> good, at least he invented _useful_ cmavo too
11:03 < b_jonas> is there one for subscript? that'd be even more useful
11:03 < zipcpi> lol
11:03 < b_jonas> and for parenthisized superscript
11:03 < durka42> ni'a'au apparently
11:04 < durka42> but for tensors, which seems like an extremely narrow context
11:04 < b_jonas> mind you, I'm not sure all three of this needs a new cmavo, parenthisized subscript could be composed
11:04 < durka42> I wonder what lojbab would say about subscripts and superscripts
11:04 < durka42> since he did say mekso was designed to be able to transcribe any expression :p
11:04 < b_jonas> durka42: nah, I don't use any word in an extremely narrow context. I automatically generalize stuff.
11:05 < b_jonas> durka42: you can _already_ make an operator for subscripts. there are like three cmavo that build new operators.
11:05 < b_jonas> it's just that these are common enough that single-cmavo name may be useful
11:05 < durka42> wait, really?
11:05 < b_jonas> no, probably only two
11:05 < ctefaho> mekso is supposed to be able express *any* math expression?
11:05  * durka42 is not familiar with mekso trivia
11:05 < b_jonas> "like three" was an exaggeration
11:05 < durka42> in theory
11:05 < durka42> what are they?
11:06 < b_jonas> that's not trivia, it's _grammar_. I'd like to understand grammar.
11:06 < b_jonas> dunno, I don't remember the actual names for them
11:06 < b_jonas> let me look it up
11:06 < b_jonas> in fact, you look them up in https://lojban.github.io/cll/18/18/ if you wish
11:06 < durka42> ma'o, I guess
11:06 < b_jonas> no
11:06 < durka42> hmm there is te'a for "raised to the power" which is superscript
11:07 < b_jonas> durka42: yes, exactly
11:07 < durka42> oh for making operators from selbri
11:07 < durka42> yeah
11:07 < b_jonas> which is why I think subscript definitely needs one, I'm not sure about whether superscript does
11:07 < durka42> hmm so what selbri do we use for sub- and superscript
11:08 < b_jonas> I dunno, I don't know lojbanic terminology for maths
11:08 < durka42> klesi?
11:08 < b_jonas> it might not even exist yet
11:08 < durka42> meh, I'll just {xi} :)
11:08 < b_jonas> I don't claim that you can't use {xi}
11:08 < b_jonas> in fact, {xi} isn't really _bad_ for subscripting maths variables
11:08 < ctefaho> Ilmen: the more I think about it the more I think I like a "BAhE"-ish new-zi'e
11:09 < b_jonas> especially when the subscript isn't an evaluated expression, but a "name"
11:09 < Ilmen> je'e la ctefaho
11:09  * durka42 votes for LAhE
11:09 < Ilmen> .i ta'o .ai citka co'o
11:09 < b_jonas> I'm only saying I'd like to avoid that, and that at least sometimes an operator is needed for this
11:09 < _mukti_> How was jbovlaste fixed?
11:10 < ctefaho> co'o la Ilmen
11:10 < ctefaho> si Ilmèn
11:10 < ctefaho> durka42: yeah well something that goes in front of what it modifies
11:10 < durka42> _mukti_: rlpowell declared it to be so
11:10 < ctefaho> it feels cleaner somehow
11:10 < durka42> I assume he restarted la morji :)
11:10 < _mukti_> UA
11:12  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
11:12 < durka42> fa fa fa fa fa
11:12  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
11:13 < zipcpi> Hmm... I'm beginning to think that most (if not all) non-BAI have only two "places" when xo'i-ed
11:13 < zipcpi> i.e. only TAG and seTAG makes sense
11:14 < durka42> if TAG is defined in terms of fi'o
11:14 < durka42> then any SE* you can put on the brivla make sense
11:14 < ctefaho> I think only BAI are defined with fi'o?
11:14 < durka42> (I mean, in theory. using SE* strings with fi'o in speech not recommended)
11:15 < durka42> vlaste: ne'i (selma'o)
11:15 < vlaste> ne'i (class) = FAhA3
11:15 < durka42> jbo: ne'i
11:15 < mensi> ne'i = [FAhA3] fi'o se nenri |>>> nenri |>>> xorxes
11:15 < b_jonas> (even if I'm not on this channel too much nowadays, I haven't forgotten completely about lojban. it's often in my mind. and it's difficult.)
11:15 < zipcpi> I tend to think the fi'o definitons for non-BAI are just placeholders though
11:15 < ctefaho> according to bpfk sections that's a guide and not an actual definition
11:15 < durka42> ...
11:15 < zipcpi> And may not match what the BPFK have defined to be seTAG
11:16 < durka42> if TAG is defined as {fi'o broda} and seTAG is not defined as {fi'o se broda}
11:16 < durka42> that's absolutely horrible
11:16 < ctefaho> in my world fa'a and fi'o farna mean slight different things
11:16 < b_jonas> (I'm probably not the only one.)
11:16 < durka42> I hope there are no such examples
11:16 < durka42> it would be incredibly confusing
11:16 < ctefaho> durka42: Well, BAI tags are defined so
11:16 < durka42> that was the whole point of regularizing the sumtcita system :/
11:16 < ctefaho> but when did you use "sePU" and "seFAhA" lately?
11:17 < durka42> well, never :)
11:17 < zipcpi> I used sene'i
11:17 < durka42> that
11:17 < durka42> and people say {se ca'o} sometimes
11:17 < ctefaho> but you are zipcpi
11:17 < b_jonas> ctefaho: I did use {se pu} (or maybe {se ba}) once
11:17 < zipcpi> lol
11:17 < ctefaho> you are nuts zo'oru'e
11:17 < b_jonas> it might have been a bad idea
11:17 < b_jonas> no wait, I think I used {se bu'u}
11:17 < durka42> ue ru'e
11:17 < ctefaho> well I was going to say sePU and seBAhA are not actually defined
11:17 < zipcpi> Everyone is nuts, if you haven't noticed :p
11:17 < durka42> jbo:bu'u
11:17 < mensi> bu'u = [FAhA3] fi'o se zvati
11:18 < ctefaho> and again that which mensi just spat out is a "guide2
11:18 < b_jonas> hey, it was probably a bad idea for where I used it
11:18 < durka42> I don't see why we have to restrict it to being a guide
11:18 < zipcpi> We're all mad here
11:18 < zipcpi> jbo: co'u
11:18 < mensi> co'u = [ZAhO] fi'o fanmo |>>> fanmo; tolcfa |>>> xorxes
11:18 < ctefaho> because I disagree that fa'a and fi'o farna mean the same
11:18 < zipcpi> ... I don't think {co'u} = {fi'o fanmo} either
11:18 < durka42> how do they differ?
11:19  * durka42 is a reductionist today
11:19 < zipcpi> Does {ti mlatu co'u lo rebla} make sense?
11:19 < ctefaho> "Orientation" vs "Direction"
11:19 < _mukti_> ba'a nai ca lo bavlamdei la'e zo za'o cu gubni
11:20 < durka42> zipcpi: not really but seems like it would if you included that word that makes a time tense into a spatial tense
11:20 < ctefaho> also: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_sumtcita_Formants
11:20 < durka42> what's that word again
11:20 < zipcpi> .y. ta'i ma do vreji da pe lo bavlamdei
11:20 < zipcpi> {fe'e}, durka
11:20 < durka42> yeah that
11:20 < durka42> okay so maybe {co'u} should be {fi'o temci fanmo} but I don't see why it _can't_ be defined in terms of {fi'o}
11:20 < gleki> what i like now is that people put resumes of discussions to the wiki
11:20 < gleki> in previous years it wasnt so
11:21 < zipcpi> Well, one thing; fi'o is kinda weak; it has the same ambiguities that tanru does
11:21 < gleki> if every discussion is shortened into a wiki article it means i can stop reading all the logs
11:21 < _mukti_> cafne fa lo nu mi djuno fi lo balvi
11:21 < zipcpi> Errm... how much of *my* bergu has been canonized? lol
11:22 < zipcpi> Dang it and I swore I'd never be in those
11:23 < ctefaho> actually now I am confused about the PU/FAhA tags again
11:23 < _mukti_> gleki: I get the sense it used to be like that in the early days of the wiki. Glad that's happening again.
11:23 < zipcpi> mi vreji tu'a la'oi tiki noi uitki .i ri mabla
11:23 < zipcpi> .y. vedli
11:23 < ctefaho> (+ZAhO)
11:24  * ctefaho edits new-fi'o again
11:25 < zipcpi> mabla lo ka traji lo ka mabla
11:25 < gleki> the old tiki might be the cause of not adding anything, yes
11:25 < zipcpi> ie
11:26 < _mukti_> Yes, I think it was confusing.
11:26 < zipcpi> ua mi se cfipu tu'a zo vreji jo'u zo vedli
11:28 < durka42> FWIW the new-fi'o page makes sense to me, I think {xoi ... do'e ke'a} is certainly vague enough to cover all usage of BAI
11:28 < zipcpi> Except we can't define do'e as {fi'o co'e} then :p
11:29 < durka42> heh
11:29 < durka42> do'e becomes a primitive I guess
11:29 < zipcpi> efku be fi li ci'i
11:30 < zipcpi> cimny'efku
11:30  * ctefaho done editing and doesn't want to touch that anymore for now
11:31 < ctefaho> I really do wonder if the PU/ZAhO/FAhA tags really do work with xoi-based fi'o, though. And their respective pages don't mention them as actually being defined with fi'o.
11:32  * ctefaho 's brain's abstraction fuel has run out for today though
11:32 < durka42> broda ba ko'a => broda xoi balvi do'e ke'a => broda xoi balvi ke'a => lo nu broda cu balvi ke'a
11:33 < zipcpi> ki'e durkavore do jmina lo jbobau velcki pe zo sreji'i
11:34 < zipcpi> mi tolmo'i tu'a lo nu gasnu
11:34 < durka42> yeah I mean, for defined tags you have to eliminate some of the vagueness
11:34 < durka42> so {do'e} isn't appropriate
11:35 < durka42> now that I think about it I don't think {do'e} is ever appropriate for defining {fi'o}
11:35 < durka42> ke'a always goes in the x1
11:36 < ctefaho> in your ba example where did the ko'a go?
11:37 < durka42> uh whoops
11:37 < durka42> I think my derivation was wrong
11:37 < durka42> let me do it without {do'e}
11:39 < durka42> broda ba ko'a => broda xoi ke'a balvi ko'a => broda .i lo nu broda cu balvi ko'a
11:39 < durka42> is that right
11:40 < ctefaho> uhm ba is se balvi
11:41 < durka42> right that's why ko'a went to balvi2
11:41 < ctefaho> broda xoi ke'a sebalvi ko'a
11:41 < ctefaho> or I am just tired now
11:41  * ctefaho resets mind
11:41 < durka42> I typed it out that way and realized I was wrong :)
11:41 < durka42> reversed PU is annoying, we should be using {bau} or something as the example
11:42 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/cimny'efku
11:43 < ctefaho> broda ba ko'a -> broda xoi ko'a se balvi do'e ke'a -> broda xoi do'e (->fa via glork) ke'a balvi fe ko'a
11:43 < durka42> la zipcpi la lojban lo ka zbusufukai cu cimny'efku
11:43 < zipcpi> u'i
11:43 < ctefaho> broda xoi ke'a balvi ko'a
11:43 < durka42> ctefaho: are there examples of where {do'e} is necessary?
11:43 < durka42> fi'o is always used where ko'a goes to the x1
11:43 < ctefaho> lo zdani fi'o mlatu ta
11:44 < zipcpi> je'u i'a
11:44 < durka42> oh wait, I was misreading
11:44 < ctefaho> durka42: It just allows it to work with everything
11:44 < durka42> do'e ke'a, not do'e ko'a
11:44 < durka42> okay, yes
11:44  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
11:44 < gleki> en: efku
11:44 < mensi> efku = x1 is recursively related to x2 by applying x3 (number) levels-of-recursion of the predicate-relation x4 (ka with
11:44 < mensi> two ce'u) |>>> Shortening of refkusi for more convenience in making V'y-style zi'evla-lujvo. tanru example for common
11:44 < mensi> usage: the day three days from now (tommorow's tommorow's tommorow) -> lo bavlamdei efku be fi li ci . Cf. krefu, rapli,
11:44 < mensi> efku |>>> spheniscine
11:45 < ctefaho> someone should coin a new word for "endless gadri discussions"
11:45 < ctefaho> durka42: ah, then I see what was so strange
11:45 < ctefaho> that would have been one strange definition;o
11:45 < durka42> gadri casnu cimny'efku
11:46 < durka42> it'd be easier to read with full CKTJ :p
11:46 < durka42> but you never go full CKTJ
11:46 < zipcpi> Nah {ze'e} works better; add {sai/cai/ba'e} if you want to emphasize it
11:46 < durka42> ze'e gadri casnu
11:46 < zipcpi> You mean the efku/refkusi definitions?
11:47 < durka42> no I meant the new-fi'o page with ke'a and ko'a which caused me to ki'a
11:47 < zipcpi> Right
11:47 < zipcpi> u'i
11:47 < ctefaho> "with ke'a and ko'a which caused me to ki'a" <--- golden clause of the day
11:49 < zipcpi> Well I've begun using {xo'i} specifically as a {ze'oi} alternative for sumtcita lol
11:49 < durka42> ka'a mi seka'a lo .uitki papri pe lo cnino me zo fi'o mi sreji'i lo nu zo ke'a me zo ko'a .i mi cinmo lo srana be zo ki'a
11:49 < durka42> en:ku'a
11:49 < mensi> ku'a = [JOI] non-logical connective: intersection of sets.
11:50 < durka42> ka'a mi seka'a lo .uitki papri pe lo cnino me zo fi'o mi sreji'i lo du'u zo ke'a ku'a zo ko'a cu su'omei .i mi cinmo lo srana be zo ki'a
11:50 < durka42> camxes: ka'a mi seka'a lo .uitki papri pe lo cnino me zo fi'o mi sreji'i lo du'u zo ke'a ku'a zo ko'a cu su'omei .i mi cinmo lo srana be zo ki'a
11:50 < camxes> ([{<(¹ka'a mi¹) (¹[se ka'a] [lo {<uitki papri> <pe (²lo [cnino {me <zo fi'o> MEhU}] KU²) GEhU>} KU]¹) mi> CU} {sreji'i <lo (¹du'u [{<(²zo ke'a²) (²ku'a [zo ko'a]²)> cu} {su'o mei} VAU] KEI¹) KU> VAU}] [i {mi CU} {cinmo <lo (¹srana [be {zo ki'a} BEhO]¹) KU> VAU}])
11:50 < durka42> uo
11:50 < zipcpi> {ka'a}?
11:50 < durka42> "zo ke'a ku'a zo ko'a" oi oi oi
11:50 < durka42> fi'o klama!
11:50 < zipcpi> Right
11:50 < durka42> poetic license...
11:51 < zipcpi> Oh yes ku'a
11:51 < zipcpi> But might not mean what you want
11:51 < durka42> lo me zo ke'a ku'a lo me zo ko'a ?
11:51 < zipcpi> No the main problem is
11:52 < zipcpi> That there is no intersection between them
11:52 < zipcpi> strictly speaking
11:53 < durka42> right that's why it was a sreji'i
11:53 < durka42> I even used your word! stop protesting :p
11:53 < zipcpi> Oh
11:53 < zipcpi> su'omei
11:53 < zipcpi> I didn't see that
11:53 < zipcpi> I approve then :p
11:54 < zipcpi> I probably should be nursing my headache lol
11:54 < zipcpi> co'o
11:54 < durka42> oi dai
11:54 < durka42> ko co'e la .parasitymal.
11:55 < durka42> (that's what you non-americans call it, right?)
11:57  * nuzba @fnxTX: @NaithanJones Right? Well I kinda disagree; I bet there IS a logical formalization of "doping", but it's 2015 & we don't speak lojban / code [http://bit.ly/1GyRv3L]
11:58 < durka42> vlaste: doping
11:58 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/doping
12:03 < durka42> blah
12:03 < durka42> LMW and JVS went down again
12:04 < durka42> and came back!
12:37 < MrVulcan> I just came from the page at http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban which left me with a question. How could "He's left" mean that he's still here?
12:38 < durka42> everyone else died of ebola. He's the only one left.
12:39 < durka42> in fact, the same sense of "left" that you used in "left me with a question" :p
12:40 < MrVulcan> I do believe the ebola part was not necessary, but thank you, durka42.
12:40 < durka42> sorry, linguistics tends to go for morbid examples
12:43 < Ilmen> lol
12:44 < ctefaho> hmm, He's left vs He's right
12:45 < ctefaho> oh english why you do this
12:47 < ctefaho> vukna: sipna
12:47 < vukna> vukna = x1 confuses x2 for x3; x1 fails to tell x2 and x3 apart
12:47 < _mukti_> "Hi, Wright!" "He's not Wright. I'm Wright. He's Left."
12:48 < ctefaho> zo sipna
12:48 < ctefaho> vukna: zo sipna
12:48 < vukna> vukna = x1 confuses x2 for x3; x1 fails to tell x2 and x3 apart
12:48 < ctefaho> vukna: ko sipna
12:48 < vukna> vukna = x1 confuses x2 for x3; x1 fails to tell x2 and x3 apart
12:48 < ctefaho> vukna: xu ko sipna
12:48 < vukna> vukna = x1 confuses x2 for x3; x1 fails to tell x2 and x3 apart
12:48 < ctefaho> vukna: sipna sipna
12:48 < vukna> vukna = x1 confuses x2 for x3; x1 fails to tell x2 and x3 apart
12:48  * ctefaho cu sisti
12:48 < durka42> wtf
12:49 < durka42> did you make another mystery gismu bot?
12:49 < Ilmen> .u'i
12:55  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
12:59 < ctefaho> en: menre,
12:59 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
12:59 < ctefaho> en: menre
12:59 < mensi> menre = x1 is/are among the referent(s) of x2 |>>> See also me. |>>> Ilmen
13:00 < durka42> someone made a lujvo for that meaning of {vukna}
13:00 < durka42> what was it...
13:01 < durka42> dubysreji'i or something?
13:01 < durka42> en: dubysreji'i
13:01 < mensi> [< du srera jinvi ≈ Same identity as err opine] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se
13:01 < mensi> tolcri
13:01 < mensi> dubysrejiv[9927], dubysreji'i[10416], du'orsrejiv[10416], du'orsreji'i[10905], dubysrejinvi[11966], ...
13:01 < durka42> no it was dubji'isre
13:01 < durka42> en: dubji'isre
13:01 < mensi> dubji'isre [< du jinvi srera ≈ Same identity as opine err] = x1 mistakes/confuses x2 with/for x3 |>>>
13:01 < mensi> selpahi
13:01 < durka42> jbo: dubjiisre
13:01 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
13:01 < durka42> jbo: dubji'isre
13:01 < mensi> dubji'isre [< du jinvi srera ≈ Du jinvi* srera*] = x1 srera lo ka ce'u jinvi lo du'u x2 du x3 |>>>
13:01 < mensi> selpahi
13:01 < durka42> hmmm
13:02 < durka42> seems like sreji'i should perhaps be ji'isre :)
13:03 < durka42> jbo: sreji'i
13:03 < mensi> [< srera jinvi ≈ Srera* jinvi*] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
13:03 < mensi> srejiv[5878], sreji'i[6367], srejinvi[7917], sreryjiv[8008], sreryji'i[8497], ...
13:03 < durka42> mensi: ko ningau
13:03 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
13:04 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
13:04 < durka42> jbo: sreji'i
13:04 < mensi> sreji'i [< srera jinvi ≈ Srera* jinvi*] = x1 srera lo ka jinvi x2 x3 |>>> durka42
13:06  * nuzba @MinecraftWither: Lojban is my new favorite language. [http://bit.ly/1MVzo9X]
13:16 < Vunax> does anyone even talk in this chat?
13:16 < Vunax> i've been here for a bit and no one is talking
13:18 < durka42> it varies
13:18 < durka42> you've been here for... 3 minutes?
13:18 < cflep> I would if Icould speak Lojban
13:18 < durka42> we were talking a lot earlier this afternoon, but it seems to have petered out around 4
13:19 < durka42> (a half hour ago that is)
13:22 < durka42> vukna: do mo
13:22 < vukna> vukna = x1 confuses x2 for x3; x1 fails to tell x2 and x3 apart
13:25  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa timon fa
13:28 < timon_`> coi ro do
13:29 < niftg> coi
13:29 < durka42> coi
13:30 < niftg> .ue so'imei catra pe'a xu
13:30 < timon_`> xu ma djica tavla mi
13:31 < durka42> ca netspliti za'a
13:32 < timon_`> catra pe'a ma
13:33 < niftg> lo so'i irci jorne
13:38 < niftg> mi bredi lo nu voksa tavla .i ku'i la'a masno lo nu spuda
13:45  * nuzba1 @uitki: ce ki tau jau - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ce_ki_tau_jau by Selpahi - se'e [http://bit.ly/1fowlMS]
13:46 < Ilmen> la .timon. jo'u mi ca'o bacru casnu do'e la .mambl.
13:46 < Ilmen> .i .e'e kansa
13:46 < durka42> ua
13:47  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa durka42 fa
13:47  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
13:47 < durka42> mi tirna ju bacru kansa
14:04 < durka42> la camxes cu mo
14:05 < durka42> ua la camxes xi pa
14:06 < ctefaho> did zipcpi add an x3 to kosmu
14:06 < ctefaho> wtf
14:06 < durka42> .u'i
14:06 < durka42> en:kosmu
14:06 < mensi> kosmu = x1 (abstraction) is the purpose of x2 (object or event), attributed by x3
14:08  * ctefaho gives up completely and just focuses on Sumtcita'a
14:09 < ctefaho> but if he really wants to add another ma'i, go ahead
14:09 < ctefaho> maybe add it to krinu too
14:09 < ctefaho> and all the others
14:12 < durka42> ui coi la camxes
14:12 < camxes> coi
--- Log closed Sat Jun 20 14:31:20 2015
--- Log opened Sat Jun 20 14:31:34 2015
14:31 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 163 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 161 normal]
14:31  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
14:33 -!- Irssi: Join to #lojban was synced in 143 secs
14:50  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa dakrgakakmada fa
14:53  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
14:55 < ctefaho> co'o
15:21  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: mi toldukse pilno la tuitr .i ku'i mi jutni .i ui    #lojban [http://bit.ly/1FtIiWv]
15:22 < Ilmen> jutni ki'a .u'e
15:22  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa timon fa
15:23  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
15:23 < timon_``> mi cliva .i co'o ro do
15:24 < Ilmen> co'o
15:24  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa durka42 fa
15:26  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: mi toldukse pilno la tuitr .i ku'i mi jundi .i ui   #lojban [http://bit.ly/1FtIvsM]
15:26  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: my favorite lojban part, is not actually the grammar, but the vocabulary itself. it is rather cute. What is your favorite part about lojban? [http://bit.ly/1FtIEMQ]
15:28  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa niftyg fa
15:32  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: actually, i am kind of starting to like the lojban words more. specially the ones that have an E and I on them. ^^ [http://bit.ly/1FtJ0mK]
15:34  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: ma nuzba        #lojban [http://bit.ly/1FtJ85B]
--- Log closed Sat Jun 20 17:26:48 2015
--- Log opened Sat Jun 20 17:27:00 2015
17:27 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 154 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 152 normal]
17:29 -!- Irssi: Join to #lojban was synced in 139 secs
18:09 < Mateon1> Can I get a link to all space/time words?
18:10 < durka42> in vlasisku, you can browse by selma'o
18:20 < Mateon1> Is there a bridi that literally doesn't mean anything?
18:20 < durka42> well
18:21 < durka42> there is {co'e}, which means whatever the speaker means it to mean
18:21 < durka42> and the "variables" broda/brode/brodi/brodo/brodu, which don't mean anything unless you assign them to something with {cei}
18:21 < durka42> the broda series is often used for grammar examples
18:23 < Mateon1> Hm, so then I might ask if {lo'ai [text] sa'ai le'ai} is valid to remove previous said text (as untrue, a mistake, etc.)
18:24 < durka42> yep :)
18:24 < Mateon1> Ah, alright
18:24 < Mateon1> So I guess a mean-nothing bridi wouldn't be useful in this case
18:24 < durka42> camxes: +exp broda lo brode .i lo'ai lo brode sa'ai le'ai
18:24 < camxes> ([CU {broda <lo brode KU> VAU}] [i {lo'ai <lo brode>} sa'ai le'ai])
18:28  * nuzba @uitki: Nuzba:xu do djuno - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Nuzba:xu_do_djuno by Guskant [http://bit.ly/1BuPAyn]
18:31 < Mateon1> ui ki'anai
18:31 < Mateon1> co'o
18:31 < durka42> co'o uai
18:33 < durka42> mensi: doi mukti check out my most recent teensy JVS PRs!
18:33 < mensi> durka42: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.mukti.gy. di'a cusku da
19:59 < durka42> ua la camgusmis di'a gunka CLL
19:59 < rlpowell> go'i
20:00 < durka42> rlpowell: I'm working on merging docbook-prince back into docbook-prince-volunteers
20:00 < durka42> couple of merge conflicts
20:04 < durka42> hopefully I'm choosing the right glosses to keep :p
20:04 < rlpowell> Oh, crap, I'd forgotten about that branch!  I'm sorry.
20:05 < rlpowell> Don't I need to merge in the other direction, too?
20:05 < rlpowell> Want me to do it?
20:05 < durka42> well, yeah, but it'll be easier if I fix the merge conflicts first, I think
20:05 < rlpowell> 20-20:04 <     durka42> hopefully I'm choosing the right glosses to keep :p -- In basicalyl every case where a <gloss> was turned into a <natlang>, you want the latter.
20:05 < rlpowell> Ok, let me know.
20:05 < durka42> I just finished fixing the conflicts, rebuilding now
20:05 < rlpowell> Nice.
20:06 < durka42> well, building individual chapters
20:06 < durka42> not sure if my VPS has the RAM to do the whole thing :)
20:07 < durka42> I seem to remember it killed everything last time I tried
20:07 < durka42> but I did add a swap partition since then
20:08 < durka42> rlpowell: docbook-prince-volunteers can be automatically merged!
20:08 < durka42> it wasn't changing <gloss> to <natlang>, it was mostly fiddling with alignment inside the interlinear glosses
20:11 < rlpowell> durka42: You're welcome to a vrici account if you prefer.
20:11 < durka42> I have one!
20:12 < rlpowell> 'k.
20:13  * durka42 is embarrassed about https://github.com/lojban/cll/commit/4284ddce48627ec5083e869e374733148a018395
20:15 < rlpowell> Doesn't look obviously terrible to me.
20:15 < rlpowell> What does it do?
20:15 < durka42> as far as I recall, it doesn't split the interlinear-gloss inside quoted text
20:17 < rlpowell> Woohoo merged!
20:17 < rlpowell> Oh, neat; well done.
20:18 < durka42> for example, example 19.11.54
20:19 < durka42> it's broken there though :/
20:20 < durka42> or "spoffed", as la zipcpi coined :)
20:21 < durka42> yeah, broken alignment in chapter 6 as well
20:21 < durka42> to be refactored, as I said
20:21 < durka42> I wish I could remember exactly which example motivated that commit, so I could see if at least that one is still aligned correctly
20:25 < rlpowell> Heh.
20:25 < rlpowell> We'll figure it out.
20:25 < rlpowell> SO NICE that someone else is touching the code.
20:25 < rlpowell> afk-ish; work thing.
20:26 < durka42> I think it was e.g. example 4 in chapter 17
20:27 < durka42> I could add a check that the previous word ends with "-" :p
20:40 < durka42> it would help if I knew Ruby..
20:42  * nuzba @MinecraftWither: Going to change to some type of Lojban pronounced name. [http://bit.ly/1I7s7ET]
20:45 < durka42> rlpowell: fixed, I think. another commit for ya on d-b-p
20:45 < durka42> er, d-p-v
20:45 < rlpowell> Nice.
20:47 < rlpowell> "git up" is the best.
20:47 < durka42> what that do
20:47 < rlpowell> git pull in every branch, and it'll stah things for you.
20:47 < rlpowell> It's a gem
20:48 < durka42> ua
20:48 < rlpowell> durka42: Why not jsut work in docbook-prince at this point?
20:48 < durka42> sure I can switch it over to do that
20:49 < rlpowell> Yeah, I think that's easier on everybody.
20:49 < rlpowell> I trust y'all.
20:49 < durka42> je'e
20:51 < durka42> swapped
20:54 < durka42> <gloss>if you see-arrive my younger-sister, you certainly know she pregnant</gloss>
20:54 < durka42> er... wat
20:57 < durka42> for jbo, I'd put the text of example 1.87 in there, just without the {da'i}
20:57 < durka42> also it's weird that the <gloss> is spaced out but the Chinese isn't
20:59  * nuzba @MinecraftWither: I want to make my username in Lojban, and written like "C'idax" but I can't put an apostrophe in a twitter handlebar. What should I do? [http://bit.ly/1I7u2t1]
21:01 < deltab> maybe ʼ is allowed
21:02 < durka42> what char is that?
21:02 < deltab> modifier letter apostrophe
21:02 < deltab> oh, is it for the @-name? probably only a subset of ascii allowed there
21:03 < durka42> maybe ` like in IRC nicks
21:03 < durka42> I'm going to look creepy replying to that tweet out of nowhere, aren't I :p
21:05  * nuzba @durkavore: @MinecraftWither btw, that isn't valid Lojban either; apostrophe only goes between vowels. How is your username pronounced? [http://bit.ly/1I7upnn]
21:08 < deltab> apparently only letters, digits and _ are allowed in usernames, with a max length of 15
21:09 < durka42> gosh
21:09 < durka42> I guess "h" is the only choice then
21:20 < gleki> ` is for stress isnt it
21:21 < durka42> people use it instead of ' in IRC nicks
21:22 < gleki> en:coi
21:22 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
21:22 < gleki> then what to use for stress
21:23 < durka42> na vajni mi
21:24 < durka42> co'o mi'e sipna
21:37 < rlpowell> 20-20:57 <     durka42> for jbo, I'd put the text of example 1.87 in there, just without the {da'i} -- instead of the li'o?
21:37 < rlpowell> yeah, *feel free*
21:53 < zipcpi> I figured out the problem with {nova'e}
21:53 < zipcpi> The problem is that zero/{no} can have two meanings when it comes to scale.
21:54 < zipcpi> *{no'oi} : absolute zero; nothing; there does not exist (Does this cmavo already exist alongside su'oi and ro'oi?)
21:54 < zipcpi> *{no'e'u} : liminal zero; neither positive or negative
21:54 < gleki> i used [0;1] scale
21:55 < zipcpi> The first implies that the scale is between [0;some number]
21:55 < zipcpi> The second implies the scale has both negative and positive values
21:56 < zipcpi> The problem with that, gleki, is does it run from {na} to {ja'axiro}
21:57 < zipcpi> Or does it run from {to'e} to {je'a}?
21:57 < gleki> it=?
21:57 < zipcpi> Your scale
21:57 < gleki> from no to ro
21:57 < zipcpi> Does nova'e mean to'e broda or na'e broda?
21:57 < phma> coi
21:58 < gleki> it means "to the 0 degree broda, not broda at all"
21:58 < zipcpi> coi la vonxlu
21:58 < zipcpi> Which sounds like {na'e} or {na'esai}
21:59 < gleki> na'e is [0;1)
21:59 < zipcpi> Thing is it all depends on whether negative values have meaning
21:59 < zipcpi> Whether {to'e broda} makes sense
22:00 < zipcpi> {to'e mlatu}, for example, probably doesn't make sense
22:01 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/no'oi oi
22:02 < zipcpi> Frankly I'm a little surprised they didn't book this alongside su'oi and ro'oi
22:02 < zipcpi> Guess they thought they could get by with {naku}
22:02 < zipcpi> What does this no'oi even do
22:02 < zipcpi> Attaches to selbri...
22:03 < zipcpi> Looks a little like xoi
22:05 < zipcpi> ... no'oi is much older than su'oi and ro'oi
22:05 < zipcpi> xy~'y
22:05 < zipcpi> Well, about two years older
22:05 < zipcpi> {na'oi} is also taken
22:07 < zipcpi> ne'oi is some kurtynomvla
22:07 < zipcpi> primorial a#? Sounds like something that should be trisyllabic
22:08 < phma> doi zipcpi mi fanva .ai lo midju fi'ucisi'e be la'e zo jamna noi du lo parcatu pe lo jbonunsla surdei
22:09 < zipcpi> ki'a
22:09 < phma> .i la'e zo jamna cu pagbu la'e zo ke'ufla
22:10 < zipcpi> Repetition...law?
22:10 < phma> Deuteronomy
22:10 < zipcpi> Oh
22:11 < phma> jamna is ki tetze'; it's not a literal translation
22:12 < zipcpi> ki tetze?
22:12 < phma> do nerkla (the one after jamna) is ki tavo'
22:12 < zipcpi> Oh holidays??
22:13 < phma> tetze would be barkla but I felt it would be confusing or there's another parsha with a too-similar name.
22:13 < zipcpi> Oh... parts of Deuteronomy? Never heard them called by those
22:13 < phma> It starts out "When you go out to war", so I called it war.
22:14 < phma> Look for the \ms tag in the Torah.
22:14 < zipcpi> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ki_Teitzei
22:14 < zipcpi> Right...
22:23 < zipcpi> ... I'm really becoming Curtis lol
22:23 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/nai'oi
22:23 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/no'e'u
22:35 < zipcpi> Hmm... I can see a problem
22:35 < zipcpi> If I add {rauva'e}, {mo'ava'e} and {du'eva'e} to my chart, that would leave 6 empty spots
22:36 < zipcpi> At the very least the NAI/CAI variation might be useful, so that they can tag sumtcita
22:36 < zipcpi> But... ouch
22:36 < zipcpi> These cmavo are really getting out of hand :p
22:43 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers
22:43 < zipcpi> Yeah dunno what to do about those empty spots right now
22:53 < zipcpi> Oh right, because when it comes to existentiality, {no} is sufficient for "there does not exist"
22:53 < zipcpi> {no} only becomes ambiguous when it comes to scales
22:54 < zipcpi> Where there might or might not be negative values
22:55 < zipcpi> Anyway, gotta nap. co'o
--- Day changed Sun Jun 21 2015
00:23  * nuzba @canweriotnow: @zedshaw I don't see #Lojban. FAIL. [http://bit.ly/1d8XG40]
00:34 < gleki> ^ it's about date system
00:40  * nuzba @Pontama314: >RT    That's good. Lojban gives you the new scheme of thhinking. [http://bit.ly/1d8Ykyx]
01:18  * nuzba @uitki: gadganzu - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadganzu by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1H6pyDX]
03:06 < zipcpi> Hmm... is there a number that's the opposite of {ro}?
03:07 < zipcpi> "the least possible value"
03:07 < Ilmen> no
03:07 < Ilmen> {no} sa'e
03:07 < zipcpi> Unfortunately not all scales go from 0 to something
03:07 < zipcpi> Some have negatives
03:07 < zipcpi> Some don't
03:07 < zipcpi> Some don't cover zero altogether
03:08 < zipcpi> Yep... scales still on my mind
03:08 < zipcpi> And {ni'uro} doesn't quite do it either, because it implies that there is a negative
03:09 < zipcpi> Hm... tough
03:10 < Ilmen> Which example do you have in mind?
03:10 < zipcpi> I even defined {no'ai} (absolute zero) and {no'e'u} (liminal zero) to distinguish between {na'e ze'ei no va'e} and {no'e ze'ei no va'e}
03:10 < zipcpi> Mostly I want a va'e that represents {tolrai} / {mecrai}
03:11 < zipcpi> Where ro va'e represents {traji} / {zmarai}
03:12 < zipcpi> And well, example of the scales I'm thinking off.... well I already linked {to'e} to {ni'uva'e}
03:12 < zipcpi> So that implies that scales that include a {to'e} case has negative numbers
03:13 < Ilmen> Do you think {to'e cmalu} implies that size is a bipolar scale?
03:13 < zipcpi> As for scales that don't cover zero at all; some game systems have a minimum value for your stats that isn't zero, or for example the SAT starts from... 400/600?
03:13 < zipcpi> Hmm... maybe not
03:13 < zipcpi> THat is a bit more complicated
03:13 < zipcpi> I guess it depends on the scale
03:13 < Ilmen> er, {to'e barda}
03:14 < zipcpi> The scalar system I have put up on the wiki page only deals with subjective scales
03:15 < Ilmen> To me, {X to'e barda} means that X is significantly smaller than the average X
03:16 < zipcpi> Hmm... that is tough... it really depends on where you define the zero point to be
03:17 < gleki> "zu'ai becomes se'e
03:17 < zipcpi> It's kinda like Celsius, where there is an arbitrary-ish defined zero point
03:17 < gleki> "zu'ai becomes se'e" <-- the most useless change
03:17 < zipcpi> vs. Kelvin, where zero is absolute-zero
03:17 < zipcpi> lol
03:18 < gleki> "si'au becomes si'u
03:18 < gleki> "
03:18 < gleki> {si'u} may be more important and used than {si'au} since it's for expressing "I did it myself" and similar
03:18 < Ilmen> As for happiness (ni gleki), it seems arbitrary to set the neutral happiness to be 0 or some other value.
03:18 < zipcpi> Yeah {zu'ai} isn't used that often. It's just hating on {se'e} (although it does deserve to be hated)
03:20 < gleki> {zu'ai} simply appeared not long ago.
03:20 < gleki> and Lojban compared to gua\spi is bad at moving focus.
03:21 < zipcpi> Like really, all of BY1 (except for maybe {ga'e} and {to'a}) should be reassigned to trisyllabic kurtyvla-likes :p
03:21 < gleki> thus {fi'o simxu} is less formalized
03:22 < zipcpi> And of course, {se'e'o'e} = elliptical letteral shift :p
03:22 < gleki> {mi damba do vau [xn]oi simxu} - how does xoi/noi know how many ke'a to inject?
03:22 < gleki> it probably should know just as {ka} knows
03:23 < gleki> but that solves {su'ei}, not {su'ai}/{zu'ai}
03:25 < zipcpi> I find {zu'ai} easiest to use
03:27 < gleki> zu'ai should be generalized just like {jonai} is generalized into {PA me ko'a ce ko'e li'o}
03:28 < zipcpi> Not sure about {jonai} though
03:28 < zipcpi> I do remember that it suffers from logical problems when connecting more than two things
03:29 < zipcpi> And even if we ca'e BSFK say that {jonai} means that regardless of logic, it isn't extensible
03:29 < zipcpi> Is there a forethought connective for sumtcita?
03:30 < zipcpi> What we need is variants of these forethought connectives that can accept a PA
03:30 < zipcpi> Either that or somehow make them able to accept a PA
03:30 < zipcpi> without having to invent new cmavo
03:33 < zipcpi> Oh, ca'i, not ca'e lol... but their meanings are so similar
03:37 < zipcpi> http://mrieppel.net/prog/truthtable.html
03:37 < zipcpi> Enter this: (A <> ~B) <> ~C
03:38 < zipcpi> And you'd find one small problem: A=T, B=T, C=T, makes the statement true, when we want it to be false
03:39 < zipcpi> Hmm... what are the logical connective brackets?
03:39 < zipcpi> exp: ko'a jeke ko'e jo fo'a
03:39 < mensi> ([ko'a {je ke <ko'e (¹jo fo'a¹)> KEhE}] VAU)
03:39 < zipcpi> ke?
03:39 < zipcpi> I guess?
03:40 < zipcpi> ke ko'a ji ko'e ji ko'i
03:40 < zipcpi> exp: ke ko'a ji ko'e ji ko'i
03:40 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
03:41 < zipcpi> Think I really need to bring this up on the mriste
03:42 < gleki> i suppose this is a bug
03:42 < gleki> exp: ko'a ebo ko'e e ko'i 
03:43 < mensi> ([{ko'a <e bo ko'e>} {e ko'i}] VAU)
03:43 < zipcpi> bo only works on one level though?
03:44 < zipcpi> exp: ga za'o gi za'o
03:44 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
03:45 < gleki> the biggest problem with {ko'a A ko'e A ko'i} is that nesting there is not about syntaxt tree but about scope. mixing different types of brackets under one term
03:45 < zipcpi> Probably
03:47 < zipcpi> And even the {me} solution isn't quite accurate, as I have noted; (PA me) counts referents, not sumti
03:47 < zipcpi> And doesn't work for all the places that connectives do
03:47 < zipcpi> It would be... kinda horrible if we had to undo Selpahi's unification just to make this work :p
03:49 < gleki> pa me lo pa ko'a ce lo pa ko'e ...
03:49 < gleki> again doesnt work
03:49 < zipcpi> Yep, and forces each sumti to have one referent
03:49 < zipcpi> Which sucks
03:50 < gleki> it wasn't {me}, it was another cmavo there
03:50  * gleki it wasn't me
03:51 < zipcpi> lol yeah I noticed that too
03:52 < zipcpi> Hmm... chained jonai means that "an odd number of these are true"
03:53 < zipcpi> Probably not often useful lol
03:54 < zipcpi> But redefining it would break the logical form of the language, which is bad
03:54 < zipcpi> And as I've said, isn't extensible
03:56 < gleki> ta'o ternary logic hasnt be revived yet
03:56 < gleki> *been
03:57 < zipcpi> lol
04:01 < zipcpi> Well just assign ja'e'e = NAND/Scheffer stroke, and replace all connectives with that :p zo'o
04:01  * ctefaho slaps zipcpi around a bit with a large trout
04:01 < zipcpi> lol
04:01  * ctefaho throws a bunch of ma'i at zipcpi
04:01 < zipcpi> <.<
04:02 < zipcpi> I didn't want to add the te kosmu in the first place
04:02 < zipcpi> But like I said, I want to promote {kosmu} for standard Lojban, and that means keeping them happy
04:03 < ctefaho> well if that was the intention then by all means, add a ma'i
04:03 < ctefaho> why not add a va'o too
04:04 < ctefaho> and for x5...
04:04 < zipcpi> Don't ask me
04:04 < zipcpi> I'm not the one you need to argue with
04:04 < ctefaho> how about a ki'u for x5
04:04 < ctefaho> cause of purpose
04:04 < zipcpi> I told you I'm not the one you need to argue with
04:05 < ctefaho> yeah yeah well do what you want with kosmu
04:06 < zipcpi> If you must argue with someone, take it up with xalbo
04:06 < ctefaho> better not
04:06 < ctefaho> thinking about it as long as kosmu somehow means purpose I am content
04:07 < zipcpi> Yes, still doesn't link to {lo pilno}, {lo zukte}, or {lo finti}
04:07 < zipcpi> Which is what's important here... the {kosmu} of {zo kosmu}, if you will
04:08 < ctefaho> yeah yeah well go ahead and add back the x3, or shall I?
04:08 < zipcpi> I did
04:09 < ctefaho> je'e
04:19 < zipcpi> In a way I do apologize; I probably should have left a note
04:20 < ctefaho> na nabmi
04:22 < gleki> i suggest that you move your notes like "Probably this wont work" into comments.
04:23 < zipcpi> Errm... which one?
04:24 < gleki> one of the recent cmavo probably. i dont remember precisely
04:27 < ctefaho> you put "This probably won't work" into a definition? O_o
04:27 < zipcpi> I don't remember that at all
04:27 < gleki> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/u'ene'e
04:27 < gleki> en: u'ene'e
04:27 < mensi> u'ene'e = [UI*1] attitudinal cluster: disappointment |>>> u'e + ne'e. Suggested as a third position on the u'e scale,
04:27 < mensi> however it may be too late at this point to reassign u'enai to u'ecu'i. |>>> spheniscine
04:27 < zipcpi> Oh That one
04:28 < gleki> however it may be too late at this point <-- at which point? when the dictionary is printed?
04:28 < zipcpi> lol
04:28  * ctefaho out
04:28 < gleki> due to such kurtyvla i had to start a new dictionary
04:28 < gleki> although there were other reasons
04:28 < zipcpi> OK fixed
04:30 < zipcpi> Or could I just reword it to "; this is suggested to avoid reassigning {u'enai} to {u'ecu'i}
04:30 < gleki> for JVS 1.5 i can suggest adding tagging bound to users which would make voting system not needed
04:30 < zipcpi> ?
04:31 < gleki> idk, zipcpi, maybe
04:31 < gleki> the dictionary is lo longer prntable anyway due to those {aigne}
04:31 < zipcpi> No lol
04:31 < zipcpi> Oops
04:31 < zipcpi> lol
04:47 < ctefaho> gleki: any chance to sneak a bunch of new color gismu into your dictionary?
04:48 < gleki> ctefaho: what for? no color system would be universal
04:49 < ctefaho> I just want to complement the RGB tertiary colors
04:50 < gleki> since when rgb reflects human eye perception...
04:52 < zipcpi> Don't we already have those? Or oh, you mean tertiary
04:52 < zipcpi> But yeah that's... tough
04:52 < ctefaho> uhm, gleki, cause that's how eyes work?
04:52 < ctefaho> or do you want to define colors not to be based on human perception?
04:53 < zipcpi> Still though, I have a hard time agreeing that "spring green" or "chartreuse green" are gimy'inda
04:53 < ctefaho> or have I completely missed something
04:54 < gleki> http://www.normankoren.com/Human_spectral_sensitivity_small.jpg
04:54 < zipcpi> rho gamma beta? How malgli lol
04:55 < ctefaho> yeah it was more complicated than that
04:55 < zipcpi> You mean something like this? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/RBG_color_wheel.svg/600px-RBG_color_wheel.svg.png
04:55 < ctefaho> well you have to use one color system or another
04:55 < zipcpi> Still don't think they're gimy'inda
04:56 < ctefaho> I was also going to say complementing the RYB colors
04:57 < ctefaho> and yes zipcpi, those, and some others
04:58 < gleki> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#/media/File:Modern_Color_Vision_Model.svg
04:59 < gleki> and technically it's rather blanu/crino/narju https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#/media/File:Cone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.svg
04:59 < zipcpi> I believe we already have primary and secondary; the tertiary ones can be lujvo
05:00 < ctefaho> forgot I said anything
05:00 < ctefaho> forget
05:00 < gleki> is there a formula that can transform intensity in each channel into any color?
05:02 < zipcpi> Hmm... a zi'evla that accepts numbers for RGB? Or maybe sa'i'e li'ei xy remumu cy parebi by no i'au zo'o
05:02 < gleki> intensity in each of the three channels in human eye
05:03 < zipcpi> Yes, we can even use {so'i} or {du'e}, why not :p
05:04 < gleki> first i want a formula
05:05 < zipcpi> x1 is a color in RGB space that has red level x2, green level x3, blue level x4, by scale x5
05:06 < zipcpi> attributed by x6 zo'o
05:07 < gleki> no, a real formula
05:07 < zipcpi> Well, it's... defined by everything that uses RGB. Though I don't know how that relates to human visual perception; I'd imagine that'd be even more complicated
05:09 < zipcpi> x1 is a color that excites rho cones by level x2, gamma cones li'o...
05:14 < zipcpi> Hmm... about the {ta'eku lo cinfo} thing... the problem with that is that all the sumtcita does is give the context more to work with. Doesn't actually fix the ambiguity of {lo} itself
05:14 < zipcpi> Similarly with {poi} qualifiers
05:15 < zipcpi> Just adds more for context, doesn't disambiguate {lo} itself
05:17 < gleki> i dont understand your problem. maybe you are trying to fix something else.
05:18 < gleki> for typical situations lions live in Africa.
05:18 < gleki> that's all that it means
05:18 < gleki> it describes clauses~facts/events, not objects in them
05:18 < zipcpi> It could also mean "There is a specific lion such that it typically lives in Africa"
05:18 < gleki> no, that's {lo ta'e cinfo}
05:19 < zipcpi> That means "that which is typically a lion"
05:19 < gleki> wait, specific lion, that's another thing. i misread
05:19 < gleki> i dont know what is specific, it's a philosophical issue.
05:20 < zipcpi> The point is all you're doing is adding more semantics; while not addressing the problem of how to distinguish the four cases that I put in my wiki page
05:20 < gleki> i havent read it yet unless that's that page about le'e/deictic etc.
05:21 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_The_case_against_%22lo%22
05:21 < gleki> for specific lions in UD there is {da}.
05:21 < zipcpi> I'm not sure whether da means that either
05:21 < zipcpi> da means "there exists"
05:21 < zipcpi> Doesn't specifically identify the referent
05:21 < gleki> it states the existence of sumti in the UD
05:22 < zipcpi> Exactly
05:22 < gleki> identification is done via defining
05:22 < gleki> Give me the two apples. = ko dunda fi mi fe lo re plise ne va'o
05:23 < zipcpi> Which two apples?
05:23 < zipcpi> mo'oi re plise / ma noi re plise
05:23 < gleki> then "Give me the two apples. = ko dunda fi mi fe re plise ne va'o"
05:23 < zipcpi> Oh
05:23 < zipcpi> Sorry, looked at the wrong sentence
05:24 < zipcpi> Which one is "the two apples", and which one is "any two apples"?
05:24 < gleki> i dont know which sense you want. if there are two apples in UD then it's {da}. if any then {lo}
05:25 < gleki> Apples are delicious. => ta'eku ...
05:25 < zipcpi> You mean {da} must always be used to refer to the apples you're holding?
05:25 < gleki> or another tag depending on what meaning you want. it can be {na'oku} only not for this cases probably since apples arent supposed to be sweet
05:25 < zipcpi> I think the logicians might disagree with you on that too... {da} just means "there exists", and often means "something"
05:26 < gleki> zipcpi: {da} refers to the UD you/we create
05:27 < gleki> technically apples dont exist due to exchange and recreation of particles from/to physical vacuum so what? stop talking?
05:27 < zipcpi> "the two apples" = "the specific two apples that are relevant to the context, not any other apples"
05:27 < zipcpi> "any two apples" = "any two apples out of the set of apples; I don't care about how they differ"
05:27 < gleki> Did you like the play? (probably the one you just watched), or Do you like plays? (in general)] <-- again the same scope and the lack of scope. that's all. tags and da create scope, lo/zo'e doesn't
05:28 < zipcpi> I'm not so sure scope works that way
05:29 < zipcpi> You mean you'd translate the "the" cases with {da poi plise} or {da poi draci}?
05:29 < gleki> i can't see any problems at all except that few people understand that but then probably more examples are needed.
05:29 < gleki> zipcpi: or with tags
05:29 < Ilmen> What do you want to traslate?
05:29 < Ilmen> coi
05:29 < gleki> and if po'o/ji'a  create scope then them too when needed
05:29 < zipcpi> Again, all that does is add more semantics, while not solving the issue of disambiguating {lo}
05:30 < gleki> it's not adding semantics. it's already the meaning they have.
05:30 < zipcpi> No, because everytime you want to disambiguate between the two you must search for an appropriate sumtcita or qualification
05:31 < zipcpi> Whether it's {ta'eku}, {poi do puzi catlu}, or something
05:32 < zipcpi> All that does is give context more to work with; that is, gives it more help with disambiguating {lo}
05:32 < zipcpi> But it doesn't address the ambiguity itself
05:32 < gleki> it's one meaning called scope
05:33 < Ilmen> Which ambiguity?
05:33 < zipcpi> Why must you always start scope when you want to talk about "the book right there"?
05:33 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_The_case_against_%22lo%22
05:33 < gleki> and why i use different words because example sentences ave different meaning. why should i use one word, {badna} for everything?
05:33 < gleki> zipcpi: yes, always, because "right here" already has UD
05:34 < zipcpi> ... but then the clarification of UD is in doubt; because if UD can mean both "right here" and "speaking in general"
05:37 < zipcpi> Look, though you might be less interested in the English grammar specifics; their different construction means something. It's idiomatic and doesn't make logical sense, but it signals something. That something is what we need to figure out and define
05:37 < zipcpi> Like the naked plural being a signal for the generalistic case
05:39 < zipcpi> I'm obviously not going to suggest we literally translate that plural to {za'upa}
05:39 < zipcpi> But it points to something that many other languages also have their own ways to point to
05:44 < Ilmen> The specific/deictic case seems to be {lo broda poi + some deictic information}; the Non-specific case seems to be a good case for {da}; As for Definitional/essentialistic case, I'd use {ro broda cu…}; the Generalistic case seems harder
05:45 < zipcpi> {ro} is hard when you're talking about things that do happen to be shared by all members of the set, but which might not be part of your definition of the set
05:45 < Ilmen> for this last one "lo broda cu..." is often okay, but not always it seems
05:45 < zipcpi> For example {ro remna cu mroka'e} = "All humans are mortal"
05:46 < zipcpi> But is "human" necessarily defined as "mortal"? That might depend on your worldview
05:46 < zipcpi> But the truth value doesn't depend on that of "all humans are mortal"
05:46 < Ilmen> Hm
05:47 < Ilmen> You can also go for {(tau) lo ka mabru cu sarcu (tau) lo ka mlatu}
05:47 < zipcpi> Hmm...
05:49 < Ilmen> ro da zo'u lo du'u da mabru cu sa'urni'i lo du'u da mlatu  (with sa'urni'i being the sarcu equivalent of nibli?)
05:49 < zipcpi> Maybe
05:50 < Ilmen> Indeed maybe there can be some shorted way to say that. As of now I don't have much better idea off the top of my head
05:50 < zipcpi> Right
05:53 < Ilmen> It may be worth adding a not to your page saying that "ro broda cu brode" is not a satisfying answer for definitional expressions, because that {ro broda cu brode} may be coincidental and not definitional to {broda}
05:54 < Ilmen> *adding a note
05:55  * zipcpi nods...
05:56 < zipcpi> Because yeah I can see that being many people's "first resort"
06:00 < zipcpi> Done.
06:02  * nuzba @oka_iu_tcan: ちなみに #lojban のpegの日本語解説もあります。 http://ponjbogri.github.io/cll-ja/peg/slabu_gerna_peg.txt [http://bit.ly/1GtaR7n]
06:03 < Ilmen> Your metaphor of {lo ka broda cu pagbu lo ka brode} is nice too
06:03 < zipcpi> Hm
06:03 < Ilmen> well, maybe not that metaphorical, it's hard to see what else pagbu could mean with properties
06:04  * zipcpi nods
06:05 < Ilmen> si'au lo ponpre cu gunka lo ponbau panra be CLL
06:05 < zipcpi> a'uru'e
06:08 < Ilmen> jbo: itca
06:08 < mensi> itca = x1 cu su'o mei x2 gi'e jai se djuno su'o da fai lo kamdu'o gi'e co'e .i lo du'u ma kau cmene x1 cu na'e se djuno
06:08 < mensi> ja na'e se jungau |>>> sa'u sa'enairu'e «zi'o x1 steci x2» .i srana fa zo co'e .e zo du .e zo djuno .e zo kamdu'o |>>>
06:08 < mensi> selpahi
06:08 < zipcpi> Yeah where is selpahi when you need him
06:08 < zipcpi> So much depends on this word lol
06:09 < Mateon1> How is ti/ta different?
06:10 < zipcpi> Hmm... ti/ta might be difficult if you can't actually demonstrate those reference
06:10 < zipcpi> But only referring to them exophorically
06:10 < Ilmen> Mateon1: good question
06:10 < zipcpi> *referents
06:10 < zipcpi> Or do you mean ti vs ta?
06:10 < zipcpi> Sorry
06:10 < Mateon1> zipcpi: Yes, I do mean `ti` vs `ta`
06:11 < Ilmen> "ti" is meant to target something close to the speaker
06:11 < zipcpi> I forget that not everyone is here to discuss about heady topics about strange new cmavo or what a new gadri system should look like :p
06:11 < Ilmen> "ta" something less close (closer to the listener?), and "tu" something far away from both the speaker and the listener
06:11 < Ilmen> at least if I understand correctly
06:12 < zipcpi> I tend to think of {ta} as meaning medium distance *or* close to the listener. It's like; if you're with a friend who's next to you, you might point to something a medium distance away and refer to it as ta
06:13 < zipcpi> Or if you're talking on a phone, you may refer to something close to them as ta
06:13 < Mateon1> In every resource I found `ti` is referred to as 'this' and `ta` is referred to as 'that'. `tu` is defined as "something far away"
06:13 < Mateon1> I don't know the difference between the two in English.
06:13 < zipcpi> Well... English only distinguishes two distances, but Malay, for example, has three
06:13 < Ilmen> In any case the referent of ti/ta/tu is to be explicited outside the speech medium, such as by pointing a finger to them etc
06:14 < zipcpi> Which is quite similar to how I think ti/ta/tu is meant to be used
06:14 < Ilmen> In Spanish and Japanese there are three level of demonstrative pronouns too
06:15 < Ilmen> Spanish: éste, ése, aquello (if I'm not mistaken)
06:16 < Ilmen> In Japanese it's  kore, sore, are
06:18 < Mateon1> Damn, I've been learning Spanish for 3 years and I don't know any of these three...
06:20 < Ilmen> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrative
06:21 < Ilmen> There are even language with a four-way distinction
06:22 < zipcpi> "deictic"! Quick someone call the logic police! zo'o
06:22 < Ilmen> [near me], [near you], [over ther, away from both of use but rather near] and [over there, far away]
06:23 < Ilmen> « Many non-European languages make further distinctions; for example, whether the object referred to is uphill or downhill from the speaker, whether the object is visible or not (as in Malagasy), and whether the object can be pointed to as a whole or only in part. »
06:24 < Ilmen> wow
06:25 < Mateon1> So, {do dunda ta mi} if the listener holds something, and `ti` if I hold it at time of speech?
06:25 < Ilmen> Yeah
06:32 < gleki> sorry, i m not jundi-ing atm. but i have a new idea
06:32 < gleki> exp: klama ti klama ti
06:32 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [uU] or [yY] but "i" found.
06:32 < gleki>  i want {i} to be autoinserted here.
06:33 < gleki> now the question is where exactly :D
06:35 < gleki> back to da/zo'e. i think people have always been thinking of UD as referring to this real world with no unicorns. which is not. but hence most problems
06:35 < Ilmen> I've heard of a rule of thumb that terminator should be inserted as late as possible, so at the rightmost possible place
06:38 < gleki> makes sense
06:38 < gleki> although {i} is not a terminator
06:38 < gleki> rather a starter
06:38 < gleki> (tolfamyma'o)
06:38 < gleki> like {lo}, {cu}...
06:38 < zipcpi> Hmm... not sure I want {i} to be autoinserted though. It's has kinda become an important part of parsing :p
06:39 < zipcpi> Without them it'd be like reading a bunch of run-on sentences
06:39 < gleki> this suggestion matches perfectly weird behavior of altatufa of trying to parse everything but autoadding missing elements.
06:39 < zipcpi> Right
06:39 < gleki> *by autoadding
06:39 < zipcpi> Alta tries to be as forgiving as possible huh? Like HTML :p
06:40 < gleki> alta: lo nu ku noi
06:40 < mensi> ([FA {lo <(¹nu [{FA ZOhE} {CU <COhE SF> VAU}] KEI¹) SF> ku} {noi <(¹FA ZOhE¹) (¹CU [COhE SF] VAU¹)> KUhO}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
06:40 < zipcpi> je'e
06:40 < gleki> alta: lo nu noi ku
06:40 < mensi> ([FA {lo <(¹[nu {<FA ZOhE> <CU (²COhE SF²) VAU>} KEI] SF¹) (¹noi [{FA ZOhE} {CU <COhE SF> VAU}] KUhO¹)> ku}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
06:41 < zipcpi> ei mi cliva co'o
06:41 < gleki> if cirko succeeds in glossing then it'd be hard even for me to justify this pure PEG pseudo-terminator "SF".
06:42 < gleki> va'i why using PEG when javascript can create any silliness you want.
06:45 < Ilmen> « Null/descriptive determiner. lo broda = something(s) that brodas. This is the simplest gadri of all, and always means either le or lo'e depending on context. »
06:46 < Ilmen> I don't think that's accurate that lo is always either le or lo'e. {lo broda} refers to the plural of everything that brodas in the current UD
06:47 < Ilmen> So "le broda" is a subset of "lo broda", I think
06:50 < gleki> {lo} ~~~~= "any". {da} ~~~ particular. needless to say this analogy wont work due to polysemy of "any", and a special grammar of using it across SAE languages.
06:51 < Ilmen> I don't think "da" is really particular; it depends on the sentence
06:51 < Ilmen> {mi djica lo nu mi citka da} -- I want that there is something such that I eat it
06:51 < Ilmen> does that sounds particular? :)
06:52 < gleki> within its scope yes.
06:52 < gleki> outside {lo} starts acting.
06:52 < gleki> *on the outside {lo} starts acting.
06:54 < gleki> in other SAElangs it's a bit worse than in English: https://ciberduvidas.iscte-iul.pt/consultorio/perguntas/nenhumalgum/3415
06:55 < gleki> in russian it's possible to differentiate "He wants to marry some girl from Greece" and "He wants to marry some (any) girl from Greece"
06:55 < gleki> in the second "some" has the meaning like in "no matter which one", i.e. unspecific.
06:55 < gleki> Russian has separate words for the two cases.
06:57 < gleki> Hm, actually it has three words for "He wants to marry some (particular, known) girl", "He wants to marry some ( he hasn't decided, the girl is not sppecified yet by him) girl", "He wants to marry any girl ( it doesnt matter who she will be)"
06:57 < Ilmen> uncanny, I can understand this Portuguese text
06:57 < gleki> This is the best I can explain.
06:57 < gleki> Spanish has the same i think.
06:59 < Ilmen> The first one is {da nixli gi'e poi'i ko'a kaidji loka speni ke'a}
07:00 < Ilmen> The third one seems to be {ko'a kaidji loka speni su'o nixli}
07:01 < Ilmen> I'm not sure I grasp the second one
07:01 < gleki> neither do i atm
07:01 < gleki> natlangs are to be used in context.
07:01 < gleki> well, the difference between 2 and 3 is that in 2. he will probably choose, in 3. any girl would do
07:02 < gleki> like in 2. being from Greece is the necessary condition
07:02 < gleki> oh, and in 3. it's the necessary and sufficient condition!
07:02 < Ilmen> maybe {ko'a kaidji loka speni su'o/lo nixli poi co'e}, because he's some criteria?
07:03 < gleki> necessary and sufficient are the key criteria here.
07:03 < gleki> banzu/sarcu
07:04 < gleki> darn, i need to fix la bangu dictionary
07:04 < Ilmen> Do you think "any" can be "ro" there?
07:05 < gleki> i think banzu/sarcu or their concepts need to be somehow used.
07:05 < gleki> maybe bi'ai instead.
07:05 < gleki> {lo bi'ai nixli} or something, idk.
07:06 < gleki> what i know for sure now is why machine translation is so hard.
07:06 < durka42> coi
07:06 < Ilmen> {ro nixli cu poi'i ko'a djica lo nu speni ke'a} doesn't entails {ko'a djica lo nu speni ro nixli}, I think
07:07 < Ilmen> So *maybe* ro can work
07:07 < gleki> this again raises a question that only one girl will suffice. when he gets married the first time all the other girls immediately lose their property of being able to become fiancees.
07:07 < durka42> Every woman has the property of A wanting to marry her?
07:07 < gleki> it's not that he can marry all girls.
07:08 < durka42> sounds like quantum entanglement
07:08 < gleki> For every girl it's so that he wants to marry her.
07:08 < gleki> <= {ro nixli cu poi'i ko'a djica lo nu speni ke'a}
07:08  * gleki notice that English is more verbose than Lojban zo'oru'e
07:09 < durka42> ro nixli cu poi'i ko'a ganai nu'o speni da gi djica lo nu speni ke'a
07:10 < gleki> if married=false then goto marryher
07:19 < Mateon1> Is there a way to switch x4 with x5 for example, without affecting x1?
07:20 < Mateon1> Or would we need to do something like {ve xe ve [selbri]}
07:22 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/rearranging_arguments_without_using_FA
07:22 < gleki> so yes, the second
07:22 < gleki> x4 x5 x1 x2 x3 ve se xe te brodu
07:22 < gleki> etc.
07:22 < gleki> oh wait
07:22 < gleki> x1 x2 x3 x5 x4 ve xe ve brodu
07:23 < Mateon1> The change in meaning occurs left-to-right, right?
07:23 < gleki> x2 x1 se brode
07:23 < durka42> the innermost SE applies first
07:23 < gleki> now let's add something
07:23 < durka42> ve (xe (ve brodu)))
07:24 < gleki> x3 x1 x2 te se brode
07:24 < gleki> hm, my explanation isnt nice, ignore it
07:25 < durka42> a shortcut is when you see a pattern like ABA, for example vexeve, those two places get switched
07:25 < Mateon1> Ah, alright. So: (se (te brode)) ->  x2 x3 x1 brode
07:25 < durka42> ve is 4, xe is 5, so vexeve (or xevexe) switches x4 and x5
07:25 < durka42> yes that's right
07:25 < Mateon1> Needs a bit of thinking, haha
07:25 < durka42> tersmus: jbo: ko'a ko'e ko'i se te brode
07:25 < tersmus> ko'i brode ko'a ko'e
07:26 < Mateon1> I need to save the most useful attitudonals in my notebook, haha
07:26 < durka42> tersmus: jbo: ko'e ko'i ko'a se te brode
07:26 < tersmus> ko'a brode ko'e ko'i
07:27 < durka42> strings of multiple SE are rather rarely used
07:27 < durka42> most common is probably that switching pattern I mentioned
07:29 < Mateon1> So, what are the positive-neutral-negative modifier cmavo? Negative is nai, but I don't know the rest, heh
07:29 < durka42> ja'ai - cu'i - nai
07:30 < durka42> and ja'ai is the default
07:30 < durka42> ui = uija'ai
07:32 < gleki> en: pi'egre
07:32 < mensi> pi'egre [< plipe pagre ≈ Jump pass through] = pl1=pa1 (agent/object) leaps/jumps/springs/bounds, passing through pa2 to
07:32 < mensi> pa3=pl2 from pa4=pl3 reaching height pl4 propelled by pl5. |>>> jongausib
07:33 < gleki> wow
07:33 < gleki> why not just {plipe pa'o}
07:33 < gleki> or {veka'a}
08:39 < gleki> in Chromium channel:
08:39 < gleki> 05:19 < s1w> how do I convert a Local<Number> to int?
08:39 < gleki> Gleki's immediate reaction: there should be a cmavo for that.
08:40 < durka42> lol
08:40 < durka42> la'e
08:46  * nuzba @bgcarlisle: .i lo nu prami cu simsa lo ckafi ma        .i zo'o lo ka mi ca lo nu mi verba ku noroi kansa da tu'a ce'u        Love and coffee in #Lojban everyone [http://bit.ly/1H2FyVv]
09:49 < e`ogan> this, kids, is how lojban became communist... it all started with "cmavo for everyone!"
09:50 < gleki> most of them will die eventually
09:50 < durka42> the cmavo, or the kids?
09:51 < Mateon1> Probably both
09:51 < gleki> le za'umei
09:51 < gleki> lu lo na'o se dasni li'u mo
09:51 < Mateon1> Can I have some explanation on the `u'a[nai]` attitudinal?
09:51 < gleki> jb: u'a
09:51 < mensi> u'a = u'a [interjection] — gain, u'a nai — loss
09:51 < mensi> :u'a sinxa lo nu mi pu drani — Aha, that's a sign that I was right.
09:51 < mensi> :u'a nai la Rob pu zabna gerku — Snif, Rob was a good dog.
09:51 < mensi> :Related words: jinga, cnemu, prali, cirko
09:53 < gleki> do I need to add something to that?
09:53 < Mateon1> I'm not quite sure I get it
09:53 < Mateon1> So, u'anai is mourning, but u'a is... discovery? =ua?
09:53 < gleki> gain vs. loss.
09:54 < gleki> gain is when you get some profit.
09:54 < gleki> "gain profit"
09:55 < gleki> u'anai is when you lose some advantage of property.
09:56 < Mateon1> I don't see the gain in the first example.
09:56 < durka42> the gain is vindication
09:56 < Mateon1> Unless possibly "Gain of knowledge", but that fits `ua` more
09:58 < gleki> {ua} is discovery
09:59 < deltab> not gain of knowledge, but winning the argument
09:59 < gleki> ua mi pu na drani = Oh, I was not right.
09:59 < Mateon1> Oh, I guess I missed the context that it was an argument, then
09:59 < gleki> a better example is probably needed.
09:59 < deltab> I assumed that
10:00 < deltab> preferably *many* examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKTxC9pl-WM
10:05 < gleki> jbo: jetyja'o
10:05 < mensi> [< jetnu jarco ≈ Jetnu* jarco*] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:05 < mensi> jetyja'o[7487], je'urja'o[7976], jetnyja'o[8517], jetyjarco[9037], je'urjarco[9526], ...
10:07 < gleki> i think "to prove" is simply {se jetnu}
10:07 < gleki> .u'a la'e di'u se jetnu lo du'u mi pu drani
10:07 < gleki> Hah, that proves I was right!
10:09 < gleki> BPFK wrote a malgli imo
10:10 < durka42> which
10:10 < gleki> .u'a la'e di'u se jetnu lo du'u mi pu drani
10:10 < gleki> oops
10:10 < gleki> {u'a} entry
10:10 < gleki> en: je'urja'o
10:10 < mensi> je'urja'o [< jetnu jarco ≈ True show] = ja1 (agent) proves that je1 (du'u) is true by standard/epistemology/metaphysics
10:10 < mensi> je2 to audience ja3 |>>> from jetnu jarco |>>> totus
10:11 < gleki> even if agent matches the definition it cant match la'edi'u
10:11 < durka42> you mean {.u'a la'e di'u je'urja'o lo du'u mi pu drani }?
10:11 < durka42> hmm
10:11 < durka42> you're right
10:11 < gleki> lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+Realis+Attitudinals
10:11 < durka42> should be {se jetnu} or {nibli}
10:11 < gleki> and jetyja'o now
10:11 < durka42> why jetyja'o?
10:12 < durka42> vlaste: jetnu jarco (l)
10:12 < vlaste> jetnu jarco (lujvo) = jetyja'o, je'urja'o, jetnyja'o, jetyjarco (defined as jetyja'o = x1 proves / provides evidence for / demonstrates the truth of x2 (du'u) to audience x3)
10:12 < gleki> although i have no clue how this jarco was supposed to work here
10:12 < durka42> I guess jarco1 is the logician writing the proof on the chalkboard
10:12 < gleki> durka42: you just updated it or its automatic?
10:12 < durka42> what's automatic
10:13 < gleki> vlaste
10:13 < gleki> oh
10:13 < gleki> vlaste: je'uja'o
10:13 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/je%27uja%27o
10:13 < gleki> vlaste: je'urja'o
10:13 < vlaste> je'urja'o = ja1 (agent) proves that je1 (du'u) is true by standard/epistemology/metaphysics je2 to audience ja3
10:13 < durka42> they're both defined
10:13 < durka42> en: jetyja'o
10:13 < mensi> jetyja'o [< jetnu jarco ≈ True show] = x1 proves / provides evidence for / demonstrates the truth of x2 (du'u) to
10:13 < mensi> audience x3 |>>> spheniscine
10:13 < durka42> la vlaste only checks for the lowest scoring form though
10:14 < gleki> i think it should be rather {jarco lo se jetnu} = show oneself as being the epistemology of x2
10:14 < gleki> thus jetnu2 would annihilate
10:14 < durka42> gleki: should I change it to {.u'a ko'a jetyja'o lo du'u mi pu drani} or {.u'a la'edi'u se jetnu lo du'u mi pu drani}?
10:14 < gleki> the latter
10:15 < gleki> since at least the english sentence is fine
10:15 < durka42> uo
10:15 < gleki> Triumph! That situation proves i was right!
10:15 < gleki> and jarco=> ca'a works fine here.
10:16 < gleki> mi ca'a jai se jetnu ...
10:16 < gleki> ko'a ca'a jai se jetnu ...
10:16 < gleki> ko'a jarco lo se jetnu ...
10:16 < gleki> equal number of syllables
10:16 < durka42> jbo:jetyja'o
10:16 < mensi> [< jetnu jarco ≈ Jetnu* jarco*] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:16 < mensi> jetyja'o[7487], je'urja'o[7976], jetnyja'o[8517], jetyjarco[9037], je'urjarco[9526], ...
10:16 < durka42> jbo:je'urja'o
10:16 < mensi> [< jetnu jarco ≈ Jetnu* jarco*] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:16 < mensi> jetyja'o[7487], je'urja'o[7976], jetnyja'o[8517], jetyjarco[9037], je'urjarco[9526], ...
10:17 < durka42> no lo remei cu se jbovelcki
10:17 < gleki> mensi tries to find lujvo too from the list
10:17 < gleki> if jetyja'o is not defined she searches for je'urja'o
10:17 < gleki> and so on
10:17 < gleki> en: klamygau
10:17 < mensi> klagau [< klama gasnu ≈ Come bring about] = x1 brings x2 to x3
10:18 < gleki> this can be used for JVS ofc. although since mukti and i dont want it to be developed in the first place i will be silent here
10:18 < gleki> i mean the issue with redirecting to lower score lujvo
10:20  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Realis Attitudinals - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Realis_Attitudinals by Durka42 - /* Usage Examples */ je'urja'o => seljetnu [http://bit.ly/1SAUTkh]
10:21 < gleki> who said epystemology places are useless
10:21 < gleki> epi-
10:22 < durka42> if we use them in examples they co'u tolplixau
10:26 < gleki> now find examples for jinvi4, djuno4
10:26 < gleki> oh wait
10:26 < gleki> xu'a la tsani those are {noi jetnu}
10:27 < durka42> xu'a = fi'o xusra?
10:28 < gleki> go'i
10:28 < gleki> en: xu'a
10:28 < mensi> 43 da se tolcri: banbuxu'a, bankexu'a, bankuxu'a, banmuxu'a, bantuxu'a, banvexu'a, banxu'a'a, banxu'abu, banxu'acu,
10:28 < mensi> banxu'adu, banxu'a'e, banxu'agu, banxu'a'i, banxu'aje, banxu'ake, banxu'alu, banxu'amu, banxu'anu, banxu'a'o, banxu'apu,
10:28 < mensi> banxu'aru, banxu'asu, banxu'atu, banxu'a'u, banxu'ave, banxu'avu, baurnuxu'a, jifxu'a, jifyjunxu'a, nunselxu'a, posxu'a,
10:28 < mensi> ru'urxu'afu, ru'urxu'agu, ru'urxu'a'u, selxu'aju'a, tolxu'a, tradutxu'a, xu'au, zerfuzyxu'a, zugyxu'a, natfe, xi'i,
10:28 < mensi> xlajijnu
10:28 < gleki> ua
10:28 < gleki> i puzuku se stidi
10:29 < durka42> si'au plixau
10:30 < gleki> rafsi:xusra
10:30 < mensi> zo'oi xus .e zo'oi xu'a .e zo'oi xusr rafsi zo xusra
10:35 < saharl> Is there any difference between {pa da poi broda
10:35 < saharl> sorry
10:35 < saharl> and pa da noi broda
10:37 < gleki> mi na birti
10:38 < akmnlrse> {pa da poi broda cu brode} one thing both brodas and brodes (though there might be things that brode and don't broda)
10:38 < durka42> 1. pa da poi zdani zo'u mi ponse da
10:38 < durka42> 2. pa da noi zdani zo'u mi ponse da
10:38 < durka42> 1. I have one house, 2. I have one thing (btw it's a house)
10:39 < durka42> in general: {poi} narrows the set of possible references, while {noi} provides extra information about the already-specified referents
10:39 < durka42> s/references/referents
10:39 < phenny> durka42 meant to say: in general: {poi} narrows the set of possible referents, while {noi} provides extra information about the already-specified referents
10:39 < saharl> ki'e
10:41 < gleki> phenny is a nudnik.
10:41 < gleki> zo nudni va'i
10:41 < durka42> you could turn off that module doi jitro be la djeni
10:42 < gleki> xu sarcu
10:42 < Ilmen> .e'o dai
10:42 < gleki> e'opei
10:44  * nuzba @davenicolette: @kaleidic It's well known that the dinosaurs spoke lojban among themselves. It didn't save them. [http://bit.ly/1SAWlD6]
10:44 < gleki> they just couldnt solve xorlo
10:44 < Ilmen> xD
10:45 < durka42> .u'i
10:46 < Ilmen> misno fa lo du'u lo dinsauru cu tavysi'u fi lo jbobau .i ku'i pu na banzu lo nu renvi
10:46 < durka42> Ilmen: .e'opei spusku di'u fo la .tu'itr.
10:46 < durka42> hmm does jenni still do that unicode thing
10:46 < durka42> .u pile of poo
10:47 < phenny> U+1F4A9 PILE OF POO (💩)
10:47 < Ilmen> .e'o cu'i .e'a
10:47 < Ilmen> do ka'e jmina lu mi'e dinsauru li'u zo'o
10:47 < Ilmen> .i citka .ai co'o
10:47 < durka42> .u'i
10:47 < gleki> we need a jbovla for U+1F4A9
10:47 < durka42> vlaste: poo
10:47 < vlaste> kalcyvi'i = v1=k2 defecates/shits/poos.
10:48 < durka42> kalci bu
10:50  * nuzba @selpahi: @464161niftg ua za'a do co'a se cinri lo .itku'ilybau | #lojban [http://bit.ly/1LnBkuq]
10:52  * nuzba @durkavore: @davenicolette @kaleidic misno fa lo du'u lo dinsauru pu tavysi'u fi lo jbobau .i ku'i na banzu lo nu renvi [http://bit.ly/1SAXB9e]
10:54 < rutytar> coi
10:54 < durka42> coi
10:56 < dutchie> coi
10:58  * nuzba @durkavore: uisai #lojban #zgike RT @Djemynai: The album is finally out! https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao | #ZAHO [http://bit.ly/1SAY0bI]
11:00 < durka42> sance simsa sai la selpa'i... .u'i
11:01 < akmnlrse> za'a zo #SEhE pagbu
11:01 < durka42> .ai mi .erve
11:01 < gleki> xu la djemynai cu du la selpa'i
11:01 < gleki> i ma'a pu sruma
11:02 < durka42> xu da pu zgana lo nu pa kumfa cu vasru lo remei
11:02 < gleki> i cizra i xunai la canoxilt cu du la djemynai
11:03 < durka42> .u'i
11:03 < durka42> .ei mi jdice lo nu pleji mo'oi zmadu be li 5
11:04 < gleki> zo nu zo'u do co'a se gekybau
11:04 < durka42> .u'i
11:04 < durka42> mi pensi tu'a li 20
11:04 < gleki> to ku'i zo cuxna e'u toi
11:04 < durka42> xu dukse
11:05 < zipcpi> Oh, how about {rone'e} for "least possible number" and {da'ane'e} for "starting from the least possible number"
11:05 < zipcpi> That way I won't have to create new cmavo for those
11:05 < durka42> compositionality FTW
11:05 < gleki> ua la canoxilt na du la selpa'i https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXS9rAId95g
11:06 < zipcpi> I want something that could mean {no}, {ni'uro}, or {xanono} (for SAT scores), depending on context :p
11:06 < durka42> doi zipcpi xu do zgana lo cnino zgike pe la djemynai
11:06 < zipcpi> nago'i
11:06 < durka42> https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao
11:06 < gleki> mi jimpe no da i la djemynai cu du jenai du la selpa'i
11:06 < gleki> i xu du lo mlatu pe la crodinger
11:07 < gleki> i cizra ije ci'izra
11:07 < durka42> mu'i ma lo bi'unai skina cu se jetnu C du S
11:07 < durka42> si si si lo du'u C du S
11:08 < gleki> xu do tugni fi lonu la djemynai cu du la canoxilt
11:08 < durka42> nago'i
11:08 < durka42> go'i ne'e
11:10 < gleki> xm i ca ti mi tugni do
11:10 < gleki> i no da vajni
11:10 < gleki> i vajni fa lonu lo se sanga cu zasti
11:10 < gleki> i ku'i fa ji'a la canoxilt cu finti lo zgike
11:11 < durka42> mi pleji li 20
11:12 < gleki> do pleji lo rupnu enai li xo'e
11:12 < gleki> sisi lo namcu
11:13 < durka42> vlaste: euro
11:13 < vlaste> 2 results: ronru'u, ronru'u, rupne'uru
11:13 < durka42> mi pleji lo ronru'u be li 20
11:15 < durka42> .u'i lo samymri judri cu co'e
11:21  * nuzba @DonaldKronos: Found a nice Lojban lesson on @YouTube at https://youtu.be/DIpn0OEpT40 [http://bit.ly/1H775Hr]
11:21 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers Conclusion; the {xokau va'e} version is the most complete and flexible. I only needed to *patch* the na'e/no'e ambiguity and define {rone'e}
11:22 < zipcpi> {no'e'u} is such a kurtysmivla though T.T
11:23 < zipcpi> And I'm not too keen on the idea of filling the ten empty spots on the list right now
11:24 < zipcpi> Some things are just du'eva'ei zbusufukai, even for me :p
11:24 < durka42> indeed
11:24 < durka42> using existing va'e + existing number system is better than inventing ten new cmavo :)
11:24 < durka42> the {cu'i} case is interesting though
11:24 < durka42> I don't think {nova'e} fits for that
11:24 < zipcpi> The problem is that zero {no} has two meanings depending on scale
11:25 < durka42> right
11:25 < zipcpi> Your scale might go from 0 (not true at all) to x
11:25 < zipcpi> Or from -x - 0 - x
11:25 < durka42> pimuva'e?
11:25 < zipcpi> Again, assumes too much on what kind of scale is used
11:26 < durka42> jbo:va'e
11:26 < mensi> va'e = [MOI] galfi lu'e lo namcu lo selbrisle .i x1 klani le namcu x2 noi ckilu
11:26 < gleki> jbo: va'e
11:26 < mensi> va'e = [MOI] galfi lu'e lo namcu lo selbrisle .i x1 klani le namcu x2 noi ckilu |>>> ckilu; mei, moi, si'e |>>>
11:26 < mensi> xorxes
11:26 < durka42> hmm, the scale is x2...
11:26 < durka42> yeah
11:26 < zipcpi> pimuva'e without context could mean either {no'e/cu'i} or {noi'e/na'oi}, that's the feeling I get
11:28 < durka42> no idea what that second pair of cmavo means
11:28 < durka42> oh god I sound like lojbab
11:28 < durka42> pretend I didn't say that
11:28 < zipcpi> lol
11:29 < zipcpi> Oh... right they're both new. Not both by me though
11:29 < durka42> noi'e/na'oi seems like pava'e
11:29 < durka42> we just have to define a default scale
11:29 < zipcpi> I don't like exact numbers for subjective scales
11:29 < zipcpi> And I don't think we could
11:29 < zipcpi> Because to'e means something in some contexts, but not others
11:30 < durka42> to'e also implies a scale though
11:30 < hamnox> (This conversation looks so fascinating, I wish I understood the quarter that's in lojban.)
11:30 < durka42> if we use va'e, but we just invent new numbers for each item, then it's pointless
11:30 < durka42> that's equal to defining new cmavo for every one
11:30 < gleki> {pa} here is infinitesimal
11:30 < durka42> but if we define a default scale
11:30 < durka42> then we can use numbers
11:30 < zipcpi> We already have most of the subjective numbers
11:30 < durka42> gleki: in probability for instance {pa} means 100%
11:31 < gleki> no, in va'e scale the highest value is {ro}
11:31 < durka42> okay, fine
11:32 < zipcpi> hamnox: lol
11:33 < zipcpi> One little problem is that while {xokauva'e} is the most flexible in terms of range, {NAI/CAI} is the most flexible in terms of grammar
11:34 < zipcpi> Thus making it very hard right now to attach {rauva'e} to a sumtcita, e.g.
11:35 < gleki> how in ur system u can attach va'e to sumtcita?
11:35 < zipcpi> We can't yet
11:35 < zipcpi> That's what I was pointing out
11:35 < gleki> mi broda i fi'o rova'e krinu mi mo
11:36 < gleki> mi broda i fi'o rova'e krinu bo mi mo
11:36 < zipcpi> Yeah something like that
11:36 < gleki> va'e itself should be transformed into a brivla
11:37 < zipcpi> We have {ckilu} but... hm...
11:37 < zipcpi> ckilu is just the scale
11:37 < zipcpi> Doesn't predicatize {va'e}
11:37 < gleki> jbo: si'e
11:37 < mensi> si'e = [MOI] galfi lu'e lo namcu lo selbrisle .i x1 pagbu x2 ije le namcu cu frinu le se klani be x1 le se klani be x2
11:37 < mensi> |>>> frinu; mei, moi, va'e |>>> xorxes
11:37 < zipcpi> si'e is portional
11:37 < gleki> jbo: va'e
11:37 < mensi> va'e = [MOI] galfi lu'e lo namcu lo selbrisle .i x1 klani le namcu x2 noi ckilu |>>> ckilu; mei, moi, si'e |>>>
11:37 < mensi> xorxes
11:37 < zipcpi> Doesn't make sense with va'e
11:38 < gleki> hahaha. va'e lacks maximum value and si'e lacks scale specification
11:39 < zipcpi> Heh
11:39 < gleki> although maximum value can be specified in va'e2
11:40 < gleki> actually i use va'e for truth values.
11:41 < gleki> and si'e for portions of pizza
11:41 < zipcpi> Does make sense
11:41 < zipcpi> Although {ja'a xi xokau} is probably better for the "must be [0,1]" sense
11:42 < gleki> that would require formalizing ja'a xi
11:42 < gleki> into new brivla
11:42 < zipcpi> True
11:42 < gleki> xi is overloaded.
11:42 < zipcpi> lol
11:42 < gleki> jbo: ja'a
11:42 < mensi> ja'a = [NA] tcita lu'e lo bridi le du'u sinxa le tolna'e be la'e ri |>>> tolna'e; na |>>>
11:42 < mensi> xorxes
11:42 < zipcpi> It's meant to be though
11:42  * ctefaho likes how xi is used in an official BPFK definition
11:42 < gleki> jbo: tolna'e
11:42 < mensi> tolna'e [< to'e natfe ≈ To'e natfe*] = x1 to'e natfe x2 boi x3 |>>> .e'u ko tcidu tu'a zo to'e .e zo natfe .e zo ja'a
11:42 < mensi> |>>> xorxes
11:43 < gleki> jbo: natfe
11:43 < mensi> natfe = x1 du'u na ku x2 jetnu |>>> du'u; na; jetnu; jitfa; kanxe; vlina |>>> xorxes
11:43 < gleki> natfe doesnt have any scales
11:43 < durka42> {jei} is also good for 0-1 truth value
11:43 < durka42> but it's different grammar
11:43 < zipcpi> Also there's a hole in the selbri list if you haven't noticed
11:44 < zipcpi> {nordukti}?
11:44 < gleki> jei can't have {kau}, it works at bridi level only
11:45 < gleki> unless it's kapable
11:47  * nuzba @kaleidic: ZA'O, the first Lojban album of all time     https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao https://f1.bcbits.com/img/a3930782257_10.jpg [http://bit.ly/1H77ppB]
11:47  * nuzba @kaleidic: ZA'O, the first Lojban album of all time     https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao http://t.co/hIlZvdvbY3 [http://bit.ly/1H77xWe]
11:47  * nuzba @kaleidic: xkcd translated into Lojban:    http://alexburka.com/~aburka1/lojban/ [http://bit.ly/1H78zl5]
11:47 < durka42> norkai?
11:48 < gleki> en: norkai
11:48 < mensi> [< no'e ckaji ≈ Scalar midpoint not has quality] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se
11:48 < mensi> tolcri
11:48 < mensi> norkai[5867], no'erkai[7456], norckaji[7917], no'erckaji[9506]
11:48 < gleki> actually what we need is fi'o gradu and one more tag for truth values.
11:48 < durka42> or even {midju}
11:49 < zipcpi> {norkai} seems good
11:49 < gleki> especially since few like MOI and ROI
11:49 < zipcpi> {midju}... I dunno, "midpoint" could mean either {cnano} or me'oi liminal
11:49 < zipcpi> There's a reason I changed the official "midpoint negator" with "liminal negator"
11:50 < zipcpi> Because people kept confusing it with {cnano}
11:50 < durka42> nah, no'e doesn't mean cnano
11:50 < durka42> .w liminal
11:50 < phenny> "Liminal is an English adjective, 'on the threshold,' from Latin limen, plural limina, 'threshold.' Liminality is the abstract noun formed from liminal." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminal
11:50 < durka42> that's {ja'aru'e}
11:51 < durka42> en:ja'aru'e
11:51 < mensi> ja'aru'e = [NA*] weak bridi affirmation; barely; almost not at all.
11:51 < zipcpi> What I mean is "between {ja'e} and {to'e}"
11:51 < zipcpi> On the threshhold
11:51 < zipcpi> *threshold
11:52 < zipcpi> What in English is idiomatically expressed as "half", like "half-alive, half-dead"
11:52 < durka42> right
11:53 < gleki> no'e is best, yeah
11:53 < gleki> by far
11:53 < zipcpi> Well we are defining {no'e} :p
11:53 < gleki> {lo no'e ricfoi} = jungle
11:53 < durka42> I mean there is {xadba}...
11:53 < durka42> {sortyxadba}
11:54 < zipcpi> lol
11:54 < gleki> jb: gradu
11:54 < mensi> gradu = gradu — x1(entity)  is a unit on scale  x2(property of x1 with kau)  measuring  x3(property of x1 with kau)
11:54 < mensi> :lo gradu — unit. lo se gradu — scale with units.
11:54 < mensi> :lo centi be lo mitre cu gradu lo ka mitre vau lo ka te sepli — Centimeter is a unit on metric scale, which measures
11:54 < mensi> distance.
11:54 < mensi> :Related words: ckilu, kantu, kelvo, merli, ranti, selci
11:54 < zipcpi> No, {xadbysorta} is probably what you want for a malglikslu no'e-brivla :p
11:54 < zipcpi> {xabysorta}
11:55 < gleki> the example from la bangu is wrong
11:55 < gleki> in its x2
11:55 < zipcpi> {sorta} is already malglikslu, so I don't see why {xadba pe'a} would make it any worse :p
11:55 < durka42> right
11:56 < durka42> {jibni} might work
11:56 < gleki> jb: ckilu
11:56 < mensi> ckilu = ckilu — x1(property of nonce place with kau)  is a scale of units for measuring  x2(property of nonce place with
11:56 < mensi> kau)
11:56 < mensi> :lo ckilu — scale.
11:56 < mensi> :lo ka mitre ma kau cu ckilu lo ka te sepli ma kau ma kau — Metric scale measures the distance between two points.
11:56 < mensi> :Related words: gradu, merli, cimde, manri
11:56 < zipcpi> {jbini}, I think you mean
11:56 < durka42> I meant {jibni}, but {jbini} is good too
11:56 < zipcpi> But {jbini} doesn't just mean "liminal", we have to qualify it with {ckaji lo jbini lo ka broda kei lo ka to'e broda}
11:57 < durka42> right
11:57 < zipcpi> I dunno. {jibni} is like {naru'e} to me. "Almost, but false"
11:58 < zipcpi> Or {na'eru'e} to stick with something that could fit on my scale list
11:58 < gleki> naru'e is superweird it smells natlangish to me
11:58 < durka42> I guess so
11:58 < zipcpi> gleki: Maybe so
11:58 < zipcpi> I can't put my finger on it though, or suggest an alternative
11:59 < gleki> "almost" is {so'ava'ei}
11:59 < zipcpi> But are we talking truth value, or scale? That's the ambiguity here
12:00 < zipcpi> Well, to me, {naru'e} implies {na}
12:00 < gleki> that's philosophical
12:00 < durka42> no'e =~ naldukti?
12:00 < durka42> of course naru'e implies na
12:00 < zipcpi> la .tom. naru'e janli mi = "Tom almost collided with me"
12:01 < zipcpi> Thus I don't think it quite fits fuzzy logic
12:01 < zipcpi> Because it's already false
12:03  * nuzba @willingtheweird: I am having a hard time understanding the practical difference in between lo and le in lojban. Why would someone use lo? [http://bit.ly/1H79lhP]
12:03 < zipcpi> But I think {norkai} is the best solution we have right now to fill that spot
12:03 < zipcpi> Ah... someone who still has a CLL understanding of {lo}, I see
12:04 < zipcpi> On the other hand, post xorlo, we have endless arguments on whether {le} is needed
12:05 < gleki> {le broda} will just become {su'o broda} provided that it's expanded to {su'o da poi broda} where {da} refers to the nearest instance mentioned ana/exo/cata-phorically.
12:06 < zipcpi> Crap I wanted to say "the hunter has become the hunted" but I can't find a word for "hunt" in that sense
12:06 < gleki> kalte?
12:06 < zipcpi> Oh right
12:07 < zipcpi> {le kalte puca'o binxo lo se kalte}; using both {le} and {lo} just to rub it in :p
12:08 < zipcpi> er, puco'a
12:08 < zipcpi> Maybe {ca'a} is better
12:09 < zipcpi> {le kalte ca'a binxo lo se kalte}
12:11 < gleki> le na'o kalte ca'a co'a se kalte
12:11 < gleki> binxo works too
12:11 < zipcpi> gleki: You think {da} is specific, but Ilmen thinks {da} isn't specific, so which is it?
12:11 < zipcpi> Cool
12:11 < gleki> zipcpi: na'i. i dont understand what is specific. i operate in terms of UD and variables.
12:11 < zipcpi> You think {da} could replace {le}
12:11 < gleki> and "any" is sometimes {da}, sometimes {zo'e}.
12:12 < zipcpi> The problem is that you're pushing the problem to the UD
12:12 < gleki> zipcpi: oh that. read my understanding of {le} in the wiki. it's ananaphorical marker that refers to things in UD. like {da}.
12:13 < gleki> but {su'o broda} expand to {su'o da poi broda} with a very special {da} that is underformalized.
12:13 < zipcpi> And I don't think I'm using {le} too differently from you do. What we have an impasse with is the philosophy
12:14 < zipcpi> But can you link me to your article?
12:14 < gleki> i dont like philosophy embedded into the language.
12:14 < gleki> SWHish
12:15 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Particle_%22le%22_for_anaphora,_cataphora,_exophora
12:15 < zipcpi> Well my system isn't based on what I hope to achive SWHish-ly, but rather to disambiguate between the cases that are most common
12:15 < gleki> strange that it's de facto the inversion of the meanings of lo and le.
12:16 < zipcpi> On what, in practical usage, is the most needed distinguishments, and on what natural languages have evolved various idioms for dealing with
12:17 < gleki> so the only part needed to complete that {le} page is to formalize {PA broda}. i ku'i mi lazni gi'e na djica
12:18 < gleki> to i mi cinmo lo mabla ki'u lo na lojbo toi
12:19 < zipcpi> "I feel crappy because of some un-Lojbanic reason"?
12:19 < gleki> yes
12:19 < zipcpi> K
12:19 < zipcpi> je'e
12:26 < zipcpi> *reads your article* Hm... think I've seen it before. Not sure how well it works though; looks like you're defining {le} as an extended form of {ri'oi}
12:27 < zipcpi> With the whole back-searching thing. Which is probably the easiest way to formalize it, but may clash with practical usage
12:28 < Ilmen> .u'e sai
12:31 < Ilmen> mi nau mo'u tinju'i lo pa moi selsa'a poi la jemnai cu balpra .i la'a mi pu meckanpe lo ni banli
12:32 < Ilmen> lu la .berlin. ne la dotygu'e li'u .u'e
12:35 < Ilmen> zipcpi, gleki: {su'oi da poi...} can replace both {le} and {lo}, at least to a pretty good extent
12:35 < Ilmen> However {su'oi da} hasn't necessarily topmost scope
12:35 < zipcpi> Except that seems to imply that {da} is also agnostic as to specificity
12:36 < Ilmen> Indeed it is
12:36 < zipcpi> je'e
12:36 < Ilmen> It's just a counting device
12:36 < zipcpi> je'e
12:37 < Ilmen> ŭa nai xu ka'e zifre tinju'i ro lo selsa'a pe la jemnai
12:38 < zipcpi> Gleki: Here's the problem. {la .alis. cu tavla la .djan. .i le remei cu klama lo zarci}
12:38 < zipcpi> What does {le remei} refer to?
12:39 < zipcpi> A formal, machine-like, ri'oi-like backsearching will not be able to fetch the correct referents
12:42 < Ilmen> pa lo selsa'a zo balnema cmene .i lo nu mi ganse lo nu go'i cu rinka lo nu mi zenba lo ka jijnu lo du'u mo kau .u'i
12:42 < Ilmen> *se cmene
12:43  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
12:44 < Ilmen> .i mi morji lo du'u da xusra lo du'u naku ro lo selsa'a cu poi'i lo jbobau cu .olkai lo ka bangu .i na jetnu simlu .i lo pa moi selsa'a cu jbobau mulno .i'o
12:44 < zipcpi> Second [possible?] problem: {la .djan. cu kalte .i le se kalte cu bajra}
12:45 < Ilmen> ja'e bo lo kalte cu bajra
12:45 < zipcpi> {le se kalte} does not have a sumti to back-refer to, unless perhaps you imply that it can search for {zo'e} as well
12:45 < zipcpi> elided-zo'e
12:46 < Ilmen> .i lo se kalte cu bajra te zu'e lo nu renvi .i ku'i lo kalte cu bajra te zu'e lo nu clugau lo stomaxu .i ja'e bo la'a bajra masno zmadu
12:47 < ldlework> Was it ever a goal of lojban to be semantically formalized?
12:48 < ldlework> Logicially formalized sure, but semantically?
12:49 < selpahi> coi
12:49 < ldlework> coi
12:49 < niftg> coi
12:49 < Ilmen> fi'i sai
12:49 < selpahi> sei jetlage
12:49 < selpahi> coi .itku'ilypre no'u la .nif.
12:49 < Mateon1> coi
12:50 < niftg> .u'i mi nintadni po'o .ibu
12:50 < selpahi> ro tadni be ri cu nintadni ri
12:50 < niftg> .ua .uenai
12:50 < selpahi> lo finti ku'i ji'a sai zo'o ru'e
12:50 < selpahi> ku *
12:51 < niftg> pau do xrukla lo zdani pu zi ba'o ku xu doi selpa'i
12:51 < selpahi> .i ze'u nalzva fa mi .i ma pu ca'o fasnu .i xu su'o da nuzba
12:51 < selpahi> ie
12:52 < selpahi> .i va'i mi ca di'a zifre lo ka kansa lo mi jbolanzu
12:53 < niftg> ti'e za'a la djemynai co'a gubgau lo vo'a zgivei bakfu
12:53 < selpahi> mi pu zi zgana
12:53 < selpahi> ui
12:54 < selpahi> .i ta'o da'i cinri fa lo nu pilno lo jbobau lo ka tadni lo .itku'ile
12:54 < selpahi> .i mi na'e nelci lo jbobau rafsi .i ku'i lo .itku'ile cu rafsi po'o ru'e bangu
12:54 < selpahi> .i je mi na pante
12:54 < zipcpi> coi la selpa'i .i mi nitcu lo nu do skicu zo itca .i ri co'a du'eva'ei vajni
12:55 < selpahi> .i lo .itku'ile zo'u lo si'o rafsi cu jicmu ja'e lo nu sarcu .i lo jbobau ku ku'i zo'u lo ni sarcu cu mleca sai
12:55 < selpahi> coi la zipcpi
12:55 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_The_case_against_%22lo%22
12:55 < zipcpi> So much depends on {itca} right now it isn't funny x.x
12:55 < selpahi> xu do bredi lo ka casnu bau lo jbobau zo lo je ro srana
12:55 < niftg> .ai ca'a sidju pilno lo jbobau lo nu jimpe fi lo itku'ilygerna
12:55 < zipcpi> la'a na go'i uinai
12:56 < selpahi> .i li'a ru'e do zifre lo ka finti lo valsi poi prane mapti lo jai se nitcu be do .i na sarcu fa lo nu zo .itca kau mapti
12:56 < niftg> .u'u lo mi jufra cu zunti zo'o
12:56 < selpahi> .i lo .itku'ile zo'u so'i da rafsi lo srana be zo ca
12:57 < selpahi> .i ku'i no da rafsi lo srana be zo co'a
12:57 < ldlework> zipcpi: you could have gone on to name every lingusitic designation that has ever been written about on that page
12:57 < selpahi> ja zo co'u
12:57 < selpahi> .i cizra mi
12:57 < zipcpi> .i ku'i pe'i zo itca cu se smuni da poi mi aidji tu'ake'a
12:57 < zipcpi> .y. djica
12:58 < selpahi> mi gleki lo nu do ba'o vimcu lu traji lo ka prominente li'u
12:58 < selpahi> .i ku'i zo virtu'ale zo'u ...
12:58 < selpahi> .i do xusra lo du'u vo da smuni zo lo .i ku'i pe'i pa da smuni
12:58 < niftg> nitcu lo rafsi valsi be lo fasnu ve pruce sera'a lo itku'ile vau ju'o cu'i va'i pei
12:59 < selpahi> so'i da rafsi gi'e simsa lo za'o zei cmavo
12:59 < selpahi> .i ku'i no da panra zo co'u
12:59 < zipcpi> xy'y ju'ocu'i na sormei smuni .iku'i vanbi ambigu
12:59 < ldlework> ii
13:00 < niftg> .ua claxu lo fasnu pruce fanmo rafyvla
13:00 < zipcpi> va'o ambigu
13:01 < selpahi> zo lo na je lo smuvanbi cu nabmi do .i lo smuvanbi cu ru'i cenba
13:01 < zipcpi> ta'u ju'ocu'i na smuni so'i da .ijeku'i va'o abmigu
13:01 < selpahi> vanlamigu
13:01 < zipcpi> u'i
13:02 < zipcpi> za'a lo ni mi baucre lo jbobau cu zmadu lo pu jai se kanpe be mi
13:03 < selpahi> za'a do pu zenba sai lo ka certu lo ka pilno i mi gleki lo nu go'i
13:03 < selpahi> .i ca ku lo nu co'a ba'e se tcaci lo ka pilno cu sarcu
13:03 < selpahi> .i lo nu kakne cu xa'o fatci
13:04 < zipcpi> je'e
13:04 < selpahi> .u'i
13:05 < selpahi> lo mupli zo'u al-lrigral = ta'e citka, ar-rnigral = ca'o citka, li'o li'o
13:07 < zipcpi> lu <.i ku'i no da panra zo co'u> li'u zo'u oi mi nelci zo co'u
13:07 < selpahi> .i ku'i zasti fa ji'a lo voksna rafsi pe lo .aspekte
13:07 < selpahi> .i mu'a
13:07 < selpahi> O igral = ta'e citka
13:07 < selpahi> I igral = ca'o citka
13:08 < niftg> ta'o xu da ca'a tadji lo nu ciska lo itku'ile jufra sepi'o lo me'oi ascii lerfu ku po'o
13:08 < selpahi> go'i
13:08 < niftg> .u'a .i ma mu'a ve ciksi
13:08 < selpahi> (to xu zo .aski na zasti toi)
13:09 < niftg> en: aski
13:09 < mensi> aski = characters x1 (ordered set of numerals) represents non-encoded x2 (text) in ASCII |>>> ASCII is The American
13:09 < mensi> Standard Code for Information Interchange is a character-encoding scheme. See iunkoda |>>>
13:09 < mensi> gleki
13:09 < niftg> .ua
13:10 < selpahi> http://www.laethiel.fr/ithkuil/manual.php
13:10 < selpahi> se pagbu su'o srana
13:10 < niftg> ki'e jungau
13:10 < selpahi> .i na catni .i ku'i .e'e pilno va'o lo nu lo iunkoda na mapti
13:11 < selpahi> ji'a mu'a š -> sh
13:11 < selpahi> .i ia fadni
13:13 < selpahi> li'a lo iunkoda cu melmau mi
13:14 < selpahi> ta'o plixau tutci: http://www.laethiel.fr/ithkuil/transcript.php
13:14 < selpahi> la .itku'ile ku noi .irci sampre cu mo
13:15 < selpahi> .i xu pu je'a kakne lo ka gentufa
13:16 < selpahi> doi la zipcpi
13:16 < zipcpi> .y. ma kakne
13:16 < selpahi> .i xu la cadgu'a pu jungau do lo du'u mi pu finti lo ve ciksi be lo za'o zei cmavo xau do'o
13:17 < selpahi> .i ba'a nai do'o pu ze'i zukpei lo ka finti lo uitki papri
13:17 < zipcpi> ua
13:17 < selpahi> .i la cadgu'a so'o roi jarco lo ka se cfipu lo sumtcita javni
13:17 < selpahi> (to http://selpahi.de/ZAHO_Explanation.txt toi)
13:18 < Ilmen> ie banli sfaile
13:18 < zipcpi> mi jundi du'eda .i su'ori jai se tolmo'i
13:18 < selpahi> ua do pu'i tcidu
13:18 < ldlework> doi la selpa'i .i xu lo drata gadri cu milxe na vanji do ki'u lo du'u do jinvi lo du'u ro gadri smuni cu nibli banro xe fanva lo mintu
13:18 < niftg> si'au .uinai la .itku'ile nau na'e zvati ti
13:19 < Ilmen> ki'u zi'e dai
13:19 < selpahi> .e'u zo na'e
13:19 < selpahi> .i lo do tanru cu spofu
13:19 < selpahi> .i mi na jimpe tu'a lu nibli banro xe fanva li'u
13:19 < ldlework> u'i
13:20 < ldlework> na birti le drani tadji be lo nu cusku lo drata
13:20 < niftg> .u'i la'a nitcu lo ta'u zei nuncki
13:21 < selpahi> xu do kakne lo ka zvafa'i lo se sinxa be lu le drani tadji li'u .i xu ka'e punji lo jesni ra
13:21 < zipcpi> ta'o mi puzi finti lo me'oi slang fu'ivla befi lo glibau befu lo jbobau
13:21 < zipcpi> zo'oi <spoff>
13:21 < selpahi> spoff
13:21 < selpahi> ti'e sai
13:21 < zipcpi> je'u
13:22 < selpahi> .i ta'o lu birti le tadji li'u na drani .i drani fa lu birti lo du'u ma kau tadji li'u .i vajni fa lo te frica je lo du'u ma kau te frica
13:22 < ldlework> zipcpi: ko sidju mi lo nu cusku lo mi preti
13:22 < zipcpi> xy'y
13:22 < selpahi> .e'e
13:23 < zipcpi> la'o gy. logical expansion .gy
13:23 < ldlework> u'i
13:23 < Ilmen> logji'ekspansi
13:23 < zipcpi> u'i
13:23 < selpahi> .oi
13:23 < ldlework> ua li'a zo'o
13:24 < Ilmen> .u'i
13:24 < Ilmen> xagmau lo nu cusku no da
13:24 < ldlework> je'u
13:24 < selpahi> ju'o .i mi pu pante tu'a lo tanru
13:24 < ldlework> lu nibli banro li'u na banzu xu zo'o
13:24 < zipcpi> zo nibli na mapti pe'i
13:25 < niftg> ma su'a sa'u me la'o gy logical expansion gy vau ta'o
13:25 < ldlework> zo nibli no roi mapti la'a
13:25 < zipcpi> zo logji semau mapti
13:25 < selpahi> lo preti zo'u mi na jinvi lo du'u pa da zo'u ro gadri selsku cu logji se smuni da
13:25 < ldlework> xu tavla fi la'o gy. *logical expansion* gy.
13:27 < ldlework> je'e
13:28 < ldlework> .i ku'i mi je'a jinvi
13:30 < selpahi> .au pei .itku'ile vokta'a doi la .niftyg.
13:31 < zipcpi> xu da ka'e .iku'ile vokta'a .i u'iru'e
13:31 < zipcpi> .y.
13:31 < zipcpi> .itku'ile
13:31 < ctefaho> ui coi la selpahi
13:31 < selpahi> .iku'ile vokta'a cu mo
13:31 < niftg> ju'o nai mi ka'e .itku'ile vokta'a
13:31 < selpahi> coi la ctefalnu
13:31 < zipcpi> oise'i
13:32 < Ilmen> .e'u lu ju'o na ku li'u
13:32 < ctefaho> .u'i
13:32 < selpahi> lol
13:32 < zipcpi> xu da ka'e .itku'ile vokta'a
13:32 < Ilmen> zo'o ru'e
13:32 < selpahi> la .ilmen. cu kakne lo ka cusku zoi gy. attál .gy mu'a
13:33 < zipcpi> mi jinvi lo du'u na cumki
13:33 < selpahi> .i ku'i ju'o cu'i na sanji lo du'u ma kau krinu lo nu mu'a me'o ly cu pagbu
13:33 < Ilmen> .i .itku'ilymibytadnynarfauditybra .i .e'i mi di'a ca lo mapti
13:33 < selpahi> .i mi krici lo du'u cumki ja'a ku
13:34 < niftg> .ua so'ida sampu banzu ke .itku'ile jufra
13:34 < selpahi> ia go'i
13:34 < niftg> .ai mi troci co facki tu'a lo sampu jufra
13:35 < selpahi> mu'a zoi gy. Igral byol te .gy
13:35 < selpahi> smudu'i lu lo gerku cu citka mi li'u
13:35 < niftg> ma ri smuni vau ta'o
13:35 < niftg> .ua .u'i
13:36 < Ilmen> do pu cpisku xusra lo simsa be lodu na sarcu fa lonu mo'icli lo ro .itku'ile gredile .i ku'i mi .ualnainmo
13:36 < selpahi> lo ka ba'e mo'icli cu ka no'e racli
13:37 < selpahi> .i va'i lo nu pu lo nu cilre lo sampu cu mo'icli ro gredile selci cu nu bebna
13:37 < Ilmen> klar
13:37 < selpahi> .i na rarna tadji lo ka bantadni
13:37 < selpahi> je'e
13:38 < niftg> mi kucli lo du'u xukau da itku'ile valsi lo srana be lo si'o gletu ja cinse vau vau vau zo'o nai ru'e
13:38 < selpahi> .i so'i sai rafsi cu plixau nai
13:38 < selpahi> lo nintadni
13:38 < selpahi> ja'a valsi
13:40 < selpahi> .i mu'a zoi gy. aizval .gy se smuni lo si'o gletu ja cinse zukte
13:40 < niftg> .ua .i la'a simsa zo'oi unpa noi tokpona valsi
13:40 < selpahi> mi sona ala
13:41 < niftg> ala ala
13:41 < selpahi> nimi pi toki pona li pona. nimi pi toki Isewile li ike
13:41 < zipcpi> exp: mi sona ala
13:41 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "a" found.
13:41 < selpahi> .i ku'i mi skudji zo sampu fa'u zo pluja
13:42 < zipcpi> ua zo ualnainmo
13:45 < selpahi> lo .itku'ilybau cu jai frilymau tu'a lo tokpona
13:45 < niftg> .uinai .oi se'i mi tolmo'i lo du'u mi lo mi tokpona cukta cu punji makau
13:45 < selpahi> .oi dai
13:45 < niftg> .ue si'o go'e
13:45 < selpahi> .i la'a cinla sai ja'e lo nu lo ka viska cu nandu
13:45 < selpahi> zo'o
13:46 < zipcpi> mi pu pensi lo du'u makau tadji lo nu finti lo zi'evla sepi'o lo cnima'o girzu pe ma'oi NAI ja ma'oi CAI
13:46 < selpahi> .i mi ponse lo .itku'ile cukta .i tilju
13:47 < niftg> .u'i go'a
13:47 < selpahi> ua
13:49 < selpahi> .ei ma'a kansi'u lo ka tadni .i la'o gy. phalp .gy ne la .redit. cu certu tu'a lo .itku'ile
13:49 < selpahi> .i la gredile 5moi ku po'o jai nandu
13:49 < selpahi> (to ba'u sai toI)
13:50 < selpahi> si toi)
13:50 < ldlework> (ta'o xu su'o da ponse la'o gy. Microsoft Flight Simulator X gy.)
13:50 < selpahi> .i (to la gredile 5moi cu voi ro .itku'ile tadni cu malsenva tau ki ca lo nicte toi)
13:51 < niftg> .ai zgana lo se casnu pe la redit
13:53 < niftg> .i ku'i ba lo nu mulno tinju'i zo'ei la'au ZA'O li'u
13:53 < selpahi> .i'e
13:54 < zipcpi> doi la selpa'i .i xu do sanji zo kosmu
13:55 < selpahi> xu zo kosmu pu cmene lo sampre
13:55 < zipcpi> je'u
13:55 < selpahi> (to pau nai toi)
13:56 < selpahi> .i mi sanji .i ie mi sanji
13:56 < zipcpi> .iku'i mi joi la ctefa'o cu fatnygau le te sumti
13:56 < selpahi> ti'e go'i
13:58 < selpahi> ji'i re da jamfu mi je cu lenku
13:58 < selpahi> #cùskutailojbòpre
13:59 < Ilmen> xu pikci fi lo ka curmi lo nu surla ne'i lo glare joi kufra ckana
13:59 < zipcpi> jbokai jufra
14:00 < selpahi> mi iancu lo ka pu lo nu sipna cu citka
14:00 < ldlework> xu su'o do djica lo nu lojbo kelci bu'u la jbogu'e
14:00 < selpahi> kelci ma
14:00 < ldlework> la'o gy. primtionary gy.
14:01 < selpahi> ua
14:01 < ldlework> la valsi zbasu da'i
14:01 < Ilmen> mi zo'u .u'u nitcu lo ka kurji lo drata .i ji'a ba za lo na'e barda cu sipna .ai
14:01 < selpahi> mi ckaji lo simsa
14:01 < ldlework> je'e
14:02 < selpahi> .i .ai ca lo drata djedi
14:02 < ldlework> a'o
14:09 < selpahi> cinri fa lo nu zoi gy. attál .gy mapti gaje lo nu rinsa ca lo nu darca gi lo nu rinsa ca lo nu cliva
14:10 < zipcpi> ue lo drata be mi cu pilno zo darca
14:11 < selpahi> ia mi re moi lo ro zasti lo ka pilno
14:11 < selpahi> .i lo finti cu pa moi gi'e du la .ilmen.
14:13 < selpahi> jbo: darca
14:13 < mensi> darca = lo nu x1 muvdu ja klama x2 fo x3 cu mulbi'o .i x1 mo'u muvdu ja klama x2 fo x3 |>>> tolyli'a klamu'o |>>>
14:13 < mensi> selpahi
14:13 < selpahi> mi nelci .i ie mi nelci
14:13  * selpahi cu xagji
14:14 < zipcpi> mi zmanei zo darca zo tsuku mu'i lo ka sance ke zmadu melbi be mi
14:15 < selpahi> je'e
14:15 < zipcpi> .iku'i lo ka melbi cu se tamgau lo'e se melbi
14:15 < selpahi> lo melbi cu melbi lo se melbi
14:15 < zipcpi> u'i
14:17  * nuzba @The_dankabyss: They made an album of rap music in #Lojban. Beautiful. http://tinyurl.com/oaal8z3 [http://bit.ly/1SBf1mb]
14:18 < niftg> ta'o doi la selpa'i .i .e'a pei mi djuno lodu'u do puza ca'o litru makau
14:20 < niftg> mi kucli po'o
14:25 < selpahi> lo du'u ma kau se litru na je lo du'u mo kau ca lo nu litru cu vajni
14:31 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/norkai
14:31 < zipcpi> xu xamgu valsi
14:32 < niftg> je'e .i le ji'a se lidne noi bridi cu se kucli
14:33 < zipcpi> fabu cu ckaji lo jbini be lo ka me'au febu kei je lo ka to'e me'au febu
14:34 < zipcpi> .y.
14:34 < zipcpi> lo'u bei lo ka le'u
14:35 < selpahi> x1 nutli lo ka ckaji x2 bi'i lo dukti be x2
14:35 < zipcpi> .y. lo se jbini cu me'oi set
14:35 < zipcpi> zo ce
14:35 < zipcpi> ja zo jo'u
14:36 < selpahi> zo jo'u drani
14:53 < durka42> coi la noi xrukla ui vau selpa'i
14:58 < selpahi> coi
15:00 < durka42> xu do tinju'i lo bi'u zgike
15:01 < rutytar> pendo and xendo are only one letter apart. i didn't know that was allowed
15:02 < selpahi> It's allowed when the two letters are distinct enough
15:02 < durka42> for "sufficiently different" consonants, yes
15:02 < durka42> you won't find "sendo" and "cendo"
15:02 < durka42> there's a list in the CLL somewhere
15:04 < rutytar> so it's binary, the differences aren't ranked on a gradient like with rafsi?
15:04 < durka42> here it is, step 4 lists the "too similar" pairs: http://alexburka.com/lojban/cll/lojban.html#c04s14
15:05 < durka42> yeah, a pair of gismu either conflict or they don't
15:05 < rutytar> that's cool, it makes the prospect of adding more less intimidating
15:06 < rutytar> although they should obviously be created with care
15:06 < selpahi> gismu space is huge
15:06 < durka42> a few proposed experimental gismu already conflict, like {datru} :/
15:06 < durka42> en:gimkamsmikezypro
15:06 < mensi> gimkamsmikezypro [< gismu ka simsa kei fapro ≈ Root word being similar end abstraction oppose] = x1  (word/quote;
15:06 < mensi> probably gismu) conflicts with x2 (word/text; probably gismu) according to rules
15:06 < mensi> x3
15:06 < dutchie> u'i
15:07 < zipcpi> {datru} is just a slimmed down version of {dreika} (undefined) anyway
15:07 < rutytar> the one thing which it occurred to me deserves a gismu is "internet", and "kibro" has 16 votes on jbovlaste
15:08 < zipcpi> {kibro} might as well be considered part of the language now; too useful
15:08 < rutytar> but was there etymology analysis and weighting like with other parts of the language?
15:08 < rutytar> other gismu, that is
15:08 < zipcpi> No... it's formed similarly to the other cultural gismu
15:08 < rutytar> oh right, and it ends with "o"
15:09 < rutytar> where did the letters come from? 'k' at least isn't in the english version
15:09 < rutytar> "cyber"?
15:09 < zipcpi> Yeah we tend to avoid incorporating English sound-shifts
15:10 < zipcpi> And base fu'ivla on the Latin/Greek roots instead
15:10 < durka42> zipcpi: wat? where did {dreika} come from? :p
15:10 < zipcpi> ... funny. I remember it from back before my hiatus
15:10 < rutytar> i'm pretty sure there's no latin word for internet
15:11 < dutchie>  "from Greek kubernētēs steersman, from kubernan to steer, control"
15:11 < zipcpi> Essentially it's a zi'evla from {detytcika}, and had a place for all of YMDHMS and maybe some others
15:11 < durka42> zipcpi: well before your hiatus might be before my time
15:11 < zipcpi> Oh right I don't remember you
15:11 < rutytar> dutchie: where did you get that?
15:11 < dutchie> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cyber
15:12 < rutytar> that's cool
15:12 < zipcpi> It was probably abandoned because it's silly to extend FA just for one brivla
15:12 < dutchie> slightly surprised that greek upsilon ==> lojban {i}, but there you go
15:12 < rutytar> kibro i.imgur.com/6pmvz7R.jpg
15:13 < durka42> http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_latin_word_for_internet
15:13 < ctefaho> uai co'o rodo
15:13 < zipcpi> Ah yes. That. The Vatican actually keeps Latin alive as a language :p
15:13 < zipcpi> And invents new words
15:13 < selpahi> But they pronounce it weird zo'o
15:13 < zipcpi> ie
15:14 < rutytar> speaking of which, is there a bible translation in lojban?
15:14 < selpahi> Only parts
15:14 < bigcentaur> a bible in lojban ... you mean the cll? zo'o
15:15 < durka42> .u'i
15:15 < zipcpi> If so we're all going to hell
15:15 < zipcpi> Lojban-hell
15:15 < bigcentaur> turn to the book of attitudinals
15:15 < rutytar> i wonder what the most widely spoken language which has no bible translation is
15:16 < bigcentaur> oh my goodness you guys
15:16 < rutytar> technically it would be hebrew :p
15:16 < bigcentaur> contact the gideons or some group of superchristians
15:16 < zipcpi> There is this blog called "Bad conlang ideas"... and I submitted one with "A conlang where the entire translation of the Bible is: a"
15:16 < zipcpi> Didn't get put up though
15:17 < bigcentaur> if the superchristians find out there's no translation of the bible in lojban, they'll get right on it. raise money, send missionaries, the whole deal.
15:17 < zipcpi> http://badconlangingideas.tumblr.com/
15:17 < deltab> "The Zhuang language, with 16 million native speakers, is considered[according to whom?] to be the most widespread language without a Bible translation.[citation needed]"
15:17 < zipcpi> If you see a phma around, he's working on it on and off
15:17 < rutytar> zipcpi: each world represents the text with that rank in popularity. a = 1st, b = 2nd, aa = 27th
15:17 < deltab> — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations#Modern_translation_efforts
15:18 < zipcpi> rutytar: Oh yeah, makes perfect sense! :p
15:19 < selpahi> xu do kakne lo ka kancu bau lo .itku'ile
15:19 < zipcpi> Part of the problem is that Lojban has gone through several reforms, and there has been no style guide or cheat sheet compiled
15:19 < zipcpi> Thus names get Lojbanized a dozen different ways
15:19 < bigcentaur> hmm ...
15:20 < selpahi> Jesus should be {iesu}, so the whole text gets erased everytime he comes up.
15:20 < dutchie> u'i
15:20 < bigcentaur> u'i
15:20 < bigcentaur> depending on your theology, there's something really appropriate about that
15:21 < rutytar> so is the LLG going to officially adopt kibro?
15:22 < zipcpi> I don't know if there is any process to officially adopt gismu... there is kinda for cmavo, but they've only adopted very few of them
15:22 < rutytar> where do i petition :p
15:22 < zipcpi> {xa'o} and {ja'ai} for instance
15:23 < bigcentaur> whoa ... i never saw {xa'o} before and i like it
15:23 < dutchie> {za'o} is a thing also
15:24 < zipcpi> {za'o} is a part of the original description, {xa'o} is not
15:24 < zipcpi> But it's a natural addition
15:24 < dutchie> ie
15:24 < zipcpi> And one of the oldest "experimental" cmavo
15:24 < bigcentaur> {za'o} is in the lojbible, the cll
15:24 < rutytar> does anyone know where i could find the arabic gismu etymologies?
15:24 < rutytar> i found the others here http://dealloc.org/~mublin/
15:24 < durka42> it's the BPFK who would "adopt" them, not the LLG
15:24 < dutchie> indeed, {za'o klama}
15:24 < durka42> as the BPFK has already put {xa'o} and {ja'ai} in its sections
15:25 < durka42> but more importantly it's us the community :)
15:25 < dutchie> yeah, usage is what really defines any language
15:25 < durka42> as far as I know nobody has found the original arabic words... just the transliterations into lojban
15:25 < durka42> presumably a fluent arabic speaker could figure out most of them
15:25 < rutytar> i heard once that they exist in hard copy
15:26 < durka42> maybe in a dusty corner of lojbab's basement
15:27 < niftg> .a'o na ba'o se cirko
15:27 < rutytar> are they still active?
15:28 < durka42> who?
15:28 < rutytar> lojbab
15:28 < zipcpi> He's Robin/camgusmis, right?
15:28 < durka42> no
15:28 < zipcpi> Oh
15:29 < durka42> lojbab is Bob LeChavelier
15:29 < zipcpi> ua
15:29 < durka42> one of the original creators of Lojban
15:29 < durka42> nowadays he just does administrative stuff and shouts down people who try to advance the language
15:29 < zipcpi> lol
15:29 < durka42> he led the recent LLG meeting (over email)
15:30 < zipcpi> To him we're all zbusufukai? :p
15:30 < durka42> seems that way sometimes
15:30 < durka42> does zbusufukai have a ma'i place? :p
15:31 < Ilmen> co'o ro do
15:31 < zipcpi> durka42: u'i
15:32 < zipcpi> Erm... the Lojban definition doesn't have a natural ma'i place :p
15:32 < durka42> jbo:zbusufukai
15:32 < mensi> zbusufukai = x1 ckaji lo ka ce'u la bauspo fazykamni x2 simsa gi'a ckini
15:32 < rutytar> does it seem worthwhile to try to get the arabic etymologies out of him?
15:32 < rutytar> it would probably be easier than getting an arabic speaker to go through them
15:32 < durka42> he's probably the one to ask...
15:32 < durka42> dunno if he's been asked before
15:33 < durka42> you might want to search through the google group to see if he's commented on the issue previously
15:33 < rutytar> i've googled about it for a while, but i'll double check
15:40 < rutytar> has there been an effort to complete the set of cultural gismu?
15:40 < zipcpi> No; there are a bunch of zi'evla based on ISO codes added though
15:40 < zipcpi> But I have trouble identifying them
15:41 < durka42> and some cultural zi'evla not based on ISO codes
15:41 < zipcpi> True
15:41 < durka42> like {to'anzu}, zo'o
15:41 < zipcpi> {po'olska}
15:42 < durka42> vlaste: no'ordo
15:42 < vlaste> no'ordo = x1 reflects language/culture/nationality/community of the Nordic countries [ Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, (Baltic states) and Sweden] and their associated territories [the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Svalbard and Åland] in aspect x2.
15:42 < rutytar> since gismu space is so large, would there be a problem with taking all UN recognized nations and giving them cultural gismu ending in o?
15:42 < zipcpi> Huh no one added {tci'ile}. Maybe because there are no Chilean Lojbanists lol
15:42 < durka42> haha, that should be added, it was even in CLL
15:42 < durka42> ahahaha http://badconlangingideas.tumblr.com/post/118871291562/382
15:43 < zipcpi> Yeah better add it before some zbusufukai prenu makes it mean "chilli pepper" or something lol
15:44 < durka42> I'll do it
15:44 < zipcpi> Assignable pronouns are somewhere in there <.<
15:45 < durka42> eh?
15:45 < zipcpi> BCI blog
15:45 < durka42> rutytar: not sure that's ever been attempted! also, I'm not sure exactly how large the space of "gismu forms ending -o that sound sort of like country names" is :)
15:45 < zipcpi> T.T I like my assignable pronouns, even though I don't use them very often lol
15:45 < durka42> ie
15:46 < durka42> guess I'd better add spanish definition of {tci'ile}, huh
15:47 < rutytar> but how is it determined whether sealand is more deserving of a gismu than whatever noun has a similar lojban word?
15:47 < zipcpi> Exactly the problem with the cultural gismu
15:48 < durka42> that was the whole problem, this "deserving" thing
15:48 < zipcpi> xova'ei gimy'inda
15:48 < durka42> that's how the ISO fu'ivla happened, and {zei}
15:49 < durka42> (not that I was there)
15:49 < zipcpi> ko'a pai'e gimy'inda .i ko'e gimy'inda pei'a .i fo'a xova'ei gimy'inda
15:50 < durka42> oi
15:50 < durka42> do those all mean the same?
15:50 < zipcpi> Roughly, yes
15:52 < durka42> oh, NAhE question vs CAI question
15:52 < durka42> because you just _had_ to NIH {je'ai} :)
15:52 < zipcpi> NIH?
15:52 < dutchie> not invented here
15:52 < zipcpi> Ah
15:53 < zipcpi> I dunno; it just doesn't sound like a question word to me, sei jijnu
15:53 < durka42> ie ru'e ru'e
15:56 < rutytar> what about things besides countries? religions, historical cultures, measurements
15:56 < zipcpi> Exactly... those aren't ISO
15:56 < zipcpi> Guess we just have to add zi'evla when we get to them
15:56 < rutytar> units are, actually
15:56 < rutytar> but what are "they", if the have no codes?
15:57 < rutytar> how would you say christian without the gismu xisro?
15:58 < zipcpi> Dunno. $x_1$ is related to *co'e* in aspect $x_2$ (ka) is about the vagues way you can define a word in Lojban
15:58 < rutytar> also i just realized that the CLL is so outdated that is lists russia as the USSR
15:58 < zipcpi> lol
15:59 < rutytar> has anyone considered creating terminology for the ISO units which are built off of the base 7?
15:59 < zipcpi> Why do they even have those
16:00 < rutytar> base units?
16:00 < rutytar> they're units which can't be derived from other units
16:00 < zipcpi> Oh I thought you mean "base 7"
16:00 < zipcpi> As in, numeric base
16:00 < zipcpi> Polysemy strikes again :p
16:01 < zipcpi> Hmm... not sure we have candela or mole
16:01 < zipcpi> Also check out {pi'ai}, {te'ai}, and {fei'u}
16:01 < rutytar> there are a ton of ISO units
16:01 < rutytar> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit
16:02 < rutytar> although i think they deserve gismu, but that's just because i'm into that kind of thing :p
16:02 < zipcpi> candela is {delno}
16:03 < zipcpi> mole is {molro}
16:03 < zipcpi> Guess they did port the base units
16:05 < rutytar> the lojban word for "watt" would be "ki'ograpi'itretefrelpi'inidtefni'uci"
16:05 < dutchie> u'i
16:06 < zipcpi> There is the obsolete fu'ivla *{klanrxuati}
16:06 < zipcpi> I could re-add it as {uatni}
16:06 < rutytar> wouldn't {uatno} be better?
16:07 < zipcpi> (I hate the stage-3 prefixes with the syllabic consonants, if you couldn't tell
16:07 < durka42> or {klanrvati}
16:08 < sezycei> I'm hoping someone's already made the announcement here (I hope) - but I'll just check. You guys know Djemynai released his album today, right?
16:08 < zipcpi> Oh right yeah
16:08 < rutytar> i would assume so
16:08 < sezycei> It sounds awesome.
16:09 < durka42> iesai
16:09 < durka42> I "announced" it retweeting @djemynai and waiting for my bot to paste it here :p
16:09 < durka42> mi pu'o .erve
16:10 < zipcpi> "by standard g3"? what the mabla?
16:10 < durka42> mo'oi valsi
16:10 < sezycei> >what the mabla
16:10 < sezycei> I just laughed so hard
16:10 < zipcpi> zo'oi klanrxuati
16:10 < durka42> zipcpi: surely that definition is spoffed
16:10 < durka42> just comes from {klani} I guess
16:10 < durka42> vlaste: klani
16:10 < vlaste> klani = x1 is a quantity quantified/measured/enumerated by x2 (quantifier) on scale x3 (si'o).
16:10 < durka42> vlaste: klanrxuati
16:10 < vlaste> klanrxuati = g1 is g2 watt(s) of power (default is 1) by standard g3.
16:11 < durka42> what is "g" for anyway...
16:11 < zipcpi> nai'osai
16:11 < durka42> my guess is {grake}
16:11 < durka42> vlaste: grake
16:11 < vlaste> grake = x1 is x2 gram(s) [metric unit] in mass (default is 1) by standard x3.
16:11 < rutytar> isn't rx illegitimate?
16:11 < durka42> all the by-standard places are dumb though
16:11 < durka42> I'd leave it out
16:11 < durka42> rutytar: nope
16:12 < sezycei> durka: {mi pu'o .erve} na jimpe
16:12 < rutytar> my poor tongue...
16:12 < durka42> sezycei: {erve} means {te vecnu}
16:12 < durka42> also, I meant {pu'i}
16:12 < durka42> mi pu'i .erve
16:13 < sezycei> How does {erve} mean {te vecnu}?
16:13 < rutytar> why not waixuati?
16:13 < rutytar> laixuati, i mean
16:13 < durka42> sezycei: because someone defined it that way :) it's a zi'evla
16:13 < zipcpi> -xua- is now illegal
16:13 < durka42> rutytar: those are both more than one word, plus consonants can't be followed by glides
16:13 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/uatno
16:14 < sezycei> Oh, okay, cool.
16:14 < zipcpi> Yeah zi'evla can't be made lightly; you must check that they don't break up first
16:14 < zipcpi> Easiest way to do that is
16:14 < zipcpi> k: uatno
16:14 < mensi> (CU [Z:uatno VAU])
16:14 < zipcpi> Z means zi'evla
16:14  * durka42 adds a note at *{klanrxuati}
16:15 < zipcpi> If it's an L you probably don't want it either because that means it is in lujvo-space
16:15 < durka42> checking that they don't break up gets easier to do in your head with practice, though
16:16 < durka42> of course having edited the notes for {klanrxuati} I can't downvote it... someone else will have to do that :
16:16 < durka42> :)
16:16 < rutytar> what about joule?
16:16 < rutytar> again we get into questions of deservedness
16:16 < durka42> en:djaule
16:16 < mensi> djaule = g1 is g2 joule(s) of energy (default is 1) by standard g3.
16:16 < zipcpi> Just upvote me here: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/en/watt
16:16 < durka42> I see you ignored jbovlaste's shrill warning about adding duplicate gloss words :)
16:17 < durka42> I just killed klanrxuati's gloss so it's not a problem anymore
16:17 < zipcpi> Yay
16:17 < zipcpi> The problem is that I just tune out those warnings; it's way too sensitive
16:17 < rutytar> is there any reason not to go through all 29 SI units and give them gismu?
16:17 < durka42> okay, need to remember the incantation to hook up my Sonos to my laptop sound so I can really listen to #ZAhO
16:18 < zipcpi> "Did you mean" *giant wall of words that are spelled kinda sorta alike"
16:18 < zipcpi> It's insanity
16:19 < durka42> yeah but there is a separate (hard to see) warning that another word has the exact same gloss
16:19 < zipcpi> I should probably link to {dikca} as well
16:19 < durka42> that interface really needs to be redesigned
16:20 < zipcpi> I submit synonyms all the time
16:20 < zipcpi> Especially beheading type threes...
16:20 < durka42> haha
16:20 < phma> coi
16:20 < sezycei> What name does {la selckiku} go by now?
16:20 < durka42> coi
16:20 < durka42> sezycei: haven't seen him around here by any name in a while
16:21 < durka42> he's /u/mungojelly on reddit
16:21 < sezycei> Really? That surprises me, considering how extremely active he was.
16:21 < durka42> me too
16:21 < zipcpi> I think Curtis really likes my scale words
16:21 < durka42> I consider that a demerit zo'o zo'onai
16:21 < zipcpi> lol
16:23 < rutytar> zipcpi: when you mentioned english sound-shifts, what did you mean?
16:24 < zipcpi> ei.i.ai.ou.iu
16:24 < durka42> the Great Vowel Shift?
16:24 < zipcpi> Yes, one of it
16:24 < rutytar> is there a tool for figuring out if a gismu conflicts?
16:24 < zipcpi> Just... basically what we do when making Latin/Greek fu'ivla
16:25 < zipcpi> In English
16:25 < durka42> umm, DerSaidin has a tool that does that somewhere
16:25 < zipcpi> We spell them in a Latin/Greek way, then pronounce them in an English way
16:25 < zipcpi> Post vowel-shift and all
16:26 < zipcpi> Gonna write a Lojban definition for {uatno}, but it's gonna abuse {pi'ai} and friends
16:26 < durka42> https://github.com/DerSaidin/gimste/blob/master/validator.py#L177
16:27 < durka42> zipcpi: that's what {pi'ai} and friends are for, definitions not casual speech, says I
16:28 < zipcpi> Yeah but la samyuan needs to define pi'ai and friends based on mathematical manipulations :p
16:28 < zipcpi> Maybe Ilmen
16:29 < phma> xu doi rutytar lo nu fanva la .bibel. kei cinri do
16:30 < rutytar> phma: u'u nago'i
16:31 < zipcpi> {la sornai raurci'e} = My rendering of SI
16:31 < zipcpi> But... how to enter that
16:31 < durka42> you could enter it as a zei-lujvo
16:32 < zipcpi> sornai zei raurci'e?
16:33 < durka42> yeah
16:34 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/sornai%20zei%20raurci'e
16:34 < durka42> better add a French def :)
16:35 < zipcpi> I don't know French
16:35 < durka42> me neither
16:35 < durka42> Ilmen does
16:35 < durka42> though we could probably figure out how to say "A is B", lol
16:37 < durka42> "x1 c'est le Système International d'Unités"?
16:37 < phma> why do you need a zei for that? what's wrong with sornairauci'e?
16:37 < zipcpi> Hmm...
16:37 < zipcpi> I should probably define {raurci'e} too
16:38 < zipcpi> Yeah maybe I'll add that too
16:38 < zipcpi> And an x2 place might be useful, for what it defines?
16:38 < zipcpi> Dunno what place it's from though
16:38 < durka42> ciste3 I guess, but who cares :p
16:39 < zipcpi> x1 is the SI (International System of Units), defining units x2
16:40 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/raurci'e
16:41 < durka42> so then you can say {lo si'o djaule cu nejni se sornai zei raurci'e}
16:41 < durka42> is that right?
16:41 < zipcpi> I guess so
16:42 < durka42> now I don't know how to add x2 to the french def :)
16:42 < zipcpi> u'i
16:42 < phma> lo se ciste is how the units are related, which is being changed
16:42 < zipcpi> jvojva makes my head hurt
16:42 < durka42> mensi: doi Ilmen mi nitcu tu'a lo se fasybau .i .e'o cikre lo mi fasyvelcki pe lu sornai zei raurci'e li'u
16:42 < mensi> durka42: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.Ilmen.gy. di'a cusku da
16:43 < phma> they're working on redefining the kilogram; if they fix Planck's constant, that changes how it's related to the other units.
16:44 < durka42> so I hear
16:44 < zipcpi> OK also added {sornairauci'e} as a synonym
16:44 < durka42> I added an example
16:44 < durka42> teamwork!
16:44 < zipcpi> Yay
16:45 < rutytar> phma: i think we still don't know what planck's constant is with enough precision to improve over the reference kilo
16:46 < selpahi> (Planck length in Ithkuil is "akpʰalik" )
16:47 < durka42> xu do binxo lo ka .itku'ilybaucre
16:47 < selpahi> ju'o cu'i go'i
16:47 < durka42> ju .itku'ilyrolrafcre zo'o
16:48 < selpahi> lo ka .itku'ilycre cu sa'e nai ka rolrafcre
16:48 < durka42> lo balrai nabmi pe lo .itku'ile zo'u ciska pi'o ge lercu'aca'a
16:48 < durka42> s/pi'o/sepi'o
16:48 < phenny> durka42 meant to say: lo balrai nabmi pe lo .itku'ile zo'u ciska sepi'o ge lercu'aca'a
16:48 < selpahi> .u'i ia nai
16:49 < selpahi> senpi lo du'u balrai lo nabmi fa su srana be lo ka ciska
16:49 < zipcpi> .y. zo ge ki'a
16:49 < durka42> ie
16:49 < selpahi> (to ta'o zo banli zo'u ie pei ka zanmutce toi)
16:49 < mensi> ei mi tugni
16:49 < durka42> zo ge me zo mo'oi soi zbusufukai
16:49 < zipcpi> u'i
16:50 < zipcpi> ko jmina fi lo papri pe la tcekitaujau
16:50 < durka42> xu za'o na pu jmina
16:50 < zipcpi> go'i
16:51 < zipcpi> And {moi'oi} can be {gei}; though I don't know how selpa'i feels about mass-gadri :p
16:52 < selpahi> xu do se slabu la'o gy. AutoHotkey .gy .i mi pu pilno ri lo ka se frili ciska lo to'anzu lerfu
16:52 < selpahi> .i ka'e pilno fi  ji'a tu'a lo .itku'ile
16:53 < durka42> selpahi: ca lo nu do litru pe'a kei la zipcpi cu krefu finti ro lo gadri
16:53 < selpahi> za'a
16:53 < selpahi> .u'i
16:53 < zipcpi> trinary mathematical operator: order of magnitude/value/base; [b * (c to the a power)] Not even sure why that's here; there is already {pi'i} and
16:53 < zipcpi> {te'a}
16:54 < durka42> for scientific notation
16:54 < durka42> selpahi: xu su da xa'o .uitki papri sera'a lo do terjonma'o ciste
16:54 < zipcpi> Well yeah... but is it pavyslakycmavy'inda
16:55 < durka42> .u'i
16:55 < zipcpi> la'a na go'i
16:55 < selpahi> la .itku'ile zo'u lo mukti be lo nu mi tadni cu se pa mei lo nu sa'e nai ro da birti lo du'u na ka'e se bangu ru .i mi se cinri lo nu je'urja'o lo dukti (to ku'i lo du'u mi ji kau na'e mi cu je'urja'o cu no'e vajni toi)
16:56 < zipcpi> Also I don't even know how n-ary (where n = za'ure) operators even work
16:56 < durka42> selpahi: do cipra skepre sa'u .u'i
16:56 < selpahi> no da uitki papri .i kibykarni po'o papri
16:57 < durka42> je'e
16:57 < durka42> .au go'e
16:57 < zipcpi> Maybe with {pe'o}
16:57 < durka42> it requires {ge'a}
16:58 < zipcpi> Funny word that; probably one of the least-used cmavo, but gaining some importants with the discussion of xornunsep lol
16:58 < durka42> how many importants?
16:58 < zipcpi> Typo x.x
16:58 < durka42> I think ~6.38 importants
16:58 < zipcpi> s/importants/importance
16:58 < phenny> zipcpi meant to say: Funny word that; probably one of the least-used cmavo, but gaining some importance with the discussion of xornunsep lol
16:58 < selpahi> How come this proposal is suddenly such a hot topic on the list?
16:59 < zipcpi> xornunsep?
16:59 < selpahi> Yeah
16:59 < zipcpi> Well, because it clashes with my system of dates
16:59 < selpahi> Did you know that I once proposed to merge BY with PA (sort of the opposite). xalbo didn't like it :)
16:59 < durka42> la zipcpi made a thread about his proposed detri system, and then la xorxes made a comment offhand about namcu/lerfu
16:59 < durka42> which la gleki amplified
16:59 < selpahi> Yes I know that much. But why does it look like people are suddenly in favor
17:00 < zipcpi> I don't know
17:00 < durka42> ba'e mi na zanru
17:00 < durka42> .u'i
17:00 < selpahi> sei mi stace mi na mutce nelci
17:00 < selpahi> #mensi
17:00 < zipcpi> u'i
17:00 < phma> va lindi .i la'a de'a jorne
17:00 < durka42> doi mensi .ei ma'a pavmeigau lo namcu jo'u lo lerfu iepei
17:00 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
17:00 < selpahi> Lojban: The language where a bot contributed half the idiomatic phrases
17:01 < durka42> sei ca ca'o ningau lo sorcu pe mi
17:01 < selpahi> My old merge idea would have removed lerfu pro-sumti, but would have made BY into quantifiers.
17:01 < durka42> hey!
17:01 < durka42> that's not lojban
17:01  * durka42 tinju'i lo te tokponybau
17:01 < zipcpi> I support XNS *except* breaking LI...LOhO T.T
17:01 < selpahi> I think pabu is ugly.
17:01 < zipcpi> iesai
17:02 < durka42> quantifiers? i.e. mo'e by da => by da ?
17:02 < selpahi> Yes
17:02 < zipcpi> If your house number is 11A (used over here in place of 13), do you have to say li pabu pabu abu?
17:02 < zipcpi> Ew
17:02 < zipcpi> While your neighbor gets to say li papa
17:02 < selpahi> You'd hate your neighbor forever for having the easier house number
17:02 < zipcpi> u'i
17:03 < durka42> li paci xe fanva zo'oi 11A
17:03 < zipcpi> I defined {li'ei} just as a "see what you made me do" thing
17:05 < zipcpi> And yeah I probably will just use 13 too
17:05 < selpahi> Since the main motivation of the proposal is {.abu za'u re'u broda}, and since lerfu pro-sumti are only so big because Lojban has nearly zero anaphoric pronouns, wouldn't it be better to just fix the latter problem instead ?
17:06 < selpahi> I'm already avoiding lerfu pro-sumti, and apparently Ilmen never uses them.
17:06 < zipcpi> But as I've said du'eroi, arbitrary charstrings and irregular numbers are freaking everywhere
17:06 < zipcpi> License plates
17:06 < zipcpi> Addresses
17:06 < zipcpi> Passwords
17:06 < zipcpi> Form numbers
17:06 < zipcpi> Thus {li'ei} is necessary if they're gonna push xornunsep all the way
17:07 < durka42> how would we make new anaphoric pronouns?
17:07 < zipcpi> On selpahi's old blog post gleki propose a set of {Cu'ai} pronouns
17:08 < selpahi> BPFK has yet to come up with a new method of discussing and approving changes formally, but there would have to be strong demand for such a change, and good reasons.
17:08 < zipcpi> Can't remember them off the top of my head though
17:08  * durka42 is afraid la guskant will just set up another google docs vote, and it will pass by xorxes' star power
17:08 < durka42> and then we will have a mess to clea nup
17:08 < zipcpi> What, vote for XNS?
17:09 < durka42> yeah
17:09 < zipcpi> Ah
17:09 < durka42> like she did for consonant-glides
17:09 < zipcpi> By the way who else uses my XNS name? lol
17:10 < durka42> ku'i seja'e lo jecra'a mi co'a tatpi .i lo fasnu cu fasnu
17:10 < durka42> nobody, it's confusing because it sounds like it's about xorlo, .u'i
17:10 < zipcpi> mi jimpe
17:11 < durka42> mi tatpi seja'e ji'a lo vidrnxepstinbari
17:11 < zipcpi> It might as well be about xorlo at this rate :p
17:11 < selpahi> xorlo is perfect.
17:11 < selpahi> *waits*
17:11 < rutytar> what if a gismu has similar characters, but ends on a different vowel?
17:12  * zipcpi explodes
17:12 < durka42> in other words, does {datro} conflict with {tatru}
17:12 < rutytar> go'i
17:12 < zipcpi> I think there are some official gismu that already "clash" that way
17:12 < durka42> I think the answer is no
17:12 < selpahi> Seems like a good bot function.
17:13 < selpahi> "clash: datro tatru"
17:13 < durka42> yes, but the writer of such a bot would have to know the answer :)
17:13  * zipcpi prepares for flood of gismu
17:13 < selpahi> Then again, how often do people need to make up new gismu. Oh wait, everyday, I forgot.
17:13 < durka42> la rutytar wants a gismu for each ISO country fu'ivla...
17:13 < zipcpi> OK yeah I agree that xorlo needed to happen
17:14 < zipcpi> I just feel it kinda sad that there are a bunch of cmavo that are poorly defined and/or unused
17:14 < zipcpi> *that it left that in its wake
17:14 < selpahi> Possible solution: Remove them, then they aren't unused or poorly defined anymore
17:14 < durka42> "For example, because “gismu” is in the set of gismu, “kismu”, “xismu”, “gicmu”, “gizmu”, and “gisnu” cannot be."
17:15 < rutytar> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=phyZvT9E
17:15 < durka42> it doesn't say kismo and kisma and kisme are bad
17:15 < zipcpi> selpahi: But how do I tell apart the four cases that I've listed?
17:16 < durka42> ew bash :)
17:16 < zipcpi> And we had endless discussions over what exactly the word "specific"/{itca} means x.x
17:16 < rutytar> durka42: i'm still learning, i'll have plenty of time for opinions when i actually understand the language
17:16 < rutytar> would you like to code it in c for me durka42?
17:16 < durka42> well, la vlaste is written in python currently
17:17 < rutytar> i'm not sure gismu creation should be seen as a priority
17:17 < selpahi> I've read the backlog of the last couple weeks.
17:17 < selpahi> Lots of gadri discussions.
17:17 < selpahi> Too bad I wasn't there.
17:17 < durka42> je'u
17:18 < durka42> also mabla, you read fast
17:19 < selpahi> I made a few notes
17:19 < zipcpi> Where?
17:20 < selpahi> in a file.
17:20 < zipcpi> Ah
17:20 < rutytar> isn't reading fast xamgu?
17:20 < selpahi> xamgu ma
17:20 < zipcpi> He means {ki'ai mabla}
17:20 < selpahi> cadguha's weird tu'o reverse-tu'a tag injection idea: I get the idea, but as I see it it's not worth it compared to using {lo voi/poi'i}. Both are forethought, but your {tu'o} doesn't allow you to specify where in the abstraction the tag-phrase is placed, while {voi/poi'i} gives you full control over it for no loss at all.
17:20 < durka42> I missed that one
17:21 < selpahi> gleki la bangu vlaste:
17:21 < selpahi> The examples for zo'i are wrong.
17:21 < zipcpi> ... I don't remember anything about tu'o/tu'a
17:21 < durka42> jb:zo'i
17:21 < mensi> zo'i = zo'i [preposition of place] — on the same side as ...
17:21 < mensi> :mi sanli bu'u lo klaji zo'i le muzga — I'm standing on the street on the same side as the museum.
17:21 < mensi> :mi zutse lo lalxu korbi zo'i le laldo cindu — I'm sitting by the river on the same side as the old oak.
17:21 < zipcpi> Guess he also worked on a separate thing
17:21 < selpahi> No, it just randomly came up in this channel
17:21 < zipcpi> Ah
17:22 < selpahi> < zipcpi> Because selpa'i-tu'a broadened the grammar of LAhE, but I'm not sure what the semantic of the other LAhE should be :p
17:22 < selpahi> I have proposed that {tu'a} be moved to TUhA.
17:22 < zipcpi> selpahi: Oh yeah I noticed that
17:22 < zipcpi> The tu'anaku thing
17:22 < zipcpi> But we have no idea what la'enaku means
17:22 < selpahi> < gleki> LAhE should die -- Yes :P
17:23 < zipcpi> Or lu'inaku :p
17:23 < durka42> hmm you'd also want to be able to ask "clash: datru" though
17:23 < selpahi> Good idea
17:23 < selpahi> @xalbo> Take an abstraction and retrieve some (unspecified) concrete sumti therefrom? Yeah, there isn't something exactly like that.  -- Sometimes {jai NU} can accomplish this. {voi/poi'i} is the universal solution, though.
17:23 < zipcpi> What would it clash against though? Only official gismu?
17:23 < durka42> both
17:23 < durka42> it'd tell you which
17:23 < zipcpi> Ah
17:24 < zipcpi> So then you can decide whether it's worth deprecating the old gismu
17:24 < durka42> vlaste: datru tatru (clash)
17:24 < vlaste> sei ca ca'o sampla ko denpa
17:24 < selpahi> I had a few notes about the gadri, but I think I'll just remain silent.
17:25 < zipcpi> Hm
17:25 < selpahi> When one has nothing nice to say... zo'o
17:25 < zipcpi> lol
17:27 < selpahi> My opinion doesn't count anyway. I only use {lo}.
17:27 < zipcpi> Yeah I know
17:27 < zipcpi> I just don't know how else to solve this problem though
17:28 < selpahi> You could improve the definitions, I think. And make them more logically consistent.
17:28 < zipcpi> Maybe
17:28 < zipcpi> Mostly I'm having second thoughts about the {lo} = {le/lo'e} thing because I did also list two more cases
17:28 < zipcpi> One of which isn't proposed as a gadri
17:29 < zipcpi> But it's... hard to explain
17:29 < selpahi> But the existing definitions of {le} and {lo'e} aren't really different from yours, and you're not trying to change {lo} either, so ....
17:29 < rutytar> coi
17:29 < zipcpi> Exactly...
17:30 < selpahi> The mass version are all redundant to {gunma}, therefore, you don't have to propose anything.
17:30 < selpahi> versions*
17:30 < zipcpi> lo gunma be lo x
17:31 < selpahi> The {lVi} gadri are semi-broken, in that you can't specify an inner quantifier that counts the masses, while you can with {gunma}.
17:31  * durka42 cu cilre lo cnino velcki be zo smaji
17:31 < zipcpi> Hm
17:32 < zipcpi> {lo'i} started off as a completely mabla misunderstanding
17:33 < selpahi> Yes :)
17:33 < rutytar> is there a table of ipa characters to closest lojban characters?
17:33 < zipcpi> I just started using it as a way to talk about definitions
17:33 < zipcpi> Then everything blew up
17:33 < zipcpi> mi ja'a se dimna lo ka daspo lo jbobau
17:34 < selpahi> rutytar: If I were as good as guskant at doing magic with wiki tables, I'd make you a wiki page.
17:34 < selpahi> Sadly, I'm not.
17:34 < selpahi> CLL has something though
17:34 < zipcpi> I actually had a... very incomplete draft of a language descriptor
17:34 < rutytar> i can do with shitty formatting
17:34 < zipcpi> But it did include phonology
17:35 < selpahi> https://lojban.github.io/cll/3/2/
17:35 < rutytar> i'm trying to translate coulomb. in ipa it's kulɔ̃
17:35 < selpahi> It's a start.
17:35 < zipcpi> k: ckulombo
17:35 < mensi> (CU [L:ckulombo VAU])
17:35 < zipcpi> No
17:35 < durka42> ckulomo?
17:36 < zipcpi> Workable I suppose
17:36 < rutytar> is {mb} an invalid consonant pair?
17:36 < zipcpi> No. {damba}
17:36 < selpahi> No.
17:36 < zipcpi> Yet {mz} is uanaisai
17:37 < rutytar> okay
17:38 < rutytar> i guess what i was looking for is a way to automatically get lojban script by inputting IPA
17:38 < rutytar> if that doesn't exist, it's no more arbitrary to translate manually than to create that manually and use it to automatically translate
17:39 < zipcpi> The problem is that a zi'evlaization algorithm does not exist. Except for stage 3, which ... yeah
17:39 < selpahi> Yesterday I randomly met a Lojbanist in the comment section of a youtube video.
17:40 < rutytar> why doesn't the community make one?
17:40 < zipcpi> Because we haven't figured out how to algorithmically make satisfying zi'evla
17:40 < zipcpi> Right now it's all trial and error
17:41 < rutytar> what would be wrong with mapping IPA characters to their closest lojban characters?
17:42 < zipcpi> Erm, I'm not sure why one would need that; we mostly just choose the sounds
17:42 < zipcpi> There are plenty of characters that are no'e-one or the other
17:43 < zipcpi> And we've already established that it's undesirable to copy the Great Vowel Shift into Lojban... other languages also have similar considerations that the IPA does not reflect
17:44 < selpahi> The problem is that simply converting from IPA into lojban does not yield valid brivla.
17:44 < zipcpi> That too
17:44 < zipcpi> zi'evla-ization right now is mostly trial and error
17:45 < zipcpi> We take a string of phonemes
17:45 < zipcpi> And just play with it like a cat would a mouse
17:45 < zipcpi> Squeeze, massage, try several different languages
17:45 < zipcpi> Anything to get the program to accept it
17:46 < zipcpi> And get that nice little Z:
17:47 < zipcpi> It's the sacrifice we have to make for self-segregating morphology
17:47 < selpahi> Yup.
17:53 < zipcpi> I think there are some particularly problemating phonemic shapes
17:53 < zipcpi> *problematic
17:53 < zipcpi> CVCCVCV
17:53 < zipcpi> CVCVCCV
17:54 < zipcpi> Find trying to zi'evla-ize those the most difficult; often I have to apply more than one mutation
17:54 < zipcpi> And come up with a word I'm not so proud of
17:54 < zipcpi> mustela for instance
17:54 < durka42> tosmabru
17:54 < zipcpi> I ended up with {mutsteila}
17:56 < durka42> en: mutsteila
17:56 < mensi> mutsteila = x1 is a weasel (genus Mustela) of species/variety x2. |>>> See ermine, fulreto |>>>
17:56 < mensi> spheniscine
17:56 < durka42> mm hard to avoid a lujvo form there
17:56 < zipcpi> Exactly
17:57 < durka42> vlaste: datru tatru (gimkamsmikezypro)
17:57 < vlaste> zo datru gimkamsmikezypro zo tatru
17:57 < durka42> please test
17:57 < zipcpi> vlaste: datru tatru (clash)
17:57 < vlaste> zo datru gimkamsmikezypro zo tatru
17:57 < durka42> not finished
17:57 < durka42> vlaste: datru (simsa)
17:57 < vlaste> error: lo nu cipra fi lo ro gismu zo'o ca ca'o sampla .i ko denpa
17:57 < durka42> whoops
17:58 < durka42> vlaste: datru (conflict)
17:58 < vlaste> error: lo nu cipra fi lo ro gismu zo'u ba ca'o sampla .i ko denpa
18:01 < rutytar> gismu can't have two of the same vowel, right?
18:01 < selpahi> They can.
18:01 < selpahi> E.g. {klama}
18:01 < rutytar> okay, cool
18:02 < selpahi> Dear programmers, how hard would it be to make this tool I sketched out here in amazing detail: http://piratepad.net/QHUdaKqexN
18:04 < rutytar> poor selpahi, lojban nerd but not a programmer :(
18:04 < zipcpi> Oh as for {gunma} and mass gadri
18:04 < zipcpi> exp: re lu'o ci lo mu prenu
18:04 < mensi> ([{re BOI} {lu'o <ci BOI> <lo (¹mu BOI¹) prenu> KU} LUhU] VAU)
18:04 < rutytar> so this is pretty much anki in browser?
18:05 < selpahi> Yes, but much more primitive.
18:05 < zipcpi> {lu'o} can be the shorthand, but it's probably not very common
18:05 < selpahi> It's all about cramming. No SRS
18:06 < zipcpi> exp: re lu'o ci lo mu prenu re lu'o ci lo mu prenu cu broda
18:06 < mensi> ([{<re BOI> <lu'o (¹ci BOI¹) (¹lo [mu BOI] prenu¹) KU> LUhU} {re BOI} {lu'o <ci BOI> <lo (¹mu BOI¹) prenu> KU} LUhU] [cu {broda VAU}])
18:07 < rutytar> so {mn} is valid? but not {nm}?
18:07 < zipcpi> exp: mo'oi plise
18:07 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "p" found.
18:07 < selpahi> Both are valid.
18:07 < zipcpi> na sanji zo mo'oi i'au li'a
18:07 < selpahi> Cf. {tamne} and {lanme}
18:08 < zipcpi> exp: lo'i re me ci lu'o vo lo mu prenu
18:08 < mensi> ([lo'i {<re BOI> <me (¹[ci BOI] [lu'o {vo BOI} {lo <mu BOI> prenu} KU] LUhU¹) MEhU>} KU] VAU)
18:11 < selpahi> .ei mi sipna
18:11  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
18:11 < durka42> co'o zgipre
18:11  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
18:11 < selpahi> .y attàwîl !
18:11 < selpahi> :)
18:21 < rutytar> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=39eJ45qm is this stupid?
18:22 < zipcpi> uatno and ertso aren't gismu but who cares lol
18:23 < rutytar> what are they, then?
18:23 < durka42> neither is "henro" .u'i, that would have to be {xenro}, but {xenru} conflicts
18:23 < zipcpi> They are zi'evla
18:23 < durka42> otherwise, si'au banli :)
18:23 < rutytar> oh yeah, i forgot about that...
18:23 < rutytar> i was thinking that one was a little too easy
18:23 < durka42> vlaste: vebro xebro (clash)
18:23 < vlaste> no da no de gimkamsmikezypro
18:24 < durka42> vlaste: henry
18:24 < vlaste> 2 results: enri, enri, klanrxenri, klanrxenri
18:24 < durka42> what's wrong with {enri}
18:24 < zipcpi> enri seems fine
18:24 < durka42> it's even shorter than a gismu!
18:25 < zipcpi> Newton is already ni'utni technically... dunno whether it's desirable to keep most of these short
18:25 < rutytar> it seems inconsistent to give gismu to some units but not others. that's what i was thinking when i made this
18:25 < durka42> what's a gray!?
18:25 < deltab> radiation
18:25 < zipcpi> Not all units are created equal though
18:26 < durka42> that's an endless rabbit hole though :/
18:26 < durka42> "all the SI units" might be a logical delineating point, though
18:26 < rutytar> they're not equal, but the least arbitrary option seems to me to be to follow the ISO
18:26 < durka42> also pe'i we glorify the gismu form too much sometimes
18:26 < rutytar> what's important to current lojbanists isn't what is important to the people we want to design lojban around
18:27 < durka42> uanai
18:27 < durka42> lo se jbobau cu se jbobau
18:27 < rutytar> then why arabic etymology?
18:28 < durka42> ok fair point :)
18:28 < durka42> I think current lojbanists get a vote though!
18:29 < rutytar> gtg
18:29 < rutytar> co'o
18:35 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ni'utni Looks like the old lujvo had one too many -tre-s
18:35 < zipcpi> And... yuck
18:36 < durka42> kg m^s / s^2?
18:36 < durka42> hmm yeah that's wrong
18:36 < zipcpi> 1 kg⋅m/s2
18:37 < zipcpi> And technically we have {fei'u snidu} for hertz... though I'm not sure how to make it specifically measure frequency
18:38 < durka42> en: fei'u
18:38 < mensi> fei'u = [KE] Prefix division by following unit selbri |>>> Cf. pi'ai, te'ai, fi'u. Essentially attaches "te'ai ni'u pa"
18:38 < mensi> to all subsequent unit-selbri in the tanru. E.g. "pi'ai ki'otre fei'u cacra" = "pi'ai ki'otre cacra te'ai ni'u pa" = "
18:38 < mensi> kilometers per hour"; "pi'ai mitre fei'u snidu snidu" = meters per second per second. May even be used without pi'ai: "
18:38 < mensi> fei'u snidu" = reciprocal of the second / hertz |>>> spheniscine
18:38 < zipcpi> Maybe that's what the x3 is for :p
18:39 < durka42> I guess {fei'u snidu} is the definition of {ertso}
18:39 < zipcpi> Mhm
18:39 < zipcpi> I tried to use {to'e snidu} but people didn't like it
18:39 < durka42> I'm all for having single words for the SI units, even if I don't care whether they're all gismu or not
18:40 < zipcpi> ie
18:40 < durka42> it's not like we have any short rafsi left for them, which is the only advantage of gismu forms...
18:40 < durka42> :p
18:40 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ertso hah
18:40 < zipcpi> Now the only problem is making it measure frequency
18:40 < zipcpi> In our Lojban def
18:40 < durka42> uanai
18:41 < zipcpi> Like I said, maybe that's what the {te klani} are supposed to be lol
18:41 < durka42> vlaste: snidu
18:41 < vlaste> snidu = x1 is x2 seconds in duration (default is 1 second) by standard x3.
18:42 < zipcpi> I don't even know what "frequency" is in Lojban
18:42 < durka42> it seems like your definition of {fei'u} would make {fei'u snidu} = x1 is x2 1/seconds in frequency (default 1 Hz)
18:42 < zipcpi> Yes, that's what is intended
18:43 < zipcpi> Well, both {pi'ai} and {fei'u} are in selma'o KE
18:43 < durka42> yeah...
18:43 < durka42> which is a little weird
18:43 < durka42> but it works I guess
18:44 < zipcpi> I made {fei'u} mostly because {pi'ai minli fei'u cacra} is much easier for people to swallow than {pi'ai minli cacra te'ai ni'u pa}
18:46 < durka42> yeah
18:54 < ctefaho> coi
18:58  * ctefaho has found new ways to make jbopre happy
18:58 < durka42> coi ru'e
19:02  * nuzba @Music_Reddit: Djemynai - HZA'O [Lojban Hip-hop] https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao [http://bit.ly/1IYkijh]
19:11 < zipcpi> More dangerous thoughts on scales: Does it make sense to have a ternary scale system: positive, negative, and... I'm not sure what to call the third one
19:11 < zipcpi> But just like some attitudinals take {cu'isai}
19:12 < zipcpi> It may be possible for something to be "very neutral" rather than just "neutral", depending on scale
19:12 < zipcpi> {no'e'u} might be overloadable for that though
19:13 < zipcpi> At this point I think some people would just suggest {ka'o} :p
19:20 < zipcpi> If *only* ja'ai/nai can be suffixed
19:21 < zipcpi> Then that {rauva'e} problem could be solved at least for now, while we let the unassigned cmavo rest
19:21 < zipcpi> exp: broda ja'ai xi rau
19:21 < mensi> (CU [{broda ja'ai} {xi <rau BOI>}] VAU)
19:29 < durka42> xu do pamli'u mi .i ja'a xi ka'o go'i
19:29 < durka42> "Will you go out with me?" "In your dreams!"
19:31  * nuzba @Reddit_Music: Djemynai - HZA'O [Lojban Hip-hop] http://service.rss2twi.com/link/Reddit_Music/?post_id=10737375 [http://bit.ly/1H4dCAO]
20:21 < ctefaho> praise xoi
20:21 < ctefaho> xoi is love
20:23  * nuzba @bripre: #lojban .uisai.uodai https://twitter.com/Djemynai/status/612678497417461760 [http://bit.ly/1Lukwik]
20:29  * nuzba @komiga: ZA'O, Lojban rap by Djemynai. // https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao [http://bit.ly/1LulF9O]
20:32 < rutytar> coi
20:34  * nuzba @uitki: nuzba - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzba by Guskant - djemynai albuma [http://bit.ly/1LefXLb]
20:38  * nuzba @uitki: nuzba/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzba/en by Guskant - djemynai albuma [http://bit.ly/1LundjT]
20:46  * nuzba @uitki: lojban music - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/lojban_music by Guskant - /* Full songs */ djemynai albuma [http://bit.ly/1LegZGV]
21:11 < ctefaho> coi rutytar
21:11 < rutytar> coi
21:12 < ctefaho> HOT STUFF COMING IN: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o
21:12 < rutytar> above my level for now
21:12 < deltab> a Simpsons reference?
21:13 < ctefaho> not intentional
21:13 < rutytar> simpsons did it
21:14 < rutytar> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=Xg65M7kg could i get some feedback on this?
21:14 < ctefaho> na: {na broda} -> {na zo'e ku broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a} +++ {broda na ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a natfe ke'a}
21:14 < ctefaho> {ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e ku broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e to'e natfe ke'a} +++ {broda ja'a ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a to'e natfe ke'a}
21:14  * ctefaho runs
21:15  * ctefaho si hides
21:16  * nuzba @uitki: new-fi'o - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o by Ctefaho [http://bit.ly/1GgXhF1]
21:18 < deltab> veby is ve by
21:19 < rutytar> i was just trying to list the characters to draw from
21:20 < deltab> oh
21:27  * ctefaho gtg co'o
22:54 < ctefaho> coi
22:59 < Taun> : |
22:59 < Taun>          : I
22:59 < ctefaho> I :
22:59 < ctefaho> hi?
22:59 < Taun>                3 :    (
23:00 < Taun> coi
23:00 < Taun> I just came here, as I do not often do, to see if anything was shaking, shaking, up in here
23:01  * ctefaho is in fact shaking things up a bit
23:02 < Taun> la .taun. terpa zo'o ju'onai
23:03 < ctefaho> doi Taun http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o
23:05 < Taun> Now I just have to look up xoi -- aw, a complicated multi-part definition
23:05 < ctefaho> it is basically like new-soi http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new_soi
23:06 < gleki> mensi: doi selpah ma drani mupli zo zo'i
23:06 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.selpah.gy. di'a cusku da
23:06 < ctefaho> but soi has top scope, xoi has...not
23:06 < Taun> Interesting~ I don't disapprove, I'm just not and have never been on the grammar up-and-up with Lojban and will probably stick to The Old, or Semi-Old, Ways if-when I use it
23:06 < Taun> The deep grammar eludes me
23:06 < ctefaho> hey gleki
23:06 < ctefaho> {na broda} -> {na zo'e ku broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a}
23:07  * ctefaho jumps into a bunker
23:07  * Taun observes from very, very far away
23:08 < ctefaho> Taun: xoi and soi basically act on lo su'u no'a ku
23:09 < ctefaho> everything you put into it messes with su'u no'a
23:09 < Taun> no'a!? Another thing to look up. It's a really really simple thing, but still. That's my grammar status
23:09 < gleki> mensi: doi zipcpi {le} is more than ri'oi since it works exophorically too. hence semantical parsing
23:09 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.zipcpi.gy. di'a cusku da
23:09 < Taun> je'e
23:09 < Taun> ru'e
23:10 < Taun> but that's okay though; signing off
23:10 < ctefaho> co'o
23:10 < Taun> to return on some undetermined date, possibly, ju'ocu'i
23:10 < Taun> co'o ro do
23:12  * ctefaho leaves bunker
23:13 < ctefaho> I take it that Happy approves
23:15 < gleki> mensi: doi selpah lo do nuncilre tutci cu simsa la nulern vau ienaipei  i doi la mensi ko morsi
23:15 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.selpah.gy. di'a cusku da
23:15 < mensi> ei mi tugni
23:20 < gleki> mensi: doi selpah zo zo'i zo'u ju'oi https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/rZVYxxiOrqI/y4lea4BDY04J
23:20 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.selpah.gy. di'a cusku da
23:20 < noncomcinse> coi jbopre
23:21 < ctefaho> coi noncomcinse
23:22 < noncomcinse> do mo
23:22 < ctefaho> mi tinkerini
23:23 < noncomcinse> en: tinkerini
23:23 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
23:24 < noncomcinse> .i smuni ma doi la ctefa'o
23:24 < ctefaho> Tinkering
23:24 < noncomcinse> .i .e'o zo za'e jai se stidi ta'o
23:24 < ctefaho> I am putting xoi *everywhere*
23:24 < noncomcinse> ua
23:25 < noncomcinse> .i mi se nabmi tu'a la .skaip. .oi
23:25 < ctefaho> If you want advice it will probably be easier in glico
23:25 < noncomcinse> .i na nitcu
23:26 < noncomcinse> .i selnalvai
23:26 < ctefaho> je'e
23:27 < ctefaho> (http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o if you wanna see what I am tinkerini with)
23:27 < ctefaho> hot stuff going on
23:29 < ctefaho> also did you see the new lojban album?
23:29 < noncomcinse> .i na slabu mi
23:30 < ctefaho> http://djemynai.bandcamp.com/releases !!!
23:31 < noncomcinse> .i ue cai co'e la .bandkamp.
23:31 < noncomcinse> .i ue cai
23:35 < ldlework> are the lyrics anywhere?
23:35 < ctefaho> you get them when you buy it;)
23:36 < ctefaho> both text and pdf even
23:36 < ldlework> ua
23:37 < ctefaho> you basically get a zip file with the tracks + lyrics
23:37  * ctefaho was also na slabu with bandcamp
23:39  * nuzba @asymbina: "What would a cubist [art]lang look like?" "Lojban." listening to @conlangery backlog :) [http://bit.ly/1LeySFJ]
23:45 < noncomcinse> Oh, I got distracted by that.
23:54 < noncomcinse> en: a'o
23:54 < mensi> a'o = [UI1] attitudinal: hope - despair. |>>> See also pacna. |>>> officialdata
23:54 < noncomcinse> en: tau
23:54 < mensi> tau = [LAU] 2-word letteral/shift: change case for next letteral only. |>>> officialdata
23:55 < ctefaho> which track?
23:57 < ctefaho> (if you wondered about one particular word somewhere)
--- Day changed Mon Jun 22 2015
00:00 < ctefaho> broda bu'u ko'a -- broda xoi ke'a zvati ko'a
00:00 < ctefaho> The question stands, is there anything xoi can't do?
00:04 < gleki> it cant solve the problem of xorlo
00:04 < noncomcinse> di'a jundi
00:12 < ctefaho> noncomcinse, is awesome, ist not?
00:13 < noncomcinse> Yeah.
00:13 < noncomcinse> Also, why is ALL jboselsa'a RAP?
00:14 < noncomcinse> Do we just not do other genres or what
00:14 < ctefaho> I think it is just the genre he prefers
00:16 < noncomcinse> la selpa'i ji'a
00:16 < ctefaho> well yeah kinda hard to hide the fact it is him;)
00:17 < ctefaho> but there are some others too I think?
00:17 < noncomcinse> djemenai = selpahi xu
00:17 < ldlework> I only write instrumentals.
00:17 < ldlework> noncomcinse: go'i
00:17 < noncomcinse> sa'ei .uat.
00:18 < noncomcinse> ca lo cabdei mi cilre
00:18 < noncomcinse> mi pu na djuno
00:18 < ldlework> ki'a nai
00:25 < noncomcinse> Does Lojban have double negative-- No, it wouldn't. It has a seperate word for resetting it to positives.
00:26 < ldlework> na na broda
00:26 < ctefaho> it now has well defined negation scope though:)
00:27 < mudri> What is the negation scope these days?
00:28 < ctefaho> well defined
00:28 < ctefaho> na:
00:28 < ctefaho> {na broda} -> {na zo'e ku broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a}
00:28 < ctefaho> {broda na ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a natfe ke'a}
00:29 < noncomcinse> en: natfe
00:29 < mensi> natfe = x1 (du'u) contradicts/denies/refutes/negates x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3. |>>> Also exception (= nafmupli);
00:29 < mensi> agentive contradict/deny (= nafxu'a or tolxu'a).  See also nibli, tugni, zanru, xusra. |>>>
00:29 < mensi> officialdata
00:29 < noncomcinse> Maybe I should actually study some vocab.
00:29 < noncomcinse> One of these days
00:30 < noncomcinse> I know like, an eighth of the words last I checked
00:30 < mudri> en: xoi
00:30 < mensi> xoi = [XOI] Right-scoping adverbial clause: encloses a bridi and turns it into an adverbial term; the antecedent (ke'a)
00:30 < mensi> of the enclosed bridi stands for the outer bridi lo su'u no'a ku (the bridi in which this xoi term appears), including
00:30 < mensi> all the other adverbial terms (tags...) within this bridi located on the right of this xoi term (rightward scope). |>>>
00:30 < mensi> Terminator: se'u |>>> Ilmen
00:30 < ctefaho> (ja'a is the same but to'e natfe instead)
00:30 < noncomcinse> xoi = reverse fi'o
00:30 < ldlework> an 8th would be a lot
00:30 < noncomcinse> ldlework: Really?
00:30 < ldlework> of all lojban words?
00:30 < noncomcinse> Yeah.
00:30 < noncomcinse> No
00:30 < noncomcinse> of gismu
00:30 < noncomcinse> yeah
00:30 < ldlework> oh sure
00:31 < ctefaho> mi na klama "Something makes it so that I don't go"
00:31 < ctefaho> melbi
00:31 < noncomcinse> An eighth of gismu is hardly anything in comparision to the infinite nalsampyjvojvenalmibyju'o
00:31 < noncomcinse> gloss: sampu
00:31 < mensi> Simple
00:32 < noncomcinse> not-simple-lujvo-and-not-me-knowing
00:32 < ctefaho> but but
00:32 < ctefaho> mi zi'e na klama
00:32 < ctefaho> negation-soi
00:32 < ctefaho> whatever the mabla that will be good for
00:32 < noncomcinse> so {do klama lo zarci na mi} means I do something to make you going to the store false?
00:33 < ctefaho> hmm I think that should be tu'a mi?
00:34 < noncomcinse> do klama lo zarci na lodu'u do na'e se tuple
00:34 < ctefaho> or you get {do klama lo zarci xoi mi natfe ko'a}
00:34 < noncomcinse> vau vau ui nai
00:34 < noncomcinse> dai
00:34 < noncomcinse> shouldn't it be {xoi na ko'a}?
00:35 < noncomcinse> en: xoi
00:35 < mensi> xoi = [XOI] Right-scoping adverbial clause: encloses a bridi and turns it into an adverbial term; the antecedent (ke'a)
00:35 < mensi> of the enclosed bridi stands for the outer bridi lo su'u no'a ku (the bridi in which this xoi term appears), including
00:35 < mensi> all the other adverbial terms (tags...) within this bridi located on the right of this xoi term (rightward scope). |>>>
00:35 < mensi> Terminator: se'u |>>> Ilmen
00:35 < ctefaho> wops
00:35 < ctefaho> {do klama lo zarci xoi mi natfe ke'a}
00:35 < ctefaho> and {do klama lo zarci xoi tu'e mi natfe ke'a} is what we want
00:35 < ctefaho> ...
00:35 < ctefaho> tu'a
00:36 < ctefaho> {do klama lo zarci xoi tu'a mi natfe ke'a}
00:36 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp do klama lo zarci xoi tu'a mi natfe ke'a
00:36 < camxes> (do [CU {klama <lo zarci KU> <xoi (¹[tu'a mi LUhU] [CU {natfe <ke'a VAU>}]¹) SEhU>} VAU])
00:38 < noncomcinse> Wait, I didn't know xoi
00:38 < noncomcinse> I thought xoi was reverse fi'o
00:38 < ctefaho> well I am kinda basing fi'o on xoi in my idea
00:38 < ctefaho> but you know soi?
00:38 < noncomcinse> en: soi
00:38 < mensi> soi = [SOI] discursive: reciprocal sumti marker; indicates a reciprocal relationship between sumti. |>>>
00:38 < mensi> officialdata
00:38 < ctefaho> soi and xoi are the same except for scope
00:38 < ctefaho> well
00:38 < ctefaho> new soi
00:38 < noncomcinse> uh
00:38 < ctefaho> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new_soi
00:39 < ctefaho> Another Selpa'i Creation™
00:39 < ctefaho> mabla irci
00:39 < ctefaho> ™
00:39 < noncomcinse> huh
00:40 < mudri> I don't understand {natfe}. Shouldn't natfe1 be exactly natfe2 → ⊥ for any instantiation of {natfe}?
00:40 < noncomcinse> la te .irci cu xamgu lo cmalu je galtu lerfu
00:40 < mudri> That's what the definition looks like.
00:40 < noncomcinse> .i mi viska co snada
00:40 < ctefaho> http://selpahi.weebly.com/archive-pre-2014/na-as-tag
00:44 < ctefaho> as for natfe-x1 and x2 being equal, no idea, I just finished that^
00:44 < gleki> wth, vlasisku references CLL 5.11 for MOI http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/moi
00:47 < ctefaho> and natfe is according to bpfk basically na, as I understand it
00:47 < ctefaho> the scope just isn't well defined there
00:50 < mudri> It just looks as if it was intended to be a function used for manipulating du'u sumti.
00:52 < ctefaho> and su'u isn't good enough, or what?
00:52 < mudri> Emphasis on “function”.
00:53 < ctefaho> ua
00:54 < ctefaho> this will be fun
00:54 < ctefaho> hey zipcpi
00:54 < zipcpi> Hi
00:54 < mensi> zipcpi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: {le} is more than ri'oi since it works exophorically too. hence semantical parsing |
00:54 < mensi> 2015-06-22T06:09:28.716Z
00:55 < zipcpi> Gleki: Yes, I know; hence I said "extended" ri'oi; but I'm not sure even that works in the scenarios I gave
00:56 < mudri> e.g: {ko'a nibli lo kanxe be ko'e bei lo natfe be ko'e .i ja'o ko'a jitfa}
00:58 < ctefaho> zipcpi: i discovered something wonderful
00:58 < zipcpi> Hm I think to get the flexibility of CAI with the wide range of subjective PA without adding a bunch of new cmavo, it'd have to be something in selma'o XI
00:58 < ctefaho> ba pu broda -> ba pu zo'e ku broda -> broda xoi ke'a purci xoi ke'a balvi
00:58 < ctefaho> putting xoi into xoi
00:58 < zipcpi> Ah
00:58 < ctefaho> xoimazing
00:59 < gleki> In the last update to the dictionary search engine la sutysisku:
00:59 < gleki> 1. When you search for selmaho (class of particles) the application shows you links to the relevant sections of the reference grammar.
00:59 < gleki> 2. When looking at terminators (particles that show the end of constructs like right brackets in math) their left counterpart is displayed in square brackets. Hence you may quickly know with which particle the ended construct started.
00:59 < gleki> Both features require testing. E.g. some links to the reference grammar ma be wrong. I used data from previous attempts to implement that. But now I'm ready to quickly fix found issues.
00:59 < gleki> Currently, the features work only for English version of the application.
00:59 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/en/index.html#sisku/COI
00:59 < gleki> Illustration: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:sutysisku2015-06-22.png
00:59 < gleki> mudri: ^ ping
00:59 < mudri> gleki, interesting!
01:00 < gleki> so that was probably the last thing i could take from vlasisku
01:01 < zipcpi> exp: ki'u xi rau ko'a ko'e broda
01:01 < mensi> ([{<ki'u (¹xi [rau BOI]¹)> ko'a} ko'e] [CU {broda VAU}])
01:02 < zipcpi> Something like {xi'i} but I think xi'i is [0-1]
01:03 < zipcpi> ta'o doi gleki You will have to decide if va'ei is [0-1] fuzzy logic or can be used for any scale. I suggest the latter due to its association with {va'e}; if [0-1] fuzzy logic sumtcita is useful to you, add another one
01:03 < gleki> i suggest a tag instead
01:03 < zipcpi> They both can be tags
01:03 < gleki> en :va'ei
01:03 < gleki> en: va'ei
01:03 < mensi> va'ei = [ROI] converts number to scalar tag; specifies the value on fuzzy logic scale; to the degree (n) on scale ...
01:03 < mensi> |>>> gleki
01:04 < gleki> hm, i suppose the should be just default scale
01:04 < gleki> *there
01:04 < e`ogan> I have instantly thought of "oi vei"
01:04 < e`ogan> I just can't shake it off hearing lojban in a hebrew kind of phonetics
01:05 < zipcpi> Hah... the decision to make {oi} mean what it does is heavily influenced by that
01:05 < zipcpi> :p
01:05 < zipcpi> Although I've also heard Chinese or Malay people using it
01:06 < zipcpi> And I do not think they are Lojbanists
01:06 < gleki> loglan: oi
01:06 < mensi> oi = yes/(I)(he)(they) may...<, exp. of ethical permissibility.>.
01:07 < gleki> heh
01:07 < zipcpi> lol
01:07 < gleki> =e'a ?
01:07 < e`ogan> I have no language allegiance, and I definitely don't tie languages to culture baggage, so it doesn't matter for me really
01:26 < gleki> any comments to my translation of La Teris ? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_vkiwqOIOIJPqZTiomzd4ApUSEQXhEY6CeyZD_6c-PA/edit#gid=1743871730
01:26 < gleki> i used the latest version from the wiki
01:31 < zipcpi> exp: broda jaibaizu'e brode
01:31 < mensi> (CU [broda {jai <bai zu'e> brode}] VAU)
01:32 < dutchie> coi rodo
01:32 < zipcpi> coi
01:32 < zipcpi> exp: broda jaibaizu'e lo brode
01:32 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
01:55 < e`ogan> Were phonetics in lojban picked to be the most pronounceable?
01:55 < gleki> formally yes. they took the most common phonemes in the world
01:56 < e`ogan> The ambiguity of {y} and {x, h, '} raise some questions for me
01:57 < gleki> there isnt any ambiguity in them.
01:58 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cirkotci.html
02:00 < e`ogan> Ha, the person pronounces b and v dangerously close
02:01 < gleki> true!
02:01 < gleki> akmnlrse: ju'i
02:07 < selpahi> coi
02:07 < mensi> selpahi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: ma drani mupli zo zo'i | 2015-06-22T06:06:14.316Z
02:07 < mensi> selpahi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: lo do nuncilre tutci cu simsa la nulern vau ienaipei  i doi la mensi ko morsi |
02:07 < mensi> 2015-06-22T06:15:38.149Z
02:07 < mensi> selpahi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: zo zo'i zo'u ju'oi https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/rZVYxxiOrqI/y4lea4BDY04J |
02:07 < mensi> 2015-06-22T06:20:09.576Z
02:08 < selpahi> mi ki'u lo nu lo cmalu cu ni mi se slabu la .nulern. cu na djuno lo du'u xu kau lo mi tutci cu simsa
02:08 < selpahi> .i ku'i gajanai simsa gi la'a la .nulern. cu do'a na'e prane
02:08 < gleki> ko cpedu lo nu jmina fi la glekitufa i ku'i mi nupre no da
02:09 < selpahi> ta'o zo zo'i zo'u ko tcidu lo se lidne se cusku be mi
02:09 < selpahi> (to lo mriste co'e toi)
02:10 < selpahi> .i cenba lo ka jinvi
02:10 < selpahi> mi zutse lo lalxu korbi zo'i le laldo cindu — I'm sitting by the river on this side of the old oak.
02:10 < selpahi> di'u drani
02:11 < selpahi> mi sanli bu'u lo klaji zo'i le muzga — I'm standing on the street on this side of the museum.
02:11 < selpahi> si'a
02:11 < gleki> xu BPFK drani cusku
02:11 < gleki> ba'e ca
02:11 < selpahi> go'i
02:11 < selpahi> ji'i ro sumtcita pe nai lo bai zei cmavo cu drani .i mi pu catlu ca lo nu mulgau sa'e nai
02:12 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers
02:13 < gleki> jb: ze'o
02:14 < mensi> ze'o = ze'o [preposition of place] — across, outwards, beyond ...
02:14 < mensi> :da tricu ze'o le rirxe — There is a tree across the river.
02:14 < gleki> xu drani
02:14 < gleki> jb: zo'a
02:14 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
02:14 < selpahi> go'i
02:14 < gleki> ua
02:15 < gleki> selpahi: ma xe fanva zoi gy on the same side as gy
02:16 < gleki> jb: zo'i
02:16 < mensi> zo'i = zo'i [preposition of place] — on this side of ...
02:16 < mensi> :mi sanli bu'u lo klaji zo'i le muzga — I'm standing on the street on this side of the museum.
02:16 < mensi> :mi zutse lo lalxu korbi zo'i le laldo cindu — I'm sitting by the river on this side of the old oak.
02:18 < gleki> zo zo'a xu
02:18 < selpahi> dunli fi lo ka ragve .i co'e fau lo nu ko'a ji'a zvati lo co'e li'o .i li'o
02:18 < selpahi> .i zo zo'a se smuni lo drata
02:18 < gleki> xu no mapti sumtcita cu zasti
02:19 < selpahi> ia
02:19 < gleki> mi na jimpe fi zo zo'a
02:19 < selpahi> xu lo mi melbi zo'o pixra na sidju
02:20 < gleki> lo jufra mupli ka'e sidju
02:20 < selpahi> mi pu cliva lo karce zo'a lo malsi
02:20 < selpahi>     "I left the car by the side of the temple."
02:20 < gleki> selpahi: xu lo melbi pixra pe lo itku'ile cukta pu'i sidju da
02:20 < selpahi> zo'o xu da melbi pixra
02:21 < gleki> selpahi: xu lo melbi na'i pixra pe lo itku'ile cukta pu'i sidju da
02:21 < selpahi> .i zo'o nai su'o roi sidju mi
02:22 < selpahi> mi sanli bu'u lo klaji zo'i le muzga — I'm standing on the street alongside the museum.
02:22 < selpahi> .u'i
02:22 < selpahi> .i zo zo'i zo'u lo manri cu jai sarcu lo nu plixau
02:22 < selpahi> zo'a ***
02:23 < selpahi> mi sanli bu'u lo klaji zo'a le muzga — I'm standing on the street by the museum.
02:23 < selpahi> .i di'u zo'u lo klaji cu linji manri
02:24 < selpahi> .i mi gajenai ragve ginai to'e ragve lo muzga lo manri mokca noi ke'a ji'a zvati lo linji no'u lo klaji
02:24 < selpahi> s/lo muzga/vau lo muzga
02:24 < phenny> selpahi meant to say: .i mi gajenai ragve ginai to'e ragve vau lo muzga lo manri mokca noi ke'a ji'a zvati lo linji no'u lo klaji
02:25 < gleki> ju'o la'oi phenny cu bruna la mensi tu'a lo nu fanza
02:25 < selpahi> na dukse lo ka fanza
02:25 < selpahi> .i ku'i .ei jbosku lu ko'a pu skudji li'u
02:26 < gleki> mi lazni gi'e steba
02:26 < gleki> https://github.com/lagleki/fenki
02:26 < selpahi> do lazni fau lo nu ro drata be do cu laznymau do
02:27 < selpahi> .i .u'a la'a di'u mapti be lo ka pilno zo ma'i be'o vanbi
02:28 < gleki> da'icu'i baku ca je fau lo nu mi co'u steba vau ka'eku mi co'u jbozu'e
02:28 < selpahi> .i pe'i so'e da naldra pilno zo ma'i
02:28 < gleki> sa'ai ca ja fau le'ai
02:28 < selpahi> xu do steba lo lojbo
02:28 < gleki> selpahi: mi na jimpe lo du'u zo ma'i zo ki frica makau
02:29 < gleki> selpahi: lo na lojbo
02:29 < selpahi> zo ki se steci lo temci ja canlu manri
02:29 < selpahi> je'e
02:29 < zipcpi> mi se'ijgi ru'e lo ka facki lo du'u lu <rone'e> li'u ka'e sinxa lo namcu poi va'o mecrai
02:29 < gleki> i la'a zo ma'i se steci no da
02:30 < gleki> exp: lu <ro da > li'u mo
02:30 < mensi> ([lu {<(¹ro BOI¹) da> VAU} li'u] [CU {mo VAU}])
02:30 < gleki> exp: силлинесс coi do
02:30 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "s" found.
02:30 < zipcpi> si'au zo ne'e zei'a plixau
02:30 < gleki> ua li'a
02:32  * nuzba @uitki: L17-03 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-03 by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1GuzBw9]
02:34 < zipcpi> zo uiski u'i
02:35 < zipcpi> frili fa lo nu zi'evlagau
02:38 < zipcpi> xy~'y simlu da jinvi lodu'u zo ma'i na mapti lo si'o se jinvi
02:38 < zipcpi> mi co'a tugni
02:39 < zipcpi> ka'eku finti lo cnino mema'oiBAI pe zo jinvi
02:40 < noncomcinse> coi
02:40 < zipcpi> coi
02:40 < noncomcinse> .i mi re re'u selsa'a fanva
02:42 < noncomcinse> .i fanva la'e zoi gy. Want You Gone (Portal 2) .gy.
02:43 < zipcpi> ua
02:43 < gleki> selpahi: xu do pu'i tcidu lo mi xe fanva be la'e la teris
02:43 < zipcpi> a'u
02:44 < noncomcinse> .i mi te cmene la'au .í do clíva náu vau .áu li'u
02:47 < zipcpi> zabna
02:47 < e`ogan> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNVX7W4hQmA
02:48 < e`ogan> He seems to be fluent
02:50 < zipcpi> .iku'i va'o lo nu da cmavo ma'oi BAI do'e zo jinvi kei, ma kosmu zo ma'i
02:52 < zipcpi> si'au no da
02:52 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i morji xu co broda
02:52 < camxes> (i [{morji xu} {co broda}] VAU)
02:56 < selpahi> nu'o tcidu doi la gleki
02:56 < mensi> selpahi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: zo zo'i zo'u ju'oi https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/rZVYxxiOrqI/y4lea4BDY04J |
02:56 < mensi> 2015-06-22T06:20:09.576Zi
02:57 < gleki> sei klina be ma'a mutce loka  tordu https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_vkiwqOIOIJPqZTiomzd4ApUSEQXhEY6CeyZD_6c-PA/edit#gid=1743871730
03:02 < zipcpi> lu tegau li'u ki'a
03:03 < zipcpi> zo gasnu na ponse lo cimoi te sumti
03:03 < zipcpi> la'a ciskysre
03:04 < zipcpi> oi JyVySy za'ure'u spofu
03:04 < zipcpi> .y. la .xornunsep. cu za'ure'u jinga
03:04 < gleki> ki'e i mi mo'u vimcu zo te
03:04 < gleki> i JVS spofu ma
03:05 < zipcpi> puzi jenai ca cusku zoizoi Connection Refused zoi
03:05 < zipcpi> ca akti
03:08 < zipcpi> zo lerbasysre
03:08 < zipcpi> lo smuni cu du'eva'e itca i'au pe'i
03:08 < zipcpi> .y. ju'ocu'i zo itca na mapti
03:11 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ci'asre
03:12 < zipcpi> ei ma terbri
03:18 < niftg> mi facki lo du'u .ui lo mi tokpona cukta na se cirko gi'e zvati lo ckana cnita kei .e lo du'u .uinai lo gacri ke jdari pelji pe ra noi cukta cu xrani se polje ba'o
03:21 < niftg> cinmo lo ka nitcu le bi'unai cukta tezu'e lo nu facki lo du'u ma kau fadni ke tokpona valsi lo itku'ile bangu .i ku'i nu'o vreji vau za'a
03:23 < niftg> ba'anai su'o lo jbopli poi se bangu lo ponjo cu stidi tu'a zo'oi Ikuwi .i zu'unai la selpa'i pu za pilno zo'oi Isuwile ju'ocu'i
03:24 < gleki> zo'o ko fanva di'u lo tokpona
03:24 < selpahi> zoi .i'o Ikuwi .i'o ji'a mapti
03:26 < niftg> zo'o nitcu lo danfu pe la'oi jan-Pije mu'a
03:27 < gleki> e'o fau lo nu nabmi fa da pe lo mi xe fanva be la'e la teris vau ko jai gau djuno fai mi
03:28 < niftg> lo tokpona na bangu fi lo pluja jufra .iseki'ubo lo xe fanva cu barda ba'a
03:28 < selpahi> xu la .teris. cu cnino me la noltruti'u poi cpana lo dembi
03:29 < zipcpi> gleki: I think co'ephoric might be impossible to formalize practically; there are too many variables at play
03:29 < niftg> ci lo jbopre ca'a ba'o fanva la'e la teris vau xu
03:29 < gleki> zipcpi: depends on how you use it.
03:29 < selpahi> zo boske mi cnino
03:30 < gleki> milxe dunli zo ricfoi
03:30 < zipcpi> Well, I gave you some examples where it breaks down.
03:30 < gleki> i sa'e lo boske cu canlu gi'e se pagbu lo tricu
03:30 < gleki> zipcpi: i remember only with remei
03:31 < zipcpi> I gave a second one that *might* or *might not* work depending on how you think it handles empty te sumti: {la .djan. cu kalte .i le se kalte cu bajra}
03:31 < gleki> it treats zo'e not different from {lo}.
03:32 < gleki> ({lo} is also expressed via zo'e)
03:32 < zipcpi> And I just came up with a possible third case: {la .djan. cu kalte .i le nu kalte cu se fliba}
03:33 < zipcpi> That's not getting into how it "decides" to search backward, forward, or exophorically
03:33 < gleki> i ku'i lo boske ka'e se pagbu lo  drata be lo trcu
03:33 < gleki> si tricu
03:34 < gleki> zipcpi: {le nu kalte} can also be formalized but currently we dont have any semantic parsers so i can't comment since all my justifications wont be supported by a working app
03:35 < gleki> no one is working even on la mlismu
03:35  * zipcpi shrugs
03:35 < gleki> as for direction the page explains the priority
03:35 < zipcpi> OK so you prioritize anaphoric first IIRC?
03:36 < zipcpi> What if there is a sumti way way way way back that "catches" it when it's actually meant to be used cata/exophorically?
03:36 < gleki> ofc.
03:36 < gleki> as for exophora it's more close to AI
03:36 < zipcpi> I just don't think these things can work like programming languages do
03:37 < gleki> in terms of mlismu it's all fine. in terms of exophora it's pure AI and no single computer can parse the reality as humans do.
03:39 < zipcpi> Yes, it looks like we're going to need AI regardless
03:39 < gleki> li'a
03:40 < gleki> even if you omit {le}
03:40 < zipcpi> The problem is that ma'i mi replacing all those {le}s with {lo}s just makes it worse, because then from a programming standpoint you are declaring new objects all the time, which may or may not be the same as old objects
03:42 < selpahi> ( ga'a mi *  )
03:42 < zipcpi> ki'e
03:47 < gleki> you may use {goi ko'a}
03:50 < selpahi> mi pacna lo nu su da ja la su da ba finti lo tutci xau mi
03:51 < selpahi> .i primitive tutci .i ku'i lo nu go'i cu krinu lo nu xamgu
03:51 < gleki> xu naku lo tutci pe la iocikun cu simsa
03:51 < gleki> i ku'i na brauzero tutci
03:51 < selpahi> .i mi pu'i pu za pilno lo simsa tutci ja'e lo banli
03:51 < selpahi> mi na se slabu
03:51 < gleki> ma cmene
03:51 < dutchie> 2
03:52 < zipcpi> gleki: I don't even know how {goi ko'a} would be practical in the examples I gave. There's nothing for goi to even attach to
03:52 < dutchie> u'u
03:52 < selpahi> na'i cmene .i sa'u pagbu su'o kibystu
03:52 < zipcpi> Though {goi} is probably great for instructional texts
03:52 < gleki> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=iocikun.juj.lojban.learn.words
03:52 < selpahi> .i ku'i pu na curmi lo nu lo pilno cu jdice lo du'u ma kau valsi
03:52 < gleki> zipcpi: i meant AI in general no matter whether we work with verbose lojban or not
03:52 < zipcpi> Ah
03:53 < selpahi> za'a lo me la .iocikun. moi na rau va'ei simsa
03:54 < gleki> ei mi stidi ma i lo nu tadni lo skamybanske
03:55 < selpahi> .u'i
03:55 < gleki> i xu do pu troci lo ka gugle
03:55 < gleki> i mi na krici lo nu na zasti
03:55 < selpahi> sa'u lo nu da'i mi fau lo nu no da sidju cu zbasu cu se ditcu lo barda .i je lo nu da'i lo je'a certu cu zbasu cu se ditcu lo cmalu ki'u lo nu sampu sai
03:56 < selpahi> .i mi pu gugylsisku
03:57 < selpahi> ue lo jbobau cu sidju mi lo ka jimpe lo ze'u pu cfipu be mi be'o ne la .itku'ile
03:58 < selpahi> .i sa'u zo da'i ne de'u cu pu zi rinka lo nu mi jimpe co'a
04:08  * nuzba @Vanege_EO: :o Mi volas lerni Lojban-n    https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao [http://bit.ly/1Fwfpct]
04:12 < gleki> zipcpi: i dont remember if i already linked but this indeed lacks lojban. how to fix that ? :Dhttp://momentjs.com/
04:22 < selpahi> mupli http://www.thai-language.com/id/809331
04:22 < selpahi> .i .oi lo mi brauzero co'u kakne
04:22 < zipcpi> gleki: lol
04:22 < selpahi> .i .ai cipyzu'e tu'a la .krom.
04:23 < zipcpi> What do you want to use? {li'ei} or some other method?
04:23 < gleki> exactly. that's the question
04:26 < selpahi> la .krom. cu spofu .i ku'i ui lo mi fonxa cu kakne
04:37 < gleki> i mo i xu na sarcu lo nu si'unai finti lo cilre tutci
04:37 < selpahi> ju'o cu'i lo kakne cu kakne lo ka stika lo de'u tutci
04:37 < selpahi> .i ku'i mi fliba da'i
04:38 < gleki> je'e
04:38 < gleki> i ku'i lo do tutci zo'u ma prali
04:42 < zipcpi> gleki: It shouldn't be too difficult to Lojbanize a date system *if* we can decide on what system to use :p
04:42 < zipcpi> *date display function
04:43 < zipcpi> Oh, and staircase wit: "Meet the new broda, same as the old broda"
04:44 < selpahi> lo mi tutci zo'u prali fa lo barda sai sai
04:44 < zipcpi> ko zgana lo bi'u broda noi du le bi'unai broda
04:44 < selpahi> .i .ai pilno fi tu'a la .itku'ile
05:04  * nuzba @okau_junpe: .ue .u'e vrici co selsa'a    すごいな。色んな曲が詰め込まれてる。言語はロジバン！    Å! Varierande musik. På lojban!    Ho! Muziko varias. En Loĵbano! https://twitter.com/djemynai/status/612678497417461760 [http://bit.ly/1GCbMpi]
05:17 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 153 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 151 normal]
05:24  * nuzba @464161niftg: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Not_ready:_Ithkuil_made_easy なんかジボウィトキにもなぜかすでに記事があるけれど、PRAについての説明はhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Ithkuil/search?q=lesson&restrict_sr=on だと最後の方に回されてゐるね。 [http://bit.ly/1BGyM7R]
05:25 < gleki> niftg: e'u na cusku fi lo drata fe zo'ei le papri pe la itku'ile
05:25 < gleki> i nu'o bredi
05:27 < niftg> je'e
05:30 < niftg> .ai nai co'u gubgau lo mi se tu'itsku .i .ai .i'a pei da jmina pinka lo du'u na bredi
05:35 < gleki> i'a
05:36 < gleki> i au lo drata ca'o jai gau farvi
05:36 < gleki> fai le ctuca papri
05:37 < niftg> .a'o .i'i
05:39 < zipcpi> doi la gleki .i simsa le detri ciste pe le uitki .i lesego'i za'o pilno lo zi'evla poi ba'o gendra
05:40 < zipcpi> mu'a zo'oi djunio
05:42 < gleki> oi le uitki i sarcu lo nu stika lo krasi be la'oi MediaWiki i mi na se jaspu zo'e pe la'oi MediaWiki
05:46 < zipcpi> je'e uinairu'e
05:46 < zipcpi> exp: ui xi no'o
05:46 < mensi> (ui [xi {no'o BOI}])
05:46 < gleki> i ku'i ma poi detri ciste cu ei se pilno
05:48 < zipcpi> mi na rova'ei jimpe fi lo gerna befi ma'oi XI be'ope ra'a lo'e ui zei cmavo
05:49 < gleki> nu'o se pilno i seki'ubo nu'o se ciksi
05:50 < zipcpi> .i ma'a nitcu lo ka djuno lo du'u ba jdice makau la .xornunsep.
05:52  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Gleki - /* Time of day, dates and calendar */ [http://bit.ly/1BGCRZG]
05:53 < zipcpi> exp: ui xi no'o ui xi no'o
05:53 < mensi> (ui [xi {no'o ui} BOI {xi <no'o BOI>}])
05:53 < zipcpi> si'au zo xi nitcu lo ka se famyma'o
05:54 < zipcpi> exp: ui xi no'o boi ui xi no'o
05:54 < mensi> (ui [xi {no'o <boi ui> <xi (¹no'o BOI¹)>}])
05:54 < zipcpi> xy~'y
05:54 < zipcpi> kalsa
05:58 < zipcpi> exp: pa xi xa xi ze boi xi so
05:58 < mensi> (pa BOI [xi {xa BOI <xi (¹ze boi [xi {so BOI}]¹)>}])
05:58 < zipcpi> si'au spofu
05:58 < zipcpi> zo boi na banzu
06:00 < zipcpi> mi zei'a jinvi le bi'unai du'u nitcu
06:26 < ctefaho> coi
06:27 < gleki> coi
06:27 < ctefaho> coi doi la gleki ku
06:28 < gleki> tersmus: coi doi la gleki ku
06:29 < gleki> tersmus: coi doi la gleki ku mo
06:29 < tersmus> ? R1. R1( )
06:30 < gleki> tersmus: coi doi la gleki ku co'e
06:30 < tersmus> co'e( )
06:47 < Djemynai> coi. Here's a little making-of, a time lapse showing my progress during the song writing phase: https://youtu.be/CEJtreU-8-Q
06:49 < gleki> mensi: doi selpah pei mi zbasu lo tutci ije do mo'u jmina lo tcita pe la mupli lo gredile
06:49 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.selpah.gy. di'a cusku da
06:49 < rutytar> Djemynai: would you like your logo vectorized?
06:50 < Djemynai> Hmm, maybe. :)
06:50 < rutytar> do you have a high res version?
06:50 < gleki> djeimsyxuis: xu do aidji lo ka fanva lo se sanga lo drata bangu
06:52 < gleki> sa
06:52 < gleki> Djemynai: xu do aidji
06:53 < Djemynai> I could probably make a high res version.
06:53 < Djemynai> mi nu'o jdice doi la gleki
06:54 < Djemynai> i pe'i lo nelci be lo zgike cu zifre lo ka fanva
06:55 < gleki> mi te smuni fi lo nu do fanva ba'e gi'e sanga vau vau da'i
06:56 < Djemynai> na ba fasnu i lo rimni cu jbobau se steci
07:14 < ctefaho> Djemynai: your songs are awesome
07:20 < zipcpi> mi mabla tolcre lo ka tersmu lo'e sagypemci (to ri pe lo glibau ge'uji'a .i na nitcu lo ka ciksi tu'a lo jbobau toi)
07:22 < Djemynai> ctefaho: Thanks.
07:28 < zipcpi> ue xu zo boske cu citno gismu po'oi se finti la gleki
07:29 < zipcpi> coi durka
07:29 < durka42> coi
07:29 < durka42> xu do zgana lo mi mupli pe lu ja'a xi ka'o li'u
07:29 < zipcpi> mensi: boske (clash)
07:29 < mensi> mi na birti lo nu mi mulno jimpe lo se smusku be do
07:30 < zipcpi> doi durka na go'i
07:31 < durka42> A: xu do jo'u mi pamli'u B: .u'i ja'a xi ka'o go'i
07:32 < zipcpi> xu simsa zo xa'i
07:32 < durka42> cumki
07:33 < zipcpi> ku'i na mutce simsa .i zo xa'i cu sinxa la'e lu <mi xarpei zo'e> li'u ja lu <ko xarpei zo'e> li'u
07:36 < zipcpi> ku'i lo si'o li ka'o cu xanri cu po'o metfora co ze'oi pe'a ja ze'oi zai'e
07:36 < gleki> ma janli zo boske
07:37 < zipcpi> nai'o
07:37 < zipcpi> nai'o xukau janli
07:38 < zipcpi> ku'i le bi'unai metfora cu mutce lo ka xajmi je melbi
07:39 < durka42> zo gimkamsmikezypro xu .u'i
07:42 < gleki> la gimyzba cu xusra lo du'u janli no da
07:45 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/pavyslakycmavy'inda
07:50 < zipcpi> x1 (si'o / proposed-or-existing cmavo) deserves a monosyllabic cmavo x2, even though language x3 (default Lojban) is running out of cmavo space, because of letteral-manipulation cmavo x4 and other-obscure-concept cmavo x5, and it must have that monosyllabic cmavo at time x6 (default: lo ca'abna), [insert expletive x7 (default zo mabla)] it!
07:51 < durka42> .u'i
07:51 < durka42> vlaste: datru (gimkamsmi)
07:51 < vlaste> zo datru gimkamsmikezypro tatru noi catni gismu .i zo datru gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
07:51 < durka42> vlaste: boske (gimkamsmi)
07:51 < vlaste> zo boske gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo boske gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
07:51 < zipcpi> vlaste: rekti (gimkamsmi)
07:51 < vlaste> zo rekti gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo rekti gimkamsmikezypro rekto noi cipra gismu
07:52 < durka42> whoops
07:52 < durka42> missing a couple of 'zo's
07:53 < gleki> that's cheating! using python gimyzba for python vlasisku. whereas gleki has to rewrite everything to js
07:53 < durka42> I wrote my own .u'i
07:53 < durka42> didn't know gimyzba was so easy to use
07:53 < gleki> ua
07:53 < durka42> vlaste: rektu (gimkamsmi)
07:53 < vlaste> zo rektu gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo rektu gimkamsmikezypro zo rekto noi cipra gismu
07:54 < durka42> vlaste: rekt (gimka)
07:54 < vlaste> error: ro gismu cu mumlerpoi
07:54 < gleki> i noticed that vlasisku files with links to CLL has at least one incorrect link and many missing links
07:54 < durka42> la'a sai .i mi pu xusra lo dunli
07:55 < gleki> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lagleki/glekitufa/master/i/en/bangu.js
07:55 < gleki> i started fixing them
07:55 < gleki> feel free to pr
07:56 < durka42> je'e
07:56 < durka42> xunai la mudri pu ba turfa'igau lo selma'o liste pe CLL
07:56 < gleki> probably we now can use the same tool for Japanese CLL
07:56 < gleki> en: turfa'igau
07:56 < mensi> [< stura facki gasnu ≈ Structure discover do] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se
07:56 < mensi> tolcri
07:56 < mensi> turfa'igau[9305], turfakygau[9916], su'arfa'igau[10894], turfackygau[10946], turfa'igasnu[11375], ...
07:57 < gleki> mi na morji
07:57 < gleki> i ma judri
07:58 < durka42> na djuno
07:58 < durka42> cusku fo dei po'o
08:07 < zipcpi> vlaste: uiski (gimka)
08:07 < vlaste> zo uiski gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo uiski gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
08:07 < zipcpi> .y.
08:08 < durka42> .u'i
08:08 < durka42> jetnu ku'i
08:09 < zipcpi> vlaste: uiska (gimka)
08:10 < vlaste> zo uiska gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo uiska gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
08:10 < zipcpi> vlaste: ertsa
08:10 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/ertsa
08:10 < zipcpi> vlaste: ertsa (gimka)
08:10 < vlaste> zo ertsa gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo ertsa gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
08:12 < zipcpi> za'a na srera tu'a lodu'u mo'oi kau valsi pene'i le vlaste cu gismu .iku'i srera tu'a lodu'u xukau lo valsi pe lo selpli cu gismu
08:13 < durka42> go'i
08:27 < ctefaho> hey selpahi
08:28 < selpahi> coi
08:28 < mensi> selpahi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: pei mi zbasu lo tutci ije do mo'u jmina lo tcita pe la mupli lo gredile |
08:28 < mensi> 2015-06-22T13:49:18.336Z
08:29 < selpahi> mi nelci lo si'o canja lo se zukte .i ku'i xu na ku lo gredile cu bramau lo tutci
09:04 < gleki> oi oi
09:04 < gleki> i ja'o mi na ba favgau
09:04 < gleki> i ku'i le gredile cu vajni si'a
09:06 < selpahi> li'a go'i
09:08 < selpahi> .i mi klama lo xamsi ba zi lo djedi be li so'u ji'i re .i mi na kakne lo ka pu mulgau lo gredile .i ku'i mi nitcu tu'a lo tutci
09:08 < selpahi> .i ka'e mulgau lo gredile ca lo nu ba'o xruti
09:08 < selpahi> noi ba lo jeftu be li ji'i re co'a fasnu
09:09 < selpahi> (to lo se klama be mi zo'u na kibro .i je mi na ponse su'o selbeiskami toi)
09:21 < gleki> xu no drata cu bredi loka sidju do
09:22 < gleki> i ja'o fa po'onai lo jbogu'e cu morsi ije lo rosi'e be lo munje cu morsi
09:22 < selpahi> mi na djuno
09:23 < gleki> ja'o do bazi nitcu lo tutci i ge'esai
09:23 < gleki> i mi na nelci i ie mi na nelci
09:23 < mensi> i ji'a mi na nelci mi'e la mensi
09:23 < gleki> i mi na djica
09:23 < gleki> i mi sampla ca lonu mi djica
09:23 < gleki> i ku'i ca ti mi du'eva'e steba gi'e cinmo lo mabla
09:30 < selpahi> .oi .oi dai .i .e'u ko na sidju mi
09:30 < selpahi> .i na vajni
09:31 < gleki> ca lo nu mi djica lo ka sampla vau mi ba sidju fau lo nu sarcu
09:31 < selpahi> .i ga ja lo drata mi sidju gi mi klama fau nai tau lo tutci .i na nabmi
09:31 < gleki> i ca lo cabdei mi pu jmina lo cnino tcila la sutysisku i jai ri'a tatpi
09:31 < selpahi> je'e je'e
09:31 < gleki> y i mi tavla mi
09:31 < selpahi> .i'a
09:32 < gleki> i simsa la niftyg vau u'i
09:32 < gleki> i ku'i na niftyg ta'e pilno la jbisnu
09:32 < gleki> si jbosnu
09:32 < selpahi> jbusno
09:33 < gleki> i mi djica lo ka djuno lo du'u makau jai sarcu fai lo ka se jmina fi la sutysisku
09:33 < gleki> i API pe JVS ca na zasti
09:33 < gleki> i seki'u bo mi na kakne lo ka favgau lo mapti xau la sutysisku
09:34 < selpahi> pu za lo djedi be li so'u mi ze'i vitka lo .itku'ile se .irci .i ba'e pa drata cu .irci
09:35 < selpahi> vitke *
09:35 < selpahi> coi la .ilmen.
09:35 < Ilmen> coi ŭi
09:35 < mensi> Ilmen: cu'u la'o gy.durka42.gy.: mi nitcu tu'a lo se fasybau .i .e'o cikre lo mi fasyvelcki pe lu sornai zei raurci'e
09:35 < mensi> li'u | 2015-06-21T23:42:49.842Z
09:35 < Ilmen> vi'o
09:36 < Ilmen> .i zvati ma
09:36 < gleki> i cilre tutci i je'e i cumki gi'e naku bi'aiku mi zbasu
09:36 < gleki> selpahi: pu za lo djedi be li so'o mi zukte lo simsa i mi ji'a zgana pa irci
09:36 < gleki> simsa naku i mintu
09:37 < selpahi> .a'u ru'e xu ba'e do krici lo du'u ka'e se bangu la .itku'ile
09:37 < gleki> i do ra'o du ma
09:38 < selpahi> .i pu zu nai morji fa mi lo du'u su'o rusko pu cpedu fi mi fe lo ka ctuca fo la .itku'ile kei je pu friti lo ka pleji
09:38 < selpahi> .i do du la gleki
09:38 < selpahi> .i ca lo nu cpedu cu na bredi lo ka ctuca .i ku'i cumki fa lo nu ca lo balvi cu kakne
09:41 < selpahi> .i su'a lo si'o zukte lo voi ro da jinvi lo du'u tau ki tolcumki cu cinri mi
09:41 < Ilmen> ca ti mo'u tinju'i la .nasas. noi selsa'a vau fa mi
09:42 < selpahi> ua
09:42 < Ilmen> .i mlemle
09:42 < selpahi> pa mlemle cu  pamylemle
09:42 < selpahi> sei nonselsmu
09:43 < gleki>  mi jinvi no da pe ibu
09:44 < Ilmen> doi la'oi durka42 .i do cpedu be mi lo ka dragau ma ùa nai ru'e
09:44 < durka42> mi bebna finti lo fasybau xe fanva
09:44 < selpahi> fr:sornai zei raurci'e
09:44 < mensi> sornai zei raurci'e = x1 c'est le Système International d'Unités (SI).
09:44 < durka42> en:sornai zei raurci'e
09:44 < mensi> sornai zei raurci'e = x1 is the SI (International System of Units), defining units
09:44 < mensi> x2
09:44 < durka42> nitcu lo remoi
09:45 < Ilmen> ŭa
09:45 < Ilmen> Presque parfait, durka42 :)
09:46 < Ilmen> I would just replace «c'est» with «est»
09:46 < durka42> google translate led me astray :)
09:47 < gleki> that learning tool. it's not that simple. it would require creating accounts.
09:48 < gleki> otherwise where to store progress? in cookies? :)
09:48 < Ilmen> durka42: « [Noun phrase], c'est....» is possible in French, with a comma before «c'est», but it's a topicalization construction (like X zo'u ri...)
09:48 < selpahi> na sarcu doi la gleki
09:49 < gleki> ta'i ma morji lo du'u lo pilno pu drani retsku
09:51 < selpahi> na morji su'o da
09:52 < selpahi> .i lo pilno cu jdice lo du'u xu kau mulno tadni
09:52 < selpahi> .i cimni co'u lo nu jdice
09:52 < selpahi> .i lo tutci cu djuno no da lo du'u ma kau ni djuno .i lo remna cu djuno
09:53 < gleki> xm
09:53 < gleki> i bebna tutci
09:53 < selpahi> ie .i bebna .i banli
09:53 < selpahi> .i prane
09:57 < Ilmen> .ai mi citka co'o
10:38 < gleki> selpahi: za lo djedi be ma cu sarcu
10:39 < durka42> si'au le tutci cu simsa la .memraiz.
10:43 < gleki> selpahi: http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cilretci/ i e'o do pilno la'oi console i anci
10:45 < gleki> in a separate tab separated file <-- nu'o i mi ca pilno lo drata  formata
10:46 < durka42> ku'i simsa la'oi LogFlash .i .ei morji lo ckiku valsi jenai lo smuni .i xu mabla
10:47 < selpahi> lo nu catke la .enter. cu .ei rinka lo nu spuda
10:47 < durka42> .u'i view-source:http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cilretci/data.js .i mi djuno ro da
10:47 < gleki> selpahi: do pu na cpedu vau u'i
10:47 < selpahi> ja'a go'i
10:47 < gleki> xu ja'a cpedu i mi na krici
10:47 < selpahi> zoi gy. The answer is confirmed by pressing enter.  .gy pagbu lo ve skicu ne la .piratpad.
10:48 < gleki> i ua
10:48 < selpahi> .i ji'a .ei lo tutci cu jungau fi lo du'u ma kau drani kei ca lo nu naldra spuda
10:48 < selpahi> .i ku'i lo drata zo'u .i'e
10:50 < selpahi> .i ma formata lo preti sfaile
10:50 < durka42> JSON
10:57 < selpahi> lo sampyrai tutci na'o banlyrai tutci
11:00 < gleki> selpahi: mi cikre ro lo re da
11:00 < selpahi> .e'o lo tanxe ba lo naldra cu di'a kunti
11:00 < selpahi> .i se va'o bo prane
11:01 < gleki> cikre
11:01 < gleki> mo'u
11:01 < gleki> i ku'i CSS zo'u mi na djuno
11:01 < gleki> i lo nu jaspu zo'u mi na djuno
11:02 < selpahi> ui sai prane ca ku
11:02 < selpahi> .i xu ka'e pilno ca lo nu na jorne lo kibro
11:02 < selpahi> .i ke'u ta'i ma mi stika lo preti
11:03 < gleki> stika la'e ju'oi data.js
11:03 < selpahi> ua mi ca viska lo sfaile
11:03 < gleki> ko troci y tu'a la'e zoi gy. Ctrl+S .gy.
11:04 < selpahi> .i xamgu xamgu
11:04 < gleki> i ui la nulern ca sakcpa vau zo'o
11:04 < selpahi> .u'i
11:04 < selpahi> ki'e sai la gleki
11:04 < gleki> da gredile ije la durka pu nupre tu'a da
11:05 < gleki> ije la selpa'i puzi milxe simsa
11:05 < durka42> ma se nupre mi
11:05 < gleki> do cusku lo se du'u do na mutce tolcando gi'e kakne tu'a lo gredile pe la mupli
11:05 < gleki> i ku'i ca lo pu jeftu do cusku
11:06 < gleki> selpahi: ma prane ke detri ciste i mi steba tu'a ji'a lo detri ciste
11:06 < durka42> lo me la zipcpi moi cu prane
11:06 < selpahi> .u'u mi na birti tu'a lo detri ciste
11:06 < gleki> i ji'a la to'anzu cu cusku ma pe lo detri
11:06 < gleki> i zo'e pe xy na prane gi'e ku'i plixau
11:06 < selpahi> .ei pa mai la to'anzu di'a cusku su'o da pe su'o de
11:07 < gleki> sa
11:07 < gleki> i zo'e pe la zipcpi na prane gi'e ku'i plixau
11:09 < gleki> i la zipcpi zo'u ma prane i lo'u de'i li cy xi pa ce li my xi no lo'u xu i clani
11:11 < durka42> lo'u de'i li N 2015 L 6 D 22 le'u na prane .i ku'i pe'i xagrai lo te cuxna
11:12 < gleki> ti'e ba na gendra
11:13 < durka42> cumki
11:14 < gleki> i mi nitcu lo romoi danfu
11:20 < gleki> selpahi: cati do bilga lo ka jrco lo se jetnu be lo du'u ka'eku da flecu tavla fo la itku'ile
11:21 < selpahi> .u'i
11:22 < selpahi> http://selpahi.de/aspect.htm
11:23 < selpahi> ki'e sai do
11:24 < durka42> ua
11:24 < durka42> .itku'ile cilre tutci
11:24 < durka42> .i mi pu smadi
11:29 < selpahi> http://selpahi.de/modality.htm
11:29 < gleki> sa'u lo itku'ile gentufa cu jai sarcu
11:30 < selpahi> ie .i xu na zasti
11:30 < gleki> i ku'i lo piton sorcu co itku'ile pe la gitxab cu jainandu mi
11:30 < selpahi> ua
11:30 < gleki> i mi na jimpe ije clani
11:30 < gleki> i mi pu sruma lo nu katna lo valsi cu tolnandu
11:30 < gleki> i na go'i
11:30 < gleki> y
11:30 < gleki> i mi pu sruma lo nu lo nu katna lo valsi cu tolnandu
11:31 < gleki> wth, how to enter this diacritics
11:31 < gleki> Permissive
11:31 < gleki> correct: ô
11:31 < gleki> O_0
11:31 < selpahi> ô
11:31 < gleki> mi na kakne
11:31 < selpahi> .i xu lo rusko lercu'aca'a na friti
11:32 < gleki> na
11:32 < gleki> i mi kakne tu'a lo lerfu poi jetnu glico gi'a rusko
11:32 < gleki> i e'u cnegau lo latmo ciste pe la itku'ile
11:33 < gleki> ô => o^
11:33 < gleki> xu na ambigu
11:33 < selpahi> ia na .ambigu
11:34 < gleki> zo'oi ^ na tonga sinxa vau xu
11:35 < selpahi> lo tonga sinxa cu lidne lo valsi
11:35 < gleki> no'i mi nitcu lo se skicu be lo algoritma be lo nu katna lo itku'ile valsi
11:47 < dutchie> coi rodo
11:48 < selpahi> coi
11:48 < dutchie> .i mi bazi zgana le karce te jivna pe kadnygu'e
11:49 < selpahi> pe lo kadnygu'e
11:49 < dutchie> ki'e
11:51 < selpahi> http://selpahi.de/aspect_vocalic.htm
11:52 < gleki> ba'a la altatufa na pante tu'a zo lo
11:52 < gleki> motive = ie
11:52 < gleki> i ku'i le tutci zo'u mi na nelci iepei doi la mensi
11:52 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
11:53 < gleki> mensi: do na tugni fi ma
11:53 < mensi> What is it you really want to know ?
11:53 < selpahi> lo tutci cu mapti ba'e mi ra'u
11:53 < selpahi> .i steci sai .i mabla tutci gi'e ku'i mapti mi
11:53 < gleki> mi nitcu lo lujvo katna tutci
11:54 < durka42> vlaste: .itku'ilyjvo (katna)
11:54 < vlaste> .itku'ilyjvo (components) = (not a lujvo)
11:54 < durka42> ue
11:54 < durka42> vlaste: .itku'ilylujvo (katna)
11:54 < vlaste> .itku'ilylujvo (components) = (not a lujvo)
11:54 < durka42> vlaste: itku'ilyjvo (katna)
11:54 < vlaste> itku'ilyjvo (components) = itku'il? lujvo ≈ itku'il? affix-compound
12:24 < selpahi> Added explanations to the aspects: http://selpahi.de/aspect.htm
12:39 < selpahi> Added explanations to the modalities: http://selpahi.de/modality.htm
12:40 < durka42> ii .ainai mi cilre la .itku'ilybau .u'i
12:40 < selpahi> xu skudji lu .ai na ku li'u
12:41 < selpahi> BPFK, {ai nai}: Attitudinal. Used to express non-intent / unintentionality / accidentality / unplannedness.
12:41 < durka42> ue
12:41 < durka42> xunai .ilrealisi
12:41 < durka42> vlaste: ai
12:41 < vlaste> ai = attitudinal: intent - indecision - rejection/refusal.
12:41 < selpahi> sa'u na .aidji .i je nai .aidji lo ka na co'e
12:42 < durka42> vlaste: ai (sel)
12:42 < vlaste> ai (class) = UI1
12:42 < durka42> yyyy
12:42 < durka42> lo mupli cu cizra
12:42 < durka42> .ai nai mi gunka ca le pavdei
12:42 < durka42>     I'm not planning to work on Monday.
12:43 < durka42> natfe lo velcki
12:43 < selpahi> ta'o sai .oi bau la .itku'ile lo zeldei cu pavdei
12:43 < durka42> .u'i
12:43 < selpahi> .ai mi na tinbe
12:44 < durka42> xu lo bi'unai mupli cu jai srera
12:44 < selpahi> na birti
12:44 < durka42> xu .ambigu
12:44 < selpahi> simlu lo ka go'i
12:44 < durka42> mabla
12:45 < durka42> mi ba mrilu lo bifkliste
12:46 < selpahi> mrilu lo liste fi ma
12:46 < selpahi> zo'o
12:48 < durka42> mrilu lo brife lo liste
12:48 < durka42> lo valsi cu brife
12:48 < durka42> lo vensa bazi tsuku
12:50 < selpahi> melsance jufra fa zoi gy. On-n  amnadya  osmuil. .gy
12:52 < selpahi> .i smudu'i lu lo ma'arbi'i cu jai se kanpe fai lo ka [rinka lo nu] [se] manci li'u
13:00 < selpahi> ue mi co'a jimpe fi la'o gy. activative case .gy .i ze'u pu cfipu mi
13:01 < selpahi> .i ku'i sampu sai
13:01 < durka42> ma jbojavyglimapti
13:03 < selpahi> lo djica ja pacna ja kanpe ja mo kau cu .aktivativ. zei co'e
13:03 < selpahi> fi'o se karbi lo jai nu se djica
13:03 < selpahi> mi_1 djica lo nu mi_2 citka
13:04 < selpahi> mi_1 activative, mi_2 ergative
13:04 < selpahi> .i lo .itku'ile na pilno lo .y bridi nenri bridi tu'a de'u
13:04 < selpahi> .i ro da lujvo
13:05 < selpahi> .i lu ctidji  mi_erg li'u zo'u ba'e zo'e djica lo nu mi citka
13:05 < selpahi> .i lu ctidji mi_act li'u zo'u mi djica lo nu zo'e citka
13:07 < selpahi> U igral tei -> mi djica lo nu citka
13:08 < selpahi> U igral to -> djica lo nu mi citka
13:08 < selpahi> ma ni cfipu do
13:08 < Ilmen> coi
13:08 < selpahi> ua coi
13:10 < Ilmen> mi fliba lo ka se marce lo .itku'ile trene .i ja'e bo mi trixe darno .oi se'i
13:10 < selpahi> ia do na'o sutra lo ka co'a jimpe
13:12 < selpahi> ta'o pe'i zoi gy. igral .gy no'e drani .i drani fa zoi gy. igrac .gy
13:12 < selpahi> .i me'o cy sinxa lo simsa be lo ka zei sumti
13:13 < selpahi> ja du'u zei sumti ja si'o zei sumti
13:19 < selpahi> zoi gy. igraswa .gy dramau
13:20 < selpahi> .i pe'i su'o lo mupli jufra pe lo cukta cu na'e drani
13:20 < zipcpi> ua zo moi'o
13:21 < durka42> zo moi'o banli
13:21 < durka42> xu do djica lo nu zo moi'o ji'a cu cizra gadri .u'i
13:21 < zipcpi> ei gubgau sepi'o la .tato'ebas.
13:21 < durka42> ie
13:25 < selpahi> ba'u ru'e la gredile 5moi ku po'o nabmi
13:25 < selpahi> (to sa'e ma'i lo ro gredile la 5moi ku po'o jai raktu toi)
13:29 < Spheniscine_> oi
13:30 < selpahi> coi la .oinmo sfenisku
13:30 < Spheniscine_> .y. coi
13:30 < Spheniscine_> mi du la zipcpi
13:30 < selpahi> mi djuno sai
13:30 < Spheniscine_> .y. claxu zo cu
13:31 < selpahi> ma go'i
13:31 < Spheniscine_> le jufra pe la tato'ebas
13:34 < Spheniscine_> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4296916
13:36 < Spheniscine_> ai mi mulgau le se gunka ca lo mu moi'o be lo djedi
13:37 < Ilmen> di'a jundi fa mi
13:38 < Spheniscine_> ku'i ma xe fanva zoizoi Three years and four days from now zoi
13:38 < Spheniscine_> coi la menli
13:38 < durka42> xm
13:39 < selpahi> ba za lo nanca be li ci be'o su'i lo djedi be li vo
13:39 < durka42> ie
13:39 < durka42> ku'i sepi'o zo moi'o xm
13:39 < Ilmen> .i .a'o mi za'o ralte lo papri poi jungau fi lo du'u ma kau gunma lo banzu rafsi pe lo .itku'ile gi'e jai selja'e lo nu na sarcu fa lo nu mo'ifli pi ro lo brabra ĭi zei gredile
13:40 < Spheniscine_> lo ci moi'o be lo nanca bei lo vo moi'o be lo djedi
13:40 < selpahi> Ilmen: http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/the-full-simplified-table-5-re-oriented
13:40 < Spheniscine_> genstura efku
13:40 < durka42> ua
13:40 < durka42> .kromlenti
13:40 < Ilmen> sutra .u'e ki'e
13:40 < selpahi> .i xu do pensi lo drata doi la .ilmen.
13:40 < durka42> camxes: +s kromlenti
13:40 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] or [.\t\n\r?! ] but "k" found.
13:40 < durka42> oi valslinku'i
13:40 < durka42> camxes: +s kromulenti
13:40 < camxes> (Z:kromulenti VAU)
13:41 < Ilmen> lo mi se morji cu simlu lo ka nibli lo du'u lo catni no'u mu'a ju'o nai la .kuuidjadas. cu ciska .i ku'i mi ca to'e sai birti .u'i
13:42 < selpahi> .i ku'i .oi ru'e mi co'a jinvi lo du'u sarcu ja xamgu fa lo nu ja'a mo'icli lo mulno ke gredile 5moi (to ku'i se pi'o lo prije tadji toi)
13:42 < selpahi> (to lo prije tadji nu'o te facki toi)
13:44 < Spheniscine_> xu zasti fa lo cmavo poi simsa zo nau jepoi ku'i ckini zo bu'u
13:45 < Ilmen> sei mabla na
13:45 < selpahi> zo nau ckini gaje zo ca gi zo bu'u
13:45 < Spheniscine_> xy'y nitcu lo brivla be lo si'o me'oi analogy
13:46 < Spheniscine_> fabu ckini febu lo to'ai ckini be fibu bei fobu
13:47 < Spheniscine_> ku'i ta'i ma karbi lo za'uremei
13:49 < Spheniscine_> X1 (ordered set) is respectively analogous to X2 (ordered set), by relation X3
13:51 < Spheniscine_> ma ce'o zo nau anlogu zo bu'u ce'o zo ca
13:54 < Spheniscine_> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/anlogo
13:54 < Spheniscine_> nitcu lo jbobau velcki
13:58 < Spheniscine_> ku'i ta'i ma co'e lo za'uremei be lo me'oi set
13:59 < Spheniscine_> zei'a pluja
14:00 < Spheniscine_> exp: ko'a ce'o ko'e vu'o ce fo'a ce'o fo'e
14:00 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
14:00 < Spheniscine_> exp: ko'a ce'o ko'e ce fo'a ce'o fo'e
14:00 < mensi> ([ko'a {ce'o ko'e} {ce fo'a} {ce'o fo'e}] VAU)
14:00 < Spheniscine_> exp:  ko'a ce'obo ko'e jo'u fo'a ce'obo fo'e
14:00 < mensi> ([{ko'a <ce'o bo ko'e>} {jo'u <fo'a (¹ce'o bo fo'e¹)>}] VAU)
14:00 < Spheniscine_> xy'y
14:01 < Spheniscine_> ko'a ce'obo ko'e jo'u fo'a ce'obo fo'e jo'u ko'i ce'obo ko'o anlogu zu'ai
14:01 < Spheniscine_> mu'a
14:01 < Spheniscine_> exp: ko'a ce'obo ko'e jo'u fo'a ce'obo fo'e jo'u ko'i ce'obo ko'o anlogu zu'ai
14:01 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [eE] or [oO] but "a" found.
14:02 < Spheniscine_> xu sanji zo zu'ai
14:02 < Spheniscine_> exp: ko'a ce'obo ko'e jo'u fo'a ce'obo fo'e jo'u ko'i ce'obo ko'o anlogu ko'u
14:02 < mensi> ([{ko'a <ce'o bo ko'e>} {jo'u <fo'a (¹ce'o bo fo'e¹)>} {jo'u <ko'i (¹ce'o bo ko'o¹)>}] [CU {anlogu <ko'u VAU>}])
14:02 < Spheniscine_> za'a na go'i
14:04 < selpahi> My browser crashed as I tried to upload a picture to my blog.
14:04 < zipcpi> oidai
14:05 < zipcpi> ma xu ce'o zo nau anlogu zo bu'u ce'o zo ca
14:05 < zipcpi> .y. anlogo
14:05 < selpahi> xu zo fa'u se skudji
14:06 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/anlogo
14:06 < selpahi> .i ku'i na'i .i zo nau na srana zo ca po'o
14:06 < selpahi> .i je'e .i mi pu fliba lo ka tcidu zo .anlogo
14:06 < zipcpi> xy'y
14:06 < zipcpi> ua
14:06 < zipcpi> fe'enau
14:07 < selpahi> nau = ca je bu'u lo nu cusku dei
14:08 < zipcpi> xy'y si'au nandu
14:08 < zipcpi> so'oroi nitcu lo ka sepli le smuni
14:08 < zipcpi> .y. seplygau ju'ocu'i
14:09 < zipcpi> pe'i zo fe'e cu danfu
14:11 < zipcpi> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4296970
14:14 < Ilmen> en: ju'anai
14:14 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
14:14 < Ilmen> en: pe'inai
14:14 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
14:14 < Ilmen> ŭe ru'e
14:14 < zipcpi> I've defined ju'acu'i but not ju'anai
14:15 < Ilmen> pe'inai = I opine its false OR? I don't opine it's true nor do I opine it's false
14:15 < Ilmen> pau
14:16 < zipcpi> That's what I'm not sure of
14:16 < zipcpi> The problem is that {ne'e} didn't exist
14:16 < zipcpi> So {nai} when applied to attitudinals, often meant {to'e} rather than {na'e}
14:17 < rutytar> coi
14:17 < Ilmen> doi la selpa'i lo do jbocre se friju'o cu nibli ma pe lu pe'i nai li'u
14:17 < Ilmen> .a mo'oi co'e be lu pe'i nai li'u
14:18 < Ilmen> .oi
14:18 < Ilmen> si
14:18 < zipcpi> Yet {nai} has come to mean {na'e} when it comes to sumtcita and brivla
14:19 < zipcpi> {ne'e} being disyllabic is also somewhat inconvenient
14:21 < rutytar> how would you say "the first time i did this"?
14:21 < selpahi> ca lo nu mi pa re'u [co'e]
14:22 < rutytar> .i'o
14:23 < rutytar> but the ca isn't strictly necessary, right? it could be "the first time i did this, back in 1942"
14:23 < zipcpi> I defined {ju'acu'i} rather than {ju'anai} to avoid the issue as to just what {nai} means when applied to UI2 evidentials
14:24 < selpahi> If it's setting the time of the bridi, then {ca} is necessary
14:24 < selpahi> {ca} does not mean "now", if that's what's confusing you
14:24 < rutytar> what would
14:24 < zipcpi> {nau}
14:24 < rutytar> "pu lo nu mi pa re'u co'e" mean?
14:24 < selpahi> Before i did [co'e] for the first time
14:25 < rutytar> ah
14:25 < selpahi> {ca} means "when" or "at the same time as"
14:26 < Ilmen> I don't see any occurrence of {pe'i nai} or {za'a nai} in the korpora o__O
14:26 < rutytar> selpahi, are you still charging for lessons?
14:27 < selpahi> I don't have students at the moment.
14:27 < selpahi> I was... short on time.
14:29 < rutytar> are you still interested? what would you charge?
14:31 < selpahi> It was  $99 per four lessons, plus homework assignments and consultation etc. Had a bunch of students.
14:31 < rutytar> is that by person or by time?
14:32 < selpahi> What do you mean?
14:32 < rutytar> i mean would you charge more for more people if they went proportionally slower?
14:33 < rutytar> is your price based on the amount of time you're working or the number of people you're tutoring?
14:33 < selpahi> The lessons are always 1-on-1 teaching
14:33 < selpahi> No.
14:33 < selpahi> It's per lesson.
14:33 < selpahi> No matter how many people there are.
14:34 < selpahi> And all the time I spend preparing lessons is not counted either
14:34 < rutytar> would you do a group lesson?
14:34 < selpahi> I could. But have you tried getting people here to teach you for free? It's quite easy :)
14:35 < selpahi> Do you have a group of people who are interested?
14:39 < rutytar> i'm not sure yet
14:39 < rutytar> i've also considered free instruction. i'm weighing my options
15:10 < Ilmen> .oi la .bedgik. cu zasni na'e selfu
15:11 < Ilmen> .i .i'a .ai sipna
15:11 < selpahi> mi ca'o finti lo cnino kibykarnysle
15:11 < selpahi> .i la'a do tcidu ca lo bavlamdei
15:11 < Ilmen> .i'e balfi'i
15:12 < selpahi> ko'oi lo tarci do badzga .u'i
15:12 < Ilmen> .i .ai mi senva tcidu
15:12 < Ilmen> co'o
15:12 < selpahi> co'o
15:14  * nuzba @BuckMatthews1: balcu'e - Created page with "==Lojban== ===Etymology=== '''bal''' ('''banli''', ''great'') + '''cu'e''' ('''ck http://ow.ly/30o9gx [http://bit.ly/1Iv9cj5]
15:15 < durka42> .wik balcu'e
15:15 < phenny> Can't find anything in Wikipedia for "balcu'e".
15:15 < durka42> .w balcu'e
15:15 < selpahi> Wiki syntax in a tweet
15:16 < durka42> looks like an automatic tweet
15:16 < selpahi> Yeah
15:16 < selpahi> Probably like our automatic uitki tweets
15:17 < durka42> all of BuckMatthews1's history looks like that
15:17 < durka42> la nuzba pasted a tweet here the other day from someone trying to construct a cmevla, and I replied offering help, but then they deleted their account :(
15:18 < selpahi> .u'i zo'o ju'o krinu fa lo nu lo jbobau cu dukse lo ka jai nandu kei ja'e lo nu lo ji'a sai ka finti lo sampu cmene cu pluja
15:19 < mindszenty_> That's Wiktionary, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=balcu'e
15:20 < selpahi> coi la ramcinfo :)
15:20 < mindszenty_> coi sy .ui
15:22 < durka42> mindszenty_: I know, .w used to search wiktionary but the bot changed
15:38 < zipcpi> exp: fe'enau
15:38 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [0123456789] but "n" found.
15:38 < zipcpi> exp: fe'enauku
15:38 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [0123456789] but "n" found.
15:38 < zipcpi> ... crap
15:39 < zipcpi> Guess I'll have to add a nu'o gendra note to JVS then >.<
15:39 < zipcpi> exp: fe'eca
15:39 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [oO] but "e" found.
15:39 < zipcpi> er...
15:39 < zipcpi> exp: fe'eca'o
15:39 < mensi> ([{fe'e ca'o} KU] VAU)
15:39 < zipcpi> Looks like sumtcita aren't quite completely merged yet
15:42 < durka42> that's weird
15:45 < zipcpi> I know right? o.o
15:47 < zipcpi> OK note added
15:47 < ctefaho> co'o
15:47 < zipcpi> co'o
15:48 < durka42> seems like maybe fe'e was missed during tag unification
15:48 < zipcpi> Poor fe'e
16:10 < selpahi> New blog post: http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/how-i-mastered-stem-pattern-and-function
17:06 < durka42> ba'o citka ui
17:18 < niek> coi
17:18 < zipcpi> coi
17:18 < niek> coi zy .i ma nuzba do
17:19 < durka42> coi
17:20 < zipcpi> mi .y. lanli lo vreji pe le bu'u se irci
17:25 < zipcpi> uinai mi za'ure'u pofygau lo sma'acu
17:26 < zipcpi> mabla te xasne
17:27 < niek> vlaste: sma'acu
17:27 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/sma%27acu
17:27 < zipcpi> pevysmacu
17:27 < zipcpi> skami smacu pe'a
17:27 < durka42> samzamsmacu?
17:27 < zipcpi> :p
17:41 < pinji> mi cpedu lo ro pinse
17:41 < pinji> lo cpedu be mi bei lo pinji melbi
17:45 < pinji> mi rinsi .i
17:48 < zipcpi> .y. si'au zo kaxykemlojvro jo'u zo vlinykemlojvro cu srera se ciksi
17:49 < pinji> kaxykemlojvro looks like a beast of a word
17:52 < zipcpi> mi ca naka'e samjorne la jbovlaste
17:57 < zipcpi> zo da'ai
17:57 < zipcpi> en: da'ai
17:57 < mensi> da'ai = [KOhA3] other than me |>>> Can include do. ma'a can be defined as "mi jo'u do jo'u da'ai" |>>>
17:57 < mensi> gleki
17:58 < zipcpi> lo drata be mi
17:58 < zipcpi> cinri valsi
17:58 < durka42> ie spofafu
18:04 < zipcpi> ki'uma zo .palkan. cmevla
18:04 < zipcpi> me'oi methane
18:09 < zipcpi> lu voki'o li'u ki'u ma se jbovlaste .i uanai
18:21 < zipcpi> Why is da'ai defined as able to include {do}? I thought it'd be more useful if it was a general third person
18:22 < zipcpi> That way we won't have to translate contextless he/she into {ra} anymore
18:24 < zipcpi> ra'ai ali
18:29  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
18:29  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
18:34  * nuzba @Neozao: @alexrothier se fosse em lojban não acontecia isso [http://bit.ly/1K8wGQQ]
19:06  * nuzba @s_i_d_a: コーパスで「？」といふ箇所があつてチェックしようと思つたのにLojban Parserもcamxesも繋がらない。 [http://bit.ly/1Gwh9D9]
19:22  * nuzba @s_i_d_a: あれ、もしかして http://lojban.org 全体が鯖落ちしてる感じ？ [http://bit.ly/1K8Ajq1]
19:28  * nuzba @oka_iu_tcan: @s_i_d_a http://ilmen.tk/lojban/camxes.html ここもだめですか？ [http://bit.ly/1Gwj3Uh]
20:03 < ldlework> My mind is still blown
20:09 < mindszenty> why?
20:09 < ldlework> ZA'O li'a!
21:08 < ldlework> anyone do flight sims in here?
21:44 < phma> rlpowell: la jbovlaste .e la vlasisku .e lo do xelmri cu spofu
22:03 < rlpowell> Yep.
22:03 < rlpowell> Sorry.
22:55 < gleki> that tweet was from Wiktionary
23:16 < Nucleus> coirodo
23:17 < Nucleus> I come here asking for information as to what's going on with the lojban.org website.
23:17 < gleki> backend technical problems
23:18 < gleki> probably for such situations we need to have a static websites and redirect to it.
23:18 < gleki> anyone has clue on how to do that?
23:19 < Nucleus> I've noticed for months before this that there were problems with jbovlaste.
23:20 < Nucleus> Apparently, it couldn't contact the server containing the actual data for the dictionary.
23:20 < Nucleus> Could this be related to this particular outage?
23:22 < gleki> тщю
23:22 < gleki> no.
23:22 < gleki> as for actual data for the dictionary i dont usually notice such problems.
23:23 < gleki> you may use these dumps instead http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/ircbot/dumps/
23:24 < Nucleus> ki'esai
23:25 < Nucleus> What's the attitudinal that translates to "You're welcome" again?
23:27 < ldlework> fi'i
23:28 < Nucleus> Thank you.
23:28 < gleki> fi'i = "You are welcome" as "in this house"
23:28 < ldlework> fi'i
23:28 < ldlework> u'i
23:28 < gleki> je'e = "You are welcome" as in "accepting thanks"
23:28 < ldlework> ehh
23:28 < gleki> "You are welcome" in English has different meanings.
23:28 < ctefaho> xoi si coi
23:29 < ldlework> "You are welcome to be present", "You are welcome to solicit such information from me"
23:29 < ldlework> "You are welcome to the food."
23:29 < ldlework> je'e just means "I recieved the content of your transmission"
23:29 < ldlework> It doesn't indicate any sort of hospitality
23:29 < Nucleus> Like saying "over" on a walkie-talkie?
23:30 < ldlework> Nucleus: exactly like that
23:30 < ldlework> mu'o is over
23:30 < ctefaho> It basically means "I have received"
23:30 < ctefaho> or basically "ok" ;)
23:31 < ctefaho> ...
23:31 < gleki> heh, la sutysisku stopped working for firefox and nobody told me
23:32 < gleki> fixed
23:32 < gleki> i mean la sutysisku
23:32 < ldlework> I need to find a co-pilot :(
23:33 < Nucleus> How many people are actual jbocre relative to the rest of the community?
23:33 < gleki> at least 10
23:33 < gleki> judging by the number of people in voice chats
23:33 < Nucleus> That means 'Lojban expert', right?
23:33 < Nucleus> Just confirming I have the meaning right.
23:34 < ldlework> Anyone want to learn how to fly and do co-flights in lojban?
23:37 < ctefaho> Does anyone disagree with expanding {.i je'u mi na broda} to {.i jetnu fa lo su'u mi na broda} ?
23:37 < gleki> jbo: je'u
23:37 < mensi> je'u = [UI3] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri jetnu |>>> xorxes
23:38 < gleki> i can only say that it loses focus. otherwise it looks the same.
23:38 < ctefaho> it is more to explain what je'u means
23:38 < gleki> it is said that focus can be restored using {ju'a}
23:38 < ctefaho> mostly useful for*
23:39 < gleki> {.i ju'anai jetnu fa lo su'u ju'a mi na broda}
23:39 < gleki> ^maybe
23:39 < ctefaho> well then you add another UI we need to expand;)
23:40 < ctefaho> but I see
23:41 < gleki> ultimately you'll find a primitve
23:41 < gleki> *primitive
23:41 < ldlework> Maybe I can find a co-pilot on reddit
23:42 < gleki> but i can't see any options in Lojban grammar to fix focus except with creating the needed syntactic tree or (allegedly) with {ju'a}.
23:42 < ctefaho> what focus do you mean we lose?
23:44 < gleki> in your expansion you "assert" {jetnu}. in the original sentence {mi na broda} is "asserted".
23:44 < gleki> that's all i can say. i have no other words to explain that.
23:44 < gleki> because it looks like a primitive.
23:49 < Nucleus> Why are there not more jbocre?
23:49 < Nucleus> Is it because of something inherent in the language, or is this a result of the lack of native speakers?
23:50 < Nucleus> This is probably one of those questions with multiple complex answers, isn't it?
23:53 < ctefaho> but jetnu asserts {mi na broda} as true?
23:54 < gleki> inherent in the current learning resources + the result of the lack of native speakers + the result of the fact that none of fluent speakers want to talk about lojban at every corner (including me)
23:55 < rlpowell> STUFF SHOULD BE BACK UP.
23:55 < gleki> ctefaho: which sentence is in question. the first with je'u or the second?
23:57 < ctefaho> rlpowell: YAY
23:57 < ctefaho> well both
23:57 < ctefaho> my expansion is how I think of je'u
23:59 < ctefaho> {.i je'u du'u mi na broda} would make that su'u a du'u though
--- Day changed Tue Jun 23 2015
00:00 < ctefaho> if it is the su'u it is about
00:02 < gleki> {.i je'u du'u mi broda} is a state[3~ament of a fact of {du'u  mi broda} but no {mi broda}
00:02 < gleki> {.i je'u du'u mi broda} is a statement of a fact of {du'u  mi broda} but not {mi broda}
00:03 < gleki> in {i je'u mi broda} it is asserted that {mi broda} and additionally said that it's true according to the attitude of who said it.
00:03 < ctefaho> how does it not *state* {mi ja'a broda}?
00:03 < gleki> in {i jetnu fa lo du'u mi broda} it is asserted that the fact that {mi broda} is true. But it's not speaker's attitude.
00:04 < gleki> {i mi ja'a broda} is similar to {i je'u mi broda} but the former doesn't express speaker's attitude.
00:04 < gleki> compare {ti'e mi ja'a broda} = They say, i truly broda.
00:07 < ctefaho> How about {.i je'u do broda} <-> {.i lo su'u do broda cu jetnu mi} ?
00:09 < gleki> {je'u} is attitude.
00:10 < ctefaho> Doesn't the mi in jetnu-x2 reflec that?
00:11 < gleki> no, {i lo su'u do broda cu jetnu tu'a mi} is an assertion of the fact that {do broda} is true to me. But add e.g. {ti'e} and you get the difference.
00:11 < ctefaho> What *is* attitude, then?
00:12 < gleki> i would say it's a primitive.
00:12 < gleki> it's expanded into {sei}
00:13 < gleki> as for focus the only true method of using it is to create the tree. e.g. the main selbri (top level selbri) of the sentence is always focused. emnbedded ones are not. they say, embedded ones can be focused using {ju'a} but im not sure.
00:16 < ctefaho> {.i je'u do na broda} {.i do na broda sei lo su'u do na broda ku mi jetnu} ?
00:17 < gleki> je'u = sei jetnu
00:17 < ctefaho> not used to sei, dunno if no'a would work there
00:17 < ctefaho> right
00:17 < ctefaho> err
00:18 < ctefaho> si
00:18 < ctefaho> well ok then, je'u expands into sei
00:21 < ctefaho> ok right I just somehow never integrated sei
00:25 < ctefaho> {.i je'u do na broda} {.i do na broda sei lo du'u no'a jetnu}
00:26 < ctefaho> {.i do na broda sei lo du'u no'a cu jetnu} obviously
00:27 < ctefaho> or is that su'u
00:27  * ctefaho doesn't know anything for sure any more
00:32 < ctefaho> is su'u unless we put the du'u in initially after the je'u, right
00:34  * Nucleus realizes the true nature of Lojban.
00:37  * ctefaho cu co'e co'o
00:37 < gleki> {lo no'a}
00:37 < gleki> no'a is in GOhA
00:38 < gleki> su'u is fine
00:40  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
00:40  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
00:59 < zipcpi> Is {se cukta} sufficient to describe any document, or do we need a different word?
01:02 < gleki> i hink  a new word is needed. more general than {cukta}
01:02 < gleki> but you may ask lojbab
01:02 < gleki> *think
01:02 < gleki> en: papri
01:02 < mensi> papri = x1 is a [physical] page/leaf of book/document/bound mass of pages x2. |>>> Numbered pages (as in a book) are the
01:02 < mensi> sides of a page (= paprysfe, paprysfelai); a pageful of text (= papryseltcidu, paprytcidylai).  See also karni, pelji,
01:02 < mensi> prina, xatra, vreji, pezli, cukta, ciska. |>>> officialdata
01:02 < gleki> no, not paged
01:03 < zipcpi> Well my main reason is to both define {dei'ei} and to make it less necessary
01:03 < gleki> en: dei'ei
01:03 < mensi> dei'ei = [KOhA2] pro-sumti: this entire document/text |>>> Similar to dei, but refers to the entire text. |>>>
01:03 < mensi> spheniscine
01:04 < gleki> en: su
01:04 < mensi> su = [SU] erase to start of discourse or text; drop subject or start over. |>>> officialdata
01:04 < gleki> en: fa'o
01:04 < mensi> fa'o = [FAhO] unconditional end of text; outside regular grammar; used for computer input. |>>>
01:04 < mensi> officialdata
01:06 < gleki> well, i propose {uencu}
01:06 < zipcpi> xorxes currently defines su and fa'o on se cukta
01:07 < zipcpi> But yeah that might be shaky
01:07 < zipcpi> After all, cukta refers to a book, and se cukta refers to what's in it. Book may not be physical, but not all documents can be described as books, probably
01:08 < zipcpi> documents or discourses
01:08 < gleki> jbo: cukta
01:08 < mensi> cukta = x1 se papri lo vasru be x2 noi se finti x3 |>>> papri; vasru; finti; prosa; pemci; cfika; pixra; tcidu |>>>
01:08 < mensi> xorxes
01:08 < gleki> defines where?
01:08 < gleki> jbo: su
01:08 < mensi> su = [SU] vimcu piro le ba'o se cusku .i cnino casnu gi'a za'ure'u co'a casnu |>>> selsnu vimcu; si; su  |>>>
01:08 < mensi> xorxes
01:08 < gleki> jbo: fa'o
01:08 < mensi> fa'o = [FAhO] fanmo le se cusku .i na pagbu le fadni gerna |>>> selsku fanmo |>>>
01:08 < mensi> xorxes
01:08 < zipcpi> Eh
01:08 < zipcpi> cusku
01:08 < zipcpi> I read cukta
01:08 < zipcpi> oise'i
01:09 < zipcpi> OK yeah that probably is less bad. But it's slightly semantically offputting to read {piro le dei se cusku}, probably
01:10 < gleki> hm, {tcidu3} is defined as "document"
01:10 < zipcpi> te tcidu be fi zi'o
01:11 < zipcpi> At the risk of incuring the wrath of ctefa'o again. I don't know how you can get rid of zi'o completely though; there are too many useful concepts gotten by removing agent places
01:11 < zipcpi> Would be nice to have a proper brivla for it though, yes
01:12 < gleki> use Link Grammar zo'o where you can have up to 2 ends only.
01:12 < gleki> en: uencu
01:12 < mensi> uencu = x1 (entity) is a document with content x2 (entity) |>>> material substance (including electronic ones) on which
01:12 < mensi> thoughts of persons are represented by any species of conventional mark or symbol. See also te tcidu, cukta, uenzi,
01:12 < mensi> papri, fa'o. |>>> gleki
01:13 < gleki> in uper ontology list this word would definitely appear.
01:13 < gleki> *upper
01:15  * nuzba @willingtheweird: I am personally a big fan of srilermorna. It is simple, practical/easy to use, and, in my opnion, aestheticly pleasing. Embodies lojban. [http://bit.ly/1RsfZPg]
01:15 < zipcpi> Slightly outdated though. The page doesn't reflect dotside
01:16 < zipcpi> Wait... it does in the later part, but not in the earlier
01:16 < zipcpi> And also the "comma as disyllabic glide" thing, which is not kosher anymore
01:20 < zipcpi> Nah, what we really need are variants of i and u for semivowels
01:20 < zipcpi> If we implement that and my zbusufukai banning of all syllabic consonants, the comma won't be needed anymore in any context
01:22 < zipcpi> Cause there will be no more difficulty in syllabic resolution like iiiiiin or anlnda
01:23 < zipcpi> u can have w, but y is taken
01:24 < zipcpi> At the cost of some weirdness we could use h or q
01:24 < zipcpi> h might conflict with it being used for ' where it is disallowed for technical reasons though
01:24 < zipcpi> qi wu
01:24 < zipcpi> briqi
01:25 < zipcpi> tsekuwoqa
01:25 < ctefaho> zipcpi: No problem, I got cooler stuff in the works
01:27 < zipcpi> exp: axsksts
01:27 < mensi> (CU [axsksts VAU])
01:28 < zipcpi> Right, forgot about cmevla; hard to kill syllabic consonants there too
02:22 < zipcpi> exp: le se cusku ja uencu
02:22 < mensi> ([le {<se cusku> <ja uencu>} KU] VAU)
02:23 < gleki> rather {se uencu}
02:27 < zipcpi> Yes
02:27 < zipcpi> exp: sumka'i piro le se cusku ja se uencu pe sene'i dei
02:27 < mensi> (CU [sumka'i {<pi ro> BOI} {le <(¹se cusku¹) (¹ja [se uencu]¹)> <pe (¹[se ne'i] dei¹) GEhU>} KU] VAU)
02:28 < gleki> ne'i is metaphorical here
02:28 < zipcpi> What would be better?
02:34 < gleki> fi'o se pagbu
02:34 < gleki> en: pa'u
02:34 < mensi> pa'u = [BAI] pagbu modal, 1st place                            having component ... |>>>
02:34 < mensi> officialdata
02:35 < gleki> sepa'u
02:37 < zipcpi> ki'e
03:07 < Albwil> Attál!
03:07 < zipcpi> coi
03:09 < Albwil> http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/how-i-mastered-stem-pattern-and-function
03:11 < gleki> 6/25/2015 How I mastered Stem, Pattern and Function
03:11 < gleki> O_0
03:11 < Albwil> ie .i cizra
03:12 < Albwil> .i mi pu na snada lo ka cikre tu'a lo detri
03:12 < gleki> i lo bangu pe lo balvi
03:15 < zipcpi> mi co'a nelci zo nau'u .i ri .y. me'oi flexible semau zo nau
03:16 < zipcpi> kosmyvri ?
03:16 < zipcpi> kosmyvrici
03:17 < zipcpi> sorselkosmu
03:18 < zipcpi> bu'u nau'u
03:18 < zipcpi> ca nau'u
03:18 < zipcpi> pu nau'u
03:18 < zipcpi> vi nau'u
03:19 < zipcpi> le sumtcita cu seplygau le smuni
03:20 < zipcpi> aipei tcekitaujaugau zo nau i'au zo'oru'e
03:21 < zipcpi> va'o nau'u
03:35  * nuzba @uitki: zantufa - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zantufa by Guskant [http://bit.ly/1Gl5GY9]
03:36 < zipcpi> da'i la .tato'ebas. cu te jmina lo itku'ilybau ja'e ma
03:37 < gleki> ja'e tu'a lo jviso
03:37 < Albwil> .a'u
03:38 < gleki> en: jviso
03:38 < mensi> jviso = x1 is the ISO designation/result/standard/code for topic x2 applied to specific case/individual/group/thing x3
03:38 < mensi> according to rule/ISO specification x4 published by/according to mandating organization x5 (default: ISO) |>>>
03:38 < mensi> Theoretically, the standard organization/body could be other than ISO, but it should be prominent and/or international
03:38 < mensi> (and internationally recognized) in scope and nature; in such a case, replace each occurrence of "ISO" in the definition
03:38 < mensi> with the appropriate name/designation/title (of the organization, etc.). x1 need not be a name-designation/code (it
03:38 < mensi> could be the result of any rule), although it likely will commonly be so. Examples of possible x2-filling sumti:
03:38 < mensi> code-desi...
03:38 < mensi> [mo'u se katna] http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/jviso
03:38 < gleki> ca ti no da jviso la itku'ile
03:39 < Albwil> http://tatoeba.org/por/sentences/show/1128244
03:44 < zipcpi> lo meti me loi cmana
03:45 < zipcpi> exp: lo meti me loi cmana
03:45 < mensi> ([lo {<me ti MEhU> <me (¹loi cmana KU¹) MEhU>} KU] VAU)
03:50 < zipcpi> mi da'i'aunmo lo nu zo kosmu ka'e se rafsi lo tordu
03:50 < zipcpi> u'i zo da'i'aunmo
03:50 < zipcpi> me'oi wish
03:52 < zipcpi> zo nalcumpa'a ?
03:52 < zipcpi> nonpa'a ?
03:53 < zipcpi> zo no'ailpa'a ? u'i
03:53 < zipcpi> zo no'ai
03:56 < gleki> in future {uencu} and {uenzi} might turn into {vencu} and {venzi}
03:57 < gleki> seems to be no clashes
03:57 < gleki> and {uiski} into {viski} zo'o
03:57 < zipcpi> u'i
03:59 < gleki> i still dont know whether i like {e'ande} or {permite}
04:00 < gleki> {e'ande} feels so Wilkinsonian ...
04:05 < gleki> http://tatoeba.org/jbo/sentences/show/4297037
04:05 < gleki> .title
04:05 < phenny> [ mupli lo uenzi be lo banjubu'o fa "zoi zoi la .tom. cu cliva pu lo cacra be li so'o zoi" (to la'oi Tatoeba toi) ]
04:06 < gleki> this is wrong.
04:06 < gleki> {pu za lo cacra}
04:06  * Broca scratches head.
04:06 <@Broca> What ever is wrong with curmi?
04:06 < gleki> jb: curmi
04:06 < gleki> again vrici
04:07 < gleki> anyway {curmi} is "to let something", permite is "to allow someone do something"
04:08 <@Broca> Seems you can turn one into the other quite easily.
04:09 < gleki> idk FrameNet disagrees
04:09 <@Broca> I mean in Lojban :-)
04:10 < gleki> ke'u idk FrameNet disagrees
04:11 <@Broca> da curmi lo nu de bu'a .i jo da permite de lo nu bu'a
04:12 < gleki> idk see examples in FrameNet. they look a bit different in semantics
04:13 < Albwil> zo jo na drani
04:14 <@Broca> ma drani cmavo
04:15 < Albwil> sa'u lo du'u curmi cu nibli na je nai se nibli lo du'u permite
04:17 < Albwil> .i lo rirni cu zgana lo nu lo panzi cu se gunta lo malpre .i li'a lo rirni na .e'ande (to permite toi) lo malpre lo ka gunta .i ku'i curmi fau lo nu gasnu no fanta be lo nu gunta
04:18 <@Broca> pe'i le rirni cu na'e curmi ma'i le di'u mupli
04:19 < gleki> na'e curmi ta'i lo ka punji lo panzi lo dinju
04:20 < Albwil> lo ka permite cu srana lo ka jikca .i lo ka curmi na go'i .i lo ka curmi cu srana lo ka rinka je lo ka fanta je lo simsa .i mi curmi lo nu lo rokci cu farlu lo loldi lo mi xance .i mi na permite lo rokci .i na'i permite lo rokci
04:20 < zipcpi> vencu (gimka)
04:20 < zipcpi> mensi: vencu (gimka)
04:20 < mensi> e'o do ca'o smusku lo srana be pe la'e di'u
04:20 < gleki> vlaste
04:20 < zipcpi> vlaste: vencu (gimka)
04:20 < vlaste> zo vencu gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo vencu gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
04:21 < zipcpi> vlaste: venzi (gimka)
04:21 < vlaste> zo venzi gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo venzi gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
04:22 <@Broca> pe'i la lojban nitcu lo brivla poi srana lo ka rinka li'o .i ku'i pe'i zo curmi na co'e
04:22 <@Broca> "x1 (agent) lets/permits/allows x2 (event) under conditions x3; x1 grants privilege x2."
04:22 < Albwil> .i ku'i ca ku do jimpe lo du'u mi'a te smuni zo curmi ma kau
04:22 < zipcpi> zo jaxrinka ?
04:22 <@Broca> i simlu lo ka srana lo jikca
04:23 < gleki> lujvo: farlu curmi
04:23 < mensi> falcru[5878], fa'ucru[6367], falcurmi[7937], farlycru[8008], fa'urcurmi[9526], ...
04:23 < mensi> falcru [< farlu curmi ≈ Fall let] = c1 (agent) drops f1 to f2 from f3.
04:23 < gleki> en: falcru
04:23 < mensi> falcru [< farlu curmi ≈ Fall let] = c1 (agent) drops f1 to f2 from f3. |>>> arj
04:23 < gleki> ^
04:23 < gleki> !!!
04:23 < gleki> i mi na pante i zo curmi mapti
04:23 < Albwil> go'i
04:23 <@Broca> ju'o bu'i nai
04:23 <@Broca> ki'e doi gleki
04:24 < gleki> to ku'i zo'oi drop ambigu toi
04:24 <@Broca> sa .i ju'o bu'o nai
04:24 < gleki> bu'onai
04:24 < gleki> i ie i mi masno
04:25 < Djemynai> PRAMI SIMBI'O from my album ZA'O is now on youtube (https://youtu.be/g3BQ-pE7ypY).
04:25 < gleki> loglan: simba
04:25 < mensi> simba = B is a female lion/lioness, Felis leo, a carnivorous mammal.
04:25 < zipcpi> :p
04:26 < zipcpi> vlaste: rinka
04:26 < vlaste> rinka = x1 (event/state) effects/physically causes effect x2 (event/state) under conditions x3.
04:26 < zipcpi> rafsi: rinka
04:26 < mensi> zo'oi rik .e zo'oi ri'a .e zo'oi rink rafsi zo rinka
04:26 <@Broca> Hmm, I've never seen selpa'i and Djemynai at the same time... ;-)
04:26 < zipcpi> Albwil = selpa'i
04:27 < gleki> bambi = x1 is a deer of species x2 with a tail colored in x3 (default white)
04:27 < zipcpi> u'i
04:28 <@Broca> vlaste: frodo
04:28 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/frodo
04:28 <@Broca> :-(
04:28  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
04:28  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
04:28 < zipcpi> todxu = x1 is a very cute fox of species x2 with color x3 (default orange); I know todxu is phonotactially disallowed, who cares
04:29 < gleki> pumba = x1 is a warthog of species x2 playing in movie x3
04:29 < zipcpi> :p
04:29 < zipcpi> timno = x1 is a meerkat mi'u
04:31 < zipcpi> merkata / surkata ?
04:32 < gleki> en: warthog
04:32 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
04:32 < gleki> i have some bad news for lojbab
04:33 < zipcpi> zoizoi Phacochoerus africanus zoi ie'i
04:34 < Albwil> Yes, I'm selpa'i. Albwil is an Ithkuil word.
04:35 < zipcpi> http://eol.org/pages/328332/names/common_names
04:36 < Albwil> .i'e
04:36  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Mateon1 fa
04:37 < zipcpi> plixau me'oi website
04:37 < Albwil> ie
04:39 < zipcpi> kibystuzi ?
04:40 < zipcpi> kibystu
04:42 < zipcpi> cfakoce
04:47 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/surkata
04:49 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/fatkoce
04:49 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/kibystu
04:53 < Albwil> ue zo kibystu na xu pu se jbovlaste .i so'i da ta'e pilno
04:53 < zipcpi> je'u na pu se jbovlaste
05:38 < niftg> ca'o lindi joi carvi co carmi
05:53 < gleki> impossible. someone confessed that they are selpahi.
05:53 < Albwil> Everyone and their neighbor are selpahi.
05:53 < gleki> in the end it will be found that everyone here is selpahi
05:54 < zipcpi> Mr Selpahi
05:57 < gleki> http://i.imgur.com/BbDXHSu.jpg
05:57 < zipcpi> mo uanai
05:58 < Albwil> .itku'ile ga'a mi
06:03 < niftg> lo lerfu co itku'ile ku ji'a jai mukti lo nu mi co'a cilre fi lo itku'ilybau
06:04 < Albwil> ua
06:04 < zipcpi> doi ilmen xu zasti fa lo valsi poi brivla versiio zo du'u
06:05 < zipcpi> doi ilmen do'u xu zasti fa lo valsi poi brivla versiio zo du'u
06:05 < Albwil> .i .a'u .u'i xu li su'o ni su da se plixau lo mi .itku'ile  mupyju'a ne lo mi kibykarni
06:06 < zipcpi> ue mi pu jinvi zo su cu basti zo su'o va'o la tcekitaujau
06:06 < Albwil> ja'a basti
06:06 < Albwil> .i za'a dai mixre
06:06 < Ilmen> doi la zipcpi .i .y lo zo du'u se sumti be za'u da zo'u zo smuni co'e
06:06 < Albwil> ba'e zo bridi cu co'e
06:06 < Ilmen> .i zo bridi ji'a srana zo du'u
06:07 < gleki> zo fatci mo
06:07 < Albwil> dukti ru'e zo xanri
06:08 < Ilmen> mulno nonseljmi zo'o
06:08 < zipcpi> mi djica lo valsi poi simsa zo fatci .iku'i na bi'ai se smuni tu'a lo jetnu
06:08 < Albwil> zo bridi
06:08 < Ilmen> ju'o cu'i si'o se nundumu lo fasnu
06:08 < zipcpi> u'i
06:08 < Ilmen> zo bridi .olkai lo ka mapti
06:09 < niftg> lo ibu mupyjufra zo'u mi na birti .i lo saprai mupyjufra nau ca'a plixau mi noi co'a po'o tadni
06:09 < Albwil> lo du'u la .itku'ile cu sampu cu bridi gi'e jitfa
06:09 < Albwil> .i doi la .niftyg. ro lo mupyjufra cu jai nu ji'i pa ji'i re gerna pagbu cu jai se .ecre mi
06:10 < Albwil> .i ku'i ie pluja .i do ka'e stidi tu'a lo sampu
06:11 < uks> coi
06:11 < Ilmen> coi
06:11 < niftg> coi
06:11 < zipcpi> lu <rore> li'u sinxa lo du'u va'oku li ro du li re .iku'i ma sinxa lo mu'a du'u va'oku li da'apa du li re
06:12 < uks> I couldn't pice together how I'd say "my name is .e'ogan"
06:12 < Ilmen> {zo .e'ogan. mi cmene}
06:12 < zipcpi> {mi'e .e'ogan.} or {zo .e'ogan. cmene mi}
06:12 < uks> e'ogan [is] my name?
06:13 < Ilmen> cmene ~= X is-the-name-of Y
06:13 < uks> But these are not the only ways to say it ofc
06:13 < zipcpi> {mi'e .e'ogan.}: {mi'e} is grammatically equivalent to {coi}, except it's specifically used to introduce yourself rather greeting or otherwise addressing anyone
06:13 < zipcpi> *rather than
06:14 < Albwil> {li re da'apa}
06:14 < uks> Wait, isn't that also a pointer at yourself like moi in french?
06:14 < uks> The {mi'e} that is
06:15 < zipcpi> It's a special vocative; vocatives include {coi}, {co'o} and friends, except it's used to introduce yourself instead
06:16 < zipcpi> coi .e'ogan. / coi la .e'ogan. = Hi, Eogan
06:16 < zipcpi> mi'e .e'ogan. / mi'e la .e'ogan. = I'm Eogan.
06:16 < zipcpi> The version with cmene, on the other hand, uses the predicate {cmene}, "to be a name of something"
06:17 < zipcpi> ma cmene do = What is your name?
06:17 < zipcpi> What is-the-name-of you
06:17 < zipcpi> zo converts the next Lojban word into the literal word
06:17 < zipcpi> zo coi = The word "coi"
06:17 < Albwil> {mi'e la .e'ogan.} is not a full sentence, though, while "I'm Eogan" might suggest it is. Maybe "Eogan speaking" is a good alternative translation.
06:17 < zipcpi> Yeah.
06:18 < Albwil> You can stick {mi'e X} anywhere in the sentence.
06:18  * zipcpi nods
06:18 < Albwil> All it does is say who the pronoun {mi} refers to.
06:18 < Albwil> It sets the speaker.
06:18 < Albwil> While {doi} sets the listener, {do}.
06:20 < uks> IRC language learning is great due to logs
06:20 < zipcpi> {zo .e'ogan. cmene mi} = The word "e'ogan" is-the-name-of me
06:20 < uks> I wish all my university courses were taught in IRC
06:20 < zipcpi> "Eogan is my name"
06:21 < uks> ki'enai
06:21 < zipcpi> ?
06:21 < selpahi> {ki'a nai} ?
06:21 < uks> wasn't that like "thanks"?
06:22 < zipcpi> No, ki'e means thanks
06:22 < selpahi> {ki'e} = "thanks", {ki'e nai} = "no thanks to you"
06:22 < uks> Je'e
06:22 < uks> (refelx to capitalise is hard to combat)
06:22 < zipcpi> {zo .e'ogan. cu cmene mi} is also acceptable; cu is droppable here because zo only quotes one word, so there is no chance of running into a tanru
06:22 < selpahi> {ki'e} is derived from {ckire}.
06:23 < uks> Has it something to do with {kirske}?
06:23 < selpahi> kirsku
06:23 < zipcpi> While {la .e'ogan. klama} would make a tanru under brivla-cmevla-merge rules (won't without those rules, but it's better to get used to the cu anyway)
06:23 < selpahi> {ckire} means to be thankful.
06:24 < uks> Yes sorry that was a brainderp kind of typo on kirsku
06:24 < selpahi> {kirsku} is to express or say that you are thankful.
06:24 < zipcpi> ckire = x1 is grateful or thankful to x2 for x3
06:25 < uks> Is it a coincidence or the rule of derivatives that both have /kir/ in it
06:25 < zipcpi> It's part of the rules for building lujvo - special compound words
06:25 < selpahi> -kir- is the rafsi (affix form) of {ckire}.
06:25 < uks> Haven't gotten this far yet in crash course
06:26 < zipcpi> I don't think the crash course teaches you to build lujvo
06:26 < uks> I have opened several of the sources, some of them covering everything, some being entry level, some crash courses
06:27 < zipcpi> It's not something most people can do on the fly anyway (except for really common affix-forms like -gau)
06:27 < uks> I like to learn by cross-referencing materials to each other - it helps me to avoid misconceptions and I can grasp some part that wasn't explained in amanner that I can grasp
06:29  * nuzba @uitki: jo'au - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/jo%27au by Guskant - /* ca cmima ma'oi COI_3 */ [http://bit.ly/1TKMImM]
06:32 < gleki> yes i havent decided on how to teach lujvo and whether it's needed at all
06:32 < gleki> i mean composing lujvo
06:32 < gleki> not using premade ones like {nakpinji}
06:33 < gleki> you can always use mensi :D
06:33 < uks> Oh my, I forgot to change from a secondary nick choice after DC
06:34 < zipcpi> Two caveats with {zo}: zo literally only picks up one word. Some cmavo clusters, like {uanai}, are actually two words, {ua nai}, and thus have to be quoted with lu..li'u or lo'u...le'u
06:34 < zipcpi> Second... there is one word that {zo} can't quote, and that is {y}
06:34 < e`ogan> So {zo x1}
06:35 < zipcpi> {zo .e'ogan.} is a sumti
06:35 < zipcpi> A noun meaning "The word "e'ogan""
06:35 < zipcpi> {zo coi} is a noun meaning "the word "coi""
06:35 < Ilmen> (a noun clause)
06:35 < zipcpi> Yeah
06:36 < Ilmen> mi mo'u tcidu lo .itku'ile karnysle .i cinri .i'o
06:37 < Ilmen> A "noun" is an "argument-word", I guess it would be {sumvla} in Lojban
06:38 < Ilmen> The only things that seem to correspond to the concept of noun in Lojban are pronouns/sumka'i
06:39 < zipcpi> {y} is a hesitation sound, and is grammatically invisible except in {ybu}. So even {zo} can't quote it; to talk about {y}, you have to use {lo depsna} "the hesitation sound" instead
06:41 < e`ogan> weird at first, but in the context of lojban makes perfect sense
06:42 < gleki> i guess intonation, breathy voice  and similar things can be added to lojban too and added to class Y to which {y} belong.
06:43 < zipcpi> Lojban obviates the necessity of punctuation; thus has {zo} {lu.. li'u} instead to serve the purposes of quote marks in English
06:44 < zipcpi> Punctuation is sometimes added to improve readability but are never necessary
06:45 < e`ogan> I have just realised that I am missing an opportunity: I understand polish natively as a derivative of other languages I speak, but I never bothered learning it; yet in Germany there are so many polaks that I am missing a big profit source in form of polish customers who don't speak german or speak it poorly
06:45 < zipcpi> a'u
06:45 < e`ogan> And I have posted into wrong chat...
06:45 < zipcpi> lol
06:45 < e`ogan> Not entirely wrong though
06:46 < quintus> you're close probably
06:46 < quintus> where was it meant to go?
06:46 < e`ogan> Other network actually, in the chat that happens to have a big percentage of polaks
06:47 < quintus> whenever anyone talks about the logjam bug in IRC (or for that matter, in person), I always misinterpret it and think I'm in #lojban
06:49 < demize> Too bad log isn't a rafsi of logji.
06:53 < e`ogan> Meh, this kind of convenience is absent from most languages but the very closely related ones
06:54 < quintus> I speak German e`ogan, but I'm going to Holland soon so I'm learning some Dutch
06:54 < e`ogan> I have just accepted that I have to learn vocabulary for each natlang from scratch
06:54 < e`ogan> German and Dutch have an overlap
06:54 < quintus> That would be a really missed opportunity with German/Dutch
06:54 < quintus> yeah
06:55 < e`ogan> Even more so if you also know english
06:56 < e`ogan> I can understand like 30% of words from dutch without ever learning it
07:01 < selpahi> <Ilmen>
07:01 < selpahi> mi mo'u tcidu lo .itku'ile karnysle .i cinri .i'o -- je'e
07:02 < selpahi> .i lo nu ciska lo srana be la .itku'ile tecu'u lo .itku'ile se cinri cu nu tavla ji'i no da .i frica sai tu'a lo jbobau .i ca lo nu .itku'ile zukte cu cinmo lo ka nonseka
07:03 < e`ogan> I understand that this is about ithkuil and lojban, but not the essence
07:05 < gleki> gloss: .i lo nu ciska lo srana be la .itku'ile tecu'u lo .itku'ile se cinri cu nu tavla ji'i no da .i frica sai tu'a lo jbobau .i ca lo nu .itku'ile zukte cu cinmo lo ka nonseka
07:05 < mensi> . a(n) event of write a(n) relate link sumti Ithkuil 3rd conversion as said by a(n) Ithkuil 2nd conversion interesting: event of talk approximately 0 X. Differ ! about a(n) Lojban. At presen
07:05 < mensi> t a(n) event of Ithkuil act: feel a(n) being alone
07:06 < gleki> ><
07:07 < zipcpi> "Writing about Ithkuil for Ithkuil enthusiasts is like talking to no one. It's very different from Lojban. While working with Ithkuil, I felt alone"
07:07 < zipcpi> (rough translation)
07:08 < e`ogan> Ithkuil is a very cool concept imo, but nothing more than that
07:09 < e`ogan> It is an opposite end of a spectrum from lojban for me: the one that doesn't make it simple
07:10 < zipcpi> lol
07:10 < gleki> i hope someone can continue this if the last link from selpahi isnt better http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Not_ready:_Ithkuil_made_easy
07:11 < selpahi> lo me mi moi na ctucku .i ra'u mi ciksi lo se lifri be mi je cu stidi lo voi mi jinvi lo du ki xamgu
07:11 < zipcpi> "The second PRA I want to mention here is "řa", which means "one" in the "one does not just walk into Mordor" sense. This PRA does come with a high-toned inanimate variant." lol... I defined that as {do'ei}
07:11 < selpahi> .i lo ctuka'u pe la .palp. cu xamgu
07:11 < zipcpi> But then everyone wanted to argue over exactly what it means; and how exactly generalizations work
07:12 < selpahi> Does your do'ei include inanimate objects?
07:12 < selpahi> Lojban doesn't usually make the distinction
07:13 < zipcpi> I'm not sure, but I don't quite think so
07:13 < selpahi> .u'i lo jatna
07:13 < lo_jatna> coi
07:14 < zipcpi> Well, somewhat related is {da'ai}
07:15 < zipcpi> I'm not exactly sure myself how {do'ei} works; all I really wanted to accomplish was to avoid using {do} for it
07:15 < selpahi> da'i mo va'o lo nu lo jatna cu djuno
07:15 < zipcpi> And from discussion, {da} or {zo'e} do not seem to be adequate solutions
07:16 < gleki> en: do'ei
07:16 < mensi> do'ei = [KOhA7] impersonal pronoun; generic-you; generic-one; a generalized person |>>> See su'a, da'i, lo'e, do, da,
07:16 < mensi> zo'e |>>> spheniscine
07:16 < selpahi> Yet you based its sound on {do} :/
07:16 < zipcpi> lol
07:16 < zipcpi> My first choise was {da'ei}
07:16 < zipcpi> But it's taken
07:16 < selpahi> Maybe something with p-
07:17 < selpahi> If it means {lo'e prenu}
07:17 < zipcpi> Hm
07:18 < selpahi> Why is [uj] not in Lojban anyway
07:18 < zipcpi> lol
07:19 < zipcpi> I want my [ew] and I want it now
07:20 <@xalbo> So we're leaning toward a KOhA, with the personhood baked in already?
07:20 < zipcpi> Meh; you can think it as {da} + {lo'e} + {zo'e}
07:20 < zipcpi> Dunno about the personhood thing though; still debating on how useful it is with or without that sense
07:21 < mid> hi
07:21 < selpahi> If it's not just people, then it works for "Things don't just happen"
07:21 <@xalbo> I keep thinking of it as a gadri or a quantifier, which then could be used to modify {prenu} or anything else.
07:21 <@xalbo> coi .mid.
07:21 < mid> i'd like to have good stuff to learn basics of lojban
07:21 < selpahi> Hi, mid.
07:21 < gleki> mw.lojban.org/papri/Learning
07:21 < selpahi> http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Learning/en
07:22 < zipcpi> xalbo: Well {lo'e} sort of works that way, but... I'm not sure
07:22 < gleki> mid: ^
07:22 < zipcpi> <If it's not just people, then it works for "Things don't just happen"> Hm good point
07:22 < zipcpi> But how to differentiate it from {zo'e}...
07:22 < mid> good:)
07:23 < zipcpi> Like I said, really wish {da'ei} was open lol
07:23 < mid> is there any lojban native speaker like with esperanto?
07:23 < zipcpi> Not that we know of
07:23 < mid> :(
07:24 < gleki> im mildly against teaching children lojban except when it's not the only native language
07:24 <@xalbo> en: dahei
07:24 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
07:24 < zipcpi> en: da'ei
07:24 < mensi> da'ei = [DOI] attitudinal cause attribution |>>> Whereas dai simply marks an attitudinal as applying to someone other
07:24 < mensi> than the speaker, and da'oi attributes the preceding attitudinal as belonging to someone specific, da'ei attributes the
07:24 < mensi> cause of one's feeling to someone/something else. |>>> ues
07:25 < zipcpi> Part of the problem is that zo'e is just not "sticky", and can change from use to use. Technically {do'ei} might be that too, but it's not defined as elliptical the way {zo'e} is
07:26 < zipcpi> While {da} brings up logical/scoping issues
07:27 < selpahi> {lo'e bu'a} for the generic anything.
07:27 < zipcpi> Possibly
07:28 < gleki> Can anyone translate a text from Lojban into Ithkuil?
07:28 < gleki> do such people exist?
07:28 < gleki> because there is a conlang relay going.  a broken phone game.
07:29 < gleki> i will need someone to translate from Lojban into another conlang.
07:29 < selpahi> JQ participated in at least three relays using Ithkuil.
07:29 < selpahi> ba'a nai lo runbau mriste prenu na nelci lo nu pilno lo jbobau
07:29 < mensi> ji'a mi mutce nelci i ie
07:29 < gleki> i ku'i la djon na se bangu la lojban
07:30 < selpahi> mi pa roi pagzu'e .i pilno la .nalnu'antir.
07:30 < selpahi> .u'i
07:31 < zipcpi> Meh; {lo medo'ei prenu} {lo medo'ei nundumu}...
07:31 < zipcpi> {lo'e prenu goi do'ei}
07:31 < zipcpi> Dunno
07:31 < mid> Ithkuil is too dense
07:31 < zipcpi> Well if we're gonna use goi it might as well be ko'a or py
07:32 < mid> it's a kind of optimFROG of language
07:32 < selpahi> Ithkuil is easy :P
07:33 < lo_jatna> Is there a textbook for it?
07:33 < selpahi> I can already count to 100 zo'o
07:34 < selpahi> No, only a grammar book.
07:34 < lo_jatna> damn, Ill add it to the list then
07:35 < selpahi> I'll like totally become fluent in Ithkuil, then you can learn from me.
07:35 < zipcpi> lo'e prenu co'a djuno lo du'u py jbopre va'o da'i lo nu py srera lo ka pilno lo gugle vlaste tu'a lo jbobau valsi
07:35 < selpahi> #sko'opu
07:36 < zipcpi> "You (general) know you are a Lojbanist if you accidentally use the Google dictionary for a Lojban word"
07:36 < lo_jatna> Sounds good, Ill have to invest some time reading into it
07:37 < zipcpi> Might be cleaner than using {do'ei} three times; dunno
07:37 < mid> what language do you think is the most efficient?
07:37 < mid> succinct*
07:37 < lo_jatna> toki pona ahahaha
07:37 < lo_jatna> in theory
07:37 < quintus> not even in theory
07:38 < zipcpi> Wrong. It's U: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/U_(conlang)
07:38 < lo_jatna> ^
07:39 < selpahi> Good stuff.
07:40 < quintus> a winner emerges
07:42  * nuzba @ro_bot_: ロジバン トワ ジンコウゲンゴノヒトツ ノコトデス [http://bit.ly/1J2jdXJ]
07:43 < zipcpi> If, as my theory goes, {lo'e prenu} creates a virtual person to generalize with
07:43 < zipcpi> And you assign "them" to a pronoun
07:43 < zipcpi> Then you can use it as many times as you want...
07:44 < zipcpi> Thus maybe {do'ei} isn't so necessary
07:44 < gleki> the most efficientlanguage is the one you have always used with other people for the same tasks. if you get new tasks then anything can happen.
07:45 < selpahi> la'a jetnu
07:47 < zipcpi> Things don't just happen = {lo'e fasnu na jalge no da}?
07:47 < selpahi> Not bad
07:50 < zipcpi> http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/4299621
07:51 < selpahi> .i'e
07:52 < durka42> .i'e
07:52 < gleki> au dajmina lo tcita la mupli
07:53 < selpahi> .ai mi go'i ca lo nu ba'o xrukla
07:53 < durka42> ge tcita cu se sarcu
07:53 < durka42> -se
07:53 < durka42> +jai
07:53 < selpahi> lo gredile
07:54 < selpahi> .i .ei lanli ro lo jufra
07:54 < gleki> mi djica lo nu mo'u lanli ro lo glico ce lojbo ke jufra remei
07:54 < durka42> ua
07:54 < gleki> i ji'a ro lo lojbo po'o jufra
07:54 < durka42> mi toltolmo'i
07:55 < gleki> i lo drata zo'u ju'oru'e ka'e macnu jmina lo tcita
07:55 < zipcpi> zo toltolmo'i u'i
07:55 < gleki> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Md0pojdcO3EVf3LQPHXFB7uOThNvTWszkWd5T4YhvKs/edit
07:55 <@xalbo> zipcpi: so if you use {lo'e prenu} twice, do you get two different virtual people?
07:56 < durka42> pe'i na go'i
07:57 < selpahi> There's only one {lo'e prenu}.
07:57 <@xalbo> That is, how would one say "People don't hit each other for no reason" or "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
07:57 < durka42> is answering "simxu" a copout?
07:57 < selpahi> lo prenu na'o na darxysi'u mu'i no da
07:59 < durka42> another way is to rephrase
07:59 < durka42> lo'e prenu cu catra lo'e se catra
08:00 < selpahi> {lo'e prenu cu catra lo'e prenu} is not wrong either
08:00 < zipcpi> xalbo: Maybe so. It's possibly a "new broda same as the old broda" scenario
08:00 < gleki> o'i broda lo se broda
08:01 < zipcpi> So maybe contrary to what I write, {re lo'e broda} might make sense, but then there needs to be a way to split them apart
08:01 <@xalbo> I'm also thinking of the Lake Wobegon Effect, wherein the typical person thinks s/he is a better driver than the typical person.
08:01  * zipcpi nods
08:01 < selpahi> {re SUMTI} can make sense for any SUMTI, depending on the context.
08:02 <@xalbo> Also, "Put two people in a room alone with no outside stimuli for a few days, and they'll either start making out or fighting."
08:03 < selpahi> I'd use just su'oi re broda for that
08:03 < zipcpi> gajenai lo'e celxa'i gi lo'e prenu cu zukte lo ka catra
08:03  * durka42 would use {su'o re broda} because su'o can be defined without a PhD
08:04 < zipcpi> (think {zukte} has to be in the Lojban translation, because I think in Lojban anything can {catra})
08:04 < selpahi> Yes, but then it's harder to get them to simxu
08:04 <@xalbo> Doesn't that just mean that there are some pairs of people such that co'eli'o, not that for nearly any such pair co'eli'o?
08:04 < durka42> ({su'oi re broda} is a mass?)
08:04 < zipcpi> exp: gajenai lo'e celxa'i gi lo'e prenu cu zukte lo ka catra
08:04 < mensi> ([{ga <je nai>} {lo'e celxa'i KU} gi {lo'e prenu KU}] [cu {zukte <lo (¹ka [CU {catra VAU}] KEI¹) KU> VAU}])
08:05 <@xalbo> .i lo celxa'i na catra lo remna .i lo remna cu catra lo remna .i lo celxa'i cu jai te catra lo remna fai lo remna
08:05  * zipcpi checks up catra again
08:05 < zipcpi> Interesting
08:06 < selpahi> Neither guns nor people kill people. What kills them is the bullet that hits them.
08:06 < zipcpi> We might need a te catra be fi zi'o then o.o
08:06 <@xalbo> Guns don’t kill people! It’s impossible to be killed by a gun; we are all invincible to bullets, and it’s a miracle!
08:07 < lo_jatna> u'i
08:07 < zipcpi> mrori'a?
08:07 < zipcpi> x1 (event) kills/causes the death of x2
08:08 < zipcpi> Dunno about the under conditions place lol
08:09 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mrori'a
08:09 < zipcpi> Already exists
08:09 < zipcpi> Though the gloss word could use a clean up
08:10 < zipcpi> Done
08:14 < zipcpi> "durka42 would use {su'o re broda} because su'o can be defined without a PhD" u'i
08:22 < lo_jatna> would lo'itan, blotan be appropriate for skyship/airship?
08:22 < durka42> those are cmevla (names)
08:22 < zipcpi> Those aren't proper lujvo
08:22 < lo_jatna> Ah I see
08:22 < durka42> for the final rafsi in a lujvo, you need to use one of the rafsi that ends in a vowel (or the full gismu)
08:22 < selpahi> tanblo
08:22 < durka42> ie
08:23 < lo_jatna> Forgot about that part, thanks
08:23 < durka42> xu do tanbloja'a
08:24 < selpahi> xu do blozeile'a
08:24 < lo_jatna> go'i
08:24 < selpahi> What be a pirate's favorite rafsi?
08:24 < selpahi> -rarrrrr-
08:24 < durka42> -rum-
08:24 < zipcpi> I thought that's the tigra's favorite rafsi :p
08:25 < selpahi> Never done talk like a pirate day?
08:25 < zipcpi> I have
08:25 < zipcpi> a'oi a'oi a'oi
08:26 < selpahi> Ithkuil has a Lojban cognate so y'all already know at least one word!
08:26 < zipcpi> Huh?
08:28 < selpahi> The word is "ei"
08:28 < zipcpi> lol
08:28 < selpahi> In Lojban it means "should/ought to", in Ithkuil it's a modality affix with the same meaning
08:28 < selpahi> And "ei klama" is a valid ithkuil sentence
08:28 < selpahi> it means something like "the water ought to flow"
08:28 < zipcpi> lol
08:28 < selpahi> xD
08:29 < durka42> the spice ought to flow
08:35  * nuzba @lojytan_bot: guskantさんが sa'ai のnoteを更新しました。http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/sa'ai　{le'ai}が妙に使えそうですね！ [http://bit.ly/1eFOndx]
08:43  * nuzba @464161niftg: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zantufa .ua to'u cai zo'o ru'e jo'au zei gentufa [http://bit.ly/1IwDUZa]
08:47 < gleki> i thought "ei" meant motivation
08:48 < zipcpi> o.o
08:48 < gleki> if more people learn ithkuil then javascript itku'ilylujvo splitter will be closer.
08:49 < selpahi> Actually "ei klama" means "the water stopped flowing, the waterflow paused"
08:49 < selpahi> Because in that position "ei" is an aspect
08:49 < gleki> ja'o ei klama lo drata stuzi
08:51 < selpahi> "ein-n klama" has the "ought to flow" meaning
08:51 < gleki> mi nitcu lo tutci be lo nu traduki lo itku'ile lo lojbo
08:51 < selpahi> But it's a good mnemonic for both meanings of "ei": "I should stop"
08:52 < selpahi> Or rather "I should take a break"
08:52 < gleki> ma algoritma lo nu katna lo itku'ile valsi doi la selpahi i xu do kakne lo ka nalsampla ciksi
08:54 < selpahi> da'i pilno so'i zoi gy. if .gy
08:54 < gleki> je'e
08:54 < gleki> i la'a sarcu falonu lanli lo zasti tutci
08:54 < selpahi> https://github.com/ieremias/ithkuil-parser/blob/master/IthkuilParser.hs
08:54 < selpahi> na'e barda .i ku'i pluja
08:54 < selpahi> .i sa'e lo ka tcidu cu nandu mi
08:55 < gleki> mi na xaske certu
08:55 < gleki> i a'o mi snada tcidu la piton
08:56 < selpahi> http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/the-full-ithkuil-verbal-formative
08:57 < selpahi> .i ro lo rafsi pagbu cu se steci lo ka ma kau ka'e sance ce'u
08:57 < selpahi> .i mu'a lo pa moi ka'e vasru me'o h
08:57 < gleki> xu lo nu pilno lo mumoi pagbu cu nibli lo nu pilno lo xamoi pagbu
08:58 < selpahi> go'i
08:58 < gleki> i nandu
09:00 < selpahi> .ei la su da finti lo PEG gentufa
09:01 < gleki> https://code.stypi.com/elbasto/ithkuil_help.html
09:01 < gleki> xm i banli zmadu pe'i
09:02 < gleki> i mi nelci
09:02 < gleki> ju'i la mensi
09:03 < Ilmen> .a'u
09:09 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/ithkuil/index1.html
09:09 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/ithkuil/index.html
09:09 < gleki> in terms of learning they are better than parsers
09:10 < gleki> as of adjuncts they can be learned separately
09:10 < selpahi> I've been using http://www.laethiel.fr/ithkuil/composer.php
09:10 < selpahi> Although I've been using http://www.laethiel.fr/ithkuil/transcript.php more
09:10 < Ilmen> tutci so'i .u'e mei
09:10 < gleki> i just constructed ryö'kaqawatt’
09:11 < gleki> no i need to try to understand what it means
09:11 < gleki> now i need to try to understand what it means
09:11 < gleki> :D
09:14 < gleki> i cant see the code of transcript.php http://www.laethiel.fr/ithkuil/
09:14 < Ilmen> How sentences are delimited in Ithkuil?
09:15 < selpahi> In writing with a dot. In speech, nothing.
09:15 < Ilmen> Is there a mechanism for knowing sentence ends, or are they ambiguous?
09:16 < zipcpi> ya'spraiqifškʰa'zz
09:16 < afurrow> .u'i #lojban is all about ithkuil now
09:16 < Ilmen> (Or maybe all the speech is a single run-on sentence, I don't know :p)
09:16 < zipcpi> I have no idea what it means
09:16 < zipcpi> Need a randomizer
09:16 < selpahi> I think it's ambiguous-ish.
09:16 < durka42> the transcriber doesn't like your word, zipcpi
09:16 < gleki> these html pages are much better. i can improve them now.
09:16 < zipcpi> Wut
09:17 < zipcpi> oi'asai
09:18 < ldlework> selpahi: your album is amazing
09:18 < selpahi> Thank you. I .. will let him know. :)
09:19 < durka42> .u'i
09:20 < Ilmen> I can't agree more.
09:21 < durka42> hmm
09:21 < durka42> (ASR)/PCT/PPS-TEN-MNO-STA-'q'-P2S2-SUB-(OBL)-RPV/DEL/M/CSL/DPX-IFL
09:21 < durka42> it's so clear now...
09:21 < Ilmen> ki'a nai dai
09:21 < ldlework> selpahi: really though, I'm totally and utterly blown away
09:22 < zipcpi> (why does everyone think djemynai is selpahi)
09:22 < selpahi> ldlework: Thanks man, I appreciate it
09:23 < Ilmen> zipcpi: Maybe nickname misreading
09:23 < selpahi> durka42: lol
09:23 < quintus> yes actually why all the ithkuil all of a sudden
09:23 < Ilmen> I'm having a hard time imagining how much work, time and effort has been put into making this album.
09:24 < durka42> ie
09:24 < ldlework> Ilmen: my friend's response was "Wow this guy reallllllly loves lojban"
09:24 < ldlework> My reply was "yes, he really does."
09:24 < durka42> whoever he is
09:24 < zipcpi> quintus: Because we got linked to this Ithkuil word generator
09:25 < zipcpi> So we're just clicking random stuff generating random words
09:25 < zipcpi> Probably insulting everyone's mothers in the process :p
09:25 < Ilmen> .u'i
09:27 < quintus> zipcpi: someone needs to fork this to allow for random generation
09:27 < quintus> it looks like all the logic is clientside
09:28 < selpahi> Staring at all the morphological categories at once is a great way to get utterly scared of the language.
09:31 < Ilmen> quintus: Probably this updateComposer.js linked in the HTML source
09:31 < durka42> selpahi: indeed :)
09:32 < keidji> selpahi: Indeed. But you would probably be just as intimidated when one drops a 5000 page dictionary of English words in front of you
09:34 < quintus> Ilmen: is there a list of roots?
09:34 < selpahi> http://ithkuil.net/lexicon.htm
09:35 < quintus> hng that's a mess
09:36 < quintus> I might be able to pull out all the first rows of the tables with jquery
09:36 < quintus> this is doable
09:38 < zipcpi> ˉn-n öbqʰo'ařtkhi
09:39 < zipcpi> Somthing about lobsters. Dunno what. Probably comparing your mother to one :p
09:39 < selpahi> .u'i
09:40 < selpahi> http://www.laethiel.fr/ithkuil/dico.php
09:40 < selpahi> The roots
09:42 < quintus> that would be easier
09:42 < zipcpi> ôfppiu'řšři
09:42 < durka42> you take that back right now!
09:42 < zipcpi> lol
09:43 < e`ogan> What was the main goal of ithkuil?
09:45 < gleki> to sell a book and gain money
09:45 < durka42> I thought it was to categorize the world
09:46 < gleki> that was Wilkins'es language
09:46 < Ilmen> drive language curiouses crazy (zo'o)
09:46 < selpahi> I recommend reading http://ithkuil.net/00_intro.html to find out
09:48 < gleki> the current tools are hard since they explain few things. i think more verbose hints (collapsible) are needed.
09:49 < ctefaho> .i mi sutra da'i klama lo zarci
09:49 < ctefaho> besides asking for trouble what would I mean by this?
09:50 < zipcpi> Erm... da'i attaches to sutra
09:50 < durka42> I go (quickly, I imagine) to the market
09:50 < ctefaho> zipcpi: no shit
09:50 < zipcpi> Well, it's just that I won't know what that would mean
09:51 < Ilmen> no kalci cu mo ŭa nai
09:51 < ctefaho> "I am figuratively-quickly going to the market"?
09:51 < durka42> figuratively is pe'a
09:51 < zipcpi> Nah {da'i} isn't figurative
09:51 < ctefaho> wups
09:51 < durka42> is my translation wrong?
09:51 < ctefaho> imaginateilve
09:51 < ctefaho> sadsadasd
09:52 < zipcpi> {da'i} is more like "hypothetically, assuming for the sake of discussion"
09:52 <@xalbo> "I'm going to the market. Hypothetically, I could go quickly."
09:52 < selpahi> doi la .ilmen. zoi gy. no shit .gy smusmi lu li'a sai li'u
09:52 < Ilmen> je'e
09:52 < Ilmen> .i gau do mi cilre
09:53 < gleki> .urban no shit
09:53 < gleki> je'e
09:53 < ctefaho> (I am formalizing da'i and trying to figure out where it would go in the tanru)
09:54 < durka42> for the record, my offering is {mi broda (sei mi lo du'u lo ka broda cu ka sutra cu se xanri se'u) klama lo zarci}
09:54 < selpahi> In my opinion it's the same as {da'i mi sutra klama}, except the focus is on {sutra}.
09:54 < gleki> mi no'e birti
09:54 < ctefaho> (also does anyone put da'i in case tags?)
09:55 < durka42> {va'o da'i ...} is common
09:55 < ctefaho> cause expanding that will be yummy,
09:55 < ctefaho> right
09:55 < selpahi> {va'o lo nu da'i}
09:55 < ctefaho> then it is just no'a
09:55 < Ilmen> I take va'o to already be irrealis, so adding va'o seems like an emphasis
09:56 < durka42> Ilmen: ie
09:56 < gleki> even i like la sutysisku now. although for reading CLL internet connection is still required
09:56 < Ilmen> *so adding da'i
09:56 < ctefaho> also da'i mi sutra klama will be la'e di'e
09:56 < ldlework> Wait, so I can't merely inform you of the surrounding conditions of some realis mention?
09:56 < durka42> {va'o da'inai...}
09:56 < ldlework> pff
09:56 < gleki> for me {va'o} is neither realis nor irrealis. add {da'i} to force irrealis
09:57 < ldlework> gleki: ie
09:57 < selpahi> mi tugni
09:57 < durka42> .i'a
09:57 < Ilmen> Isn't fau enough for adding such realis conditions?
09:57 < gleki> {va'o broda} is often used for "in this situation..."
09:57 < ctefaho> maybe I should show progress so far http://pastebin.com/2qc7qxsQ
09:57 < gleki> {fau} can describe imaginary events
09:58 < zipcpi> ti va'o broda = This is conditionally broda; this is broda in some situations
09:58 < selpahi> doi la .ilmen. lu va'o lo cabna li'u mo .i xu zmanei lu fau lo cabna li'u
09:58 < ctefaho> It seems UI are either ri/go'i/no'a/la'edi'u, depending
09:58 < ctefaho> but in a tanru none of that works
09:58 < ctefaho> no'a works in the case tag
09:58 < Ilmen> mi na xusra lo du'u lo se tcita be zo va'o .ei na fasnu .i mi jinvi lo du'u bi'ainai fasnu
09:59 < Ilmen> .i xu naku zo'oi .irrealis. cu mapti lo si'o bi'ainai fasnu ja fatci
09:59 < selpahi> si'o na bi'ai fatci
09:59 < selpahi> sa'e ru'e
10:00 < Ilmen> je'e .u'u
10:00 < gleki> ka'enaiku la selpa'i cu nelci lu ka'enai li'u
10:01 < selpahi> ctefaho: "(lo da'i zdani ku, lo zdani da'i ku and lo zdani ku da'i, are equal)"  -- the second one can't be the same
10:01 < selpahi> .u'i doi la gleki
10:01 < ctefaho> {.i broda va'o da'i lo brode} - {da'i lo su'u broda cu se vanbi brode}
10:01 < zipcpi> vlaste: ginda (gimka)
10:01 < vlaste> zo ginda gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo ginda gimkamsmikezypro zo kinda noi cipra gismu
10:01 < ctefaho> selpahi: probably not, something felt wrong there
10:02 < durka42> the second one is maybe {lo poi'i mi se xanri lo du'u ke'a zdani} or {lo broda sei mi lo du'u lo ka broda cu ka zdani cu se xanri}
10:02 < Ilmen> mi zmanei lu xoi banzu li'u lu xoi vanbi li'u .i .i'a .e'i mi basti be zo va'o pilno lu xoi banzu li'u
10:03 < ctefaho> {da'i lo su'u broda cu se vanbi brode} or {lo su'u broda cu se vanbi da'i brode}? Which one makes the least least sense?
10:03 < Ilmen> se.u lu xoi se banzu li'u
10:04 < ctefaho> (also the relationship in the past example probably holds for po'o, zo'o, etc as well)
10:04 < selpahi> A UI's scope is always the entire clause it's in, or the entire clause the constituent it's attached to is in. It's specific place adds focus.
10:04 < ctefaho> ki'e selpahi
10:05 < selpahi> {lo broda UI} attached the UI to an inner bridi, the one that contains broda, but not to the bridi that contains {lo broda}
10:05 < Ilmen> So {mi djuno lo du'u la'a ba carvi} doesn't have the right meaning
10:05 < ctefaho> seems no'at
10:06 < selpahi> Scope doesn't bleed out of sub clauses, except with question words.
10:06 < ldlework> and maybe indefinite references :3
10:06 < ctefaho> selpahi: How would you expand {lo broda UI}?
10:06  * ctefaho mental capacity seemingly empty for now
10:06 < Ilmen> lo poi'i broda UI
10:06 < selpahi> Like durka42 did, with {poi'i} or with {me'au}.
10:07 < selpahi> See the classic example of {.i lo troci ku po'o snada .i ku'i lo troci po'o ku fliba}
10:08 < Ilmen> je'e
10:09 < ctefaho> Ilmen there were some UI you mentioned that seemed to have weird scope, which were those?
10:11 < ctefaho> ah nvm that was la'a
10:12 < durka42> well, {po'o} and {ji'a} are special :)
10:13 < ctefaho> in that they?
10:15 < durka42> have scpe
10:15 < durka42> have scope
10:15 < ctefaho> or did you mean UI3b specifically
10:15 < durka42> at least according to an old selpahi blog post which I like :)
10:15 < durka42> vlaste: class:UI3b
10:15 < vlaste> 6 results: ji'a, ku'i, mi'u, po'o, si'a, xe'e
10:15 < zipcpi> durka42: If it's really desirable to separate the two senses of {li'ei}, we might split the me'o sense to something like {le'oi} (from lerpoi), but it might be better to see which way the XNS winds blow first
10:15 < ctefaho> let's hope it survived the purge then
10:15 < durka42> http://selpahi.weebly.com/archive-pre-2014/poo-and-jia-are-bridi-operators
10:15 < durka42> "poo and jia" xD
10:16  * ctefaho goes to formalize
10:17 < selpahi> #tceraso
10:17 < gleki> tcefraso
10:18 < ctefaho> any other UI that need special care..
10:18 < ctefaho> a lot, probably
10:18 < selpahi> "One does not simply formalize Lojban", someone go make a meme.
10:19 < zipcpi> u'i
10:20 < gleki> selpahi: pei co'u pilno zo po'o gi'e seba'i finti lo sumtcita
10:20 < ctefaho> "The idea I have is that I feel some UI should be made less strict and always have bridi scope, while others should be local" which ones?
10:20 < zipcpi> I'm not sure how mi'u works. I think it's like a specialized li'o
10:20 < selpahi> lo sumtcita na banzuka lo ka vlipa
10:20 < gleki> ma banzuka
10:21 < zipcpi> But with no formal designation on how the "ditto" is to be filled
10:21 < selpahi> zo po'o
10:21 < gleki> i xu fa po'o lo cnino ke valsi klesi
10:21 < Ilmen> .e'u zo .olkai
10:21 < Ilmen> .a lu .e no drata be ri li'u
10:21 < Ilmen> s/.a/joi
10:21 < phenny> Ilmen meant to say: joi lu .e no drata be ri li'u
10:22 < selpahi> coi zo .a je zo .e
10:22 < durka42> I used to think {mi'u} meant {mi ji'a} but I have been enlightened
10:22 < Ilmen> {.i ku'i naltoi fa lo tolvri .e do mi'u}
10:22 < Ilmen> I think it means {.e do noi mintu}
10:23 < niftg> zo'oi s/---/--- se krasi lu sa'ai lo'ai le'ai li'u xu vau ta'o
10:23 < durka42> lu lo'ai sa'ai le'ai li'u xu
10:23 < Ilmen> se krasi se gi'u krasi
10:24 < Ilmen> .i sa'unai zo'oi s/---/--- cu krasi
10:24 < niftg> je'e .i za'u mai lo go'i ma krasi
10:24 < niftg> s/krasi/selkra
10:24 < phenny> niftg meant to say: je'e .i za'u mai lo go'i ma selkra
10:25 < Ilmen> lo skami srana
10:25 < Ilmen> noi na'e slabu mi
10:25 < niftg> .uenai .ua
10:26 < niftg> .a'o la'oi phenny cu jbobau spusku ba
10:27  * ctefaho puts xalbo into sei
10:28  * xalbo prepares to fight his way out.
10:28 < gleki> niftg: ro da frili lo ka favgau la'oi phenny
10:28  * ctefaho quickly adds .i
10:29 < niftg> .ua .i ta'o ku'i lo ka jbobau curve na sarcu gi'e no'e xamgu
10:29 < niftg> va'o tu'a lo vi se irci
10:29 < ldlework> Hmm is there a word for 'navigate'?
10:29 < gleki> like in ...?
10:30 < gleki> .dict navigate
10:30 < phenny> navigate — verb: 1. (trans.) To plan, control and record the position and course of a vehicle, ship, aircraft etc on a journey; to follow a planned course, 2. (intr.) To travel over water in a ship; to sail
10:30 < ldlework> It takes many instruments and knowledge of the skies to navigate the treacherous waters.
10:30 < gleki> sazri lo bloti
10:30 < ldlework> I don't mean "operate vehicle"
10:30 < gleki> gidva
10:31 < ldlework> That still doesn't seem like the sense
10:31 < gleki> litru lo co'e djacu
10:32 < ldlework> travelling is what navigation makes possible
10:32 < durka42> sevzi gidva
10:32 < zipcpi> k: navgado
10:32 < mensi> (CU [Z:navgado VAU])
10:32 < gleki> sazri ne'i lo co'e djacu
10:32 < ldlework> zo lutfa'i pei
10:33  * ctefaho stuffs gleki into a ui-expansion too
10:33 < durka42> .i'e
10:33 < zipcpi> sail or travel over (a stretch of water or terrain), especially carefully or with difficulty.
10:34 < zipcpi> pluja
10:34 < zipcpi> guide (a vessel or vehicle) over a specified route or terrain.
10:34 < zipcpi> gidva is probably quite close but might need to be clarified in some way
10:35 < zipcpi> ku'ita'o ei mi cliva co'o
10:48 < niftg> co'o la zipcpi noi za'a nau ba'o zvati
10:54 < gleki> *ku
11:06 < gleki> maybe i should program a better learning app but i havent found (and searched) any safe methods of storing user data locally
11:07 < gleki> apart from the fact that exercises arent ready
11:09 < e`ogan> You have a learning app?
11:09 < selpahi> ga'a mi xa'o prane
11:09 < selpahi> (to .u'i toi)
11:13 < selpahi> .i mi pilno lo do tutci ca lo cabdei so'o roi
11:29 < rutytar> coi
11:30 < durka42> coi
11:30 < noncomcinse> coi jbopre
11:31 < niftg> coi
11:31 < noncomcinse> .i ma se casnu ja fasnu
11:36 < niftg> za'a nau ku no da poi la'a cinri ja vajni
11:37 < noncomcinse> je'e
11:44 < rutytar> .ei mi nurxru ki'u ra'u
11:44 < rutytar> lo prenu cu prenu ju cmalu
11:45 < gleki> e`ogan: there s just been a request for a silly learning app. im thinking how to make it not silly mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cilretci/ the largest problem for me atm is to find a safe method of storing user progress locally
11:45 < gleki> in anywhere in the cloud
11:45 < gleki> *not anywhere in the cloud
11:45 < e`ogan> Oh that, yeah it is a headache
11:46 < rutytar> why not anywhere in the cloud?
11:46 < e`ogan> Because it needs to be safe
11:46 < rutytar> why?
11:46 < gleki> Ask Snowden
11:47 < rutytar> as in safe from attackers or safe from accident?
11:47 < gleki> from attackers. the second is done via backups
11:47 < rutytar> what's wrong with just using crypto?
11:48 < gleki> what is crypto?
11:48 < rutytar> cryptography
11:50 < gleki> i just need a premade system where user account details could be stored locally so that no attackers would be able to steal the passwords and other user data. the learning app will just use api of that premade system to  send and receive data.
11:51 < rutytar> hold on a second
11:52 < durka42> that's what cookies are for
11:53 < gleki> cookies are nice
11:53 < gleki> btw lastpass has recently been hacked :/
11:54 < rutytar> google's embedded login thing might let users submit data which is encrypted with that login
11:54 < rutytar> maybe
11:55 < rutytar> are you worrying about the server getting compromised or the connection?
11:56 < gleki> idk. i dont even know why i should worry. it's just user progress. the most concern is that users might use passwords from their other important accounts and these password may be used to compromise those other accounts
11:57 < durka42> you mean like how it used to be possible to log into jbovlaste as any user?
11:57 < durka42> :D
11:57 < gleki> i mean someone could steal passwords
11:57 < rutytar> gleki: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZtInClXe1Q
11:59 < gleki> ki'e i i'a
12:00 < ctefaho> mi fundi lopu bilti ckela
12:00 < gleki> coi: mi fundi lopu bilti ckela
12:00 < mensi> mi se selneimau lopu* mlemau ckule
12:00 < gleki> coi: mi fundi lo pu bilti ckela
12:00 < mensi> mi se selneimau loi ka mlemau ckule
12:00 < durka42> loi ka
12:00 < ctefaho> na jbobau
12:01 < ctefaho> ja jbobau
12:01 < durka42> zo coi sinxa lo nu la mensi cu jai gau fanva fi lo jbobau lo loglybau
12:01 < durka42> s/jai gau//
12:01 < phenny> durka42 meant to say: zo coi sinxa lo nu la mensi cu  fanva fi lo jbobau lo loglybau
12:02 < ctefaho> la loglan
12:02 < durka42> je'u
12:02 < ctefaho>  Subjunctive Junction: Articles that relate to the counterfactual/subjunctive debate.
12:03 < ctefaho> .u'i
12:03 < gleki> ma krasi di'u
12:04 < ctefaho> http://www.loglan.org/#articles nr 7
12:05 < ctefaho> meh didn't find what I was hoping for
12:06  * ctefaho digs into cll instead
12:07 < gleki> if you need subjunctive theory then i read all articles on Loglan, Lojban and Ithkuil and developed this system: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ELG._Subjunctives,_imaginary_situations
12:08 < ctefaho> wasn't about that though
12:08 < ctefaho> did you just make da'i a tense
12:09 < ctefaho> sa
12:09 < ctefaho> utilize da'i
12:09 < ctefaho> something
12:11 < noncomcinse> .i pu za ku la nuzba zo'u: jungau mi tu'a la'oi .Vivaldi. noi kibyca'o gi'e kakne co jbobau
12:11 < gleki> da'i forces subjunctivity to be assumed. {fau} is one of the most vague tags.
12:12 < ctefaho> does my formalization break that in any way?
12:12  * ctefaho didn't check very much
12:13 < noncomcinse> .i mi zi kibycpa la'oi .Vivaldi. gi'e co'a pilno ri bau lo jbobau
12:13 < gleki> i'e
12:13 < gleki> noncomcinse: i e'osai do jai gau djuno fai mi fi ro lo nabmi be do xe fanva
12:13 < ctefaho> as long as you rely on "no'a" you should be fine
12:14 < noncomcinse> .i mi na djuno fi lo kibro pixra pe vy.   .i ku'i mi gasnu tu'a la'e zoi .urli. http://imgur.com/lDzZvKe .urli
12:15 < gleki> pe'i la vivaldi nu'o bredi
12:15 < gleki> sa
12:15 < gleki> pe'i la vivaldis nu'o bredi
12:15 < gleki> to zo valdi mo toi
12:16 < noncomcinse> ie
12:17 < noncomcinse> .i pe'i na melbi
12:18 < gleki> a'o ba za co'a melbi
12:18 < gleki> i mi pu troci lo ka fanva la kromi'um i ku'i jai ri'a tatpi
12:19 < mindszenty> Lojban by design, of course, has no sociolectal distinctions. So how to express them in translation? One thing I can think of is to use {ga'i}/{ga'inai} for class sociolects.
12:19 < noncomcinse> .i ku'i la'edi'u zo'u fancu lo mi me'oi .windowmanager. noi na me'oi .flat.
12:20 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ELG._Politeness
12:21 < gleki> According to the so called politeness theory all human communication can be divided into “positive faces” and “negative faces”.
12:21 < gleki> ...
12:22 < niftg> ta'o ti'e je'u pei zo ga'i cu cenba tu'a lo smuni puzuba'oku
12:23 < gleki> i'unai
12:30 < niftg> .i va'i xu zo ga'i nau valsi da poi simsa zo .io lo ka pilno ce'u lo nu jarco lo ka makau se cinmo lo cnima'o cusku lo sumti mu'a ku'o .enai lo nu jarco lo ka lo cusku cu mo kau jikyvajni
12:52 < ctefaho> so sei is basically like: I ate your cat (just kidding!/zo'o)
12:53 < ctefaho> then what is to-toi?
12:53 < durka42> pretty much the same :p
12:53 < noncomcinse> for things that are longer than a single bridi?
12:53 < ctefaho> are to-toi like sei?
12:53 < ctefaho> or not
12:54 < ctefaho> something feels wrong with that
12:54 < niftg> pe'i zo to jo'u zo toi zo'u ka'e smuvanbi sepli
12:55 < ctefaho> ah well, nvm
12:56 < niftg> .i sa'e ju'ocu'i sepli lo jufra poi vasru zo'ei zo to
12:57 < noncomcinse> .i mi na djuno lodu'u makau tadji lo se djica be mi .ije ku'i baza ku la'a mi gasnu co spofu skami
13:04 < niftg> di'ai
13:06 < noncomcinse> .i mi troci co samcmu fa reda pade
13:09 < niftg> .u'e .i ma samcmu
13:10 < noncomcinse> la'oi .elementaryOS. .e la'oi .ArchLinux.
13:11 < niftg> .a'u .i'u nai je'e
13:15 < niftg> za'a ckini fi lo ka simsa la .linux.
13:42 < selpahi> lulz:  http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/cramming-the-modality-affixes
13:46 < niftg> .u'e sampu mutce jvinu tutci
13:52 < ldlework> selpahi: xamgu lo nu lojbo nu tadni
13:52 < ldlework> xu
13:53 < selpahi> mi senpi lo du'u so'i prenu cu se pluka lo ka pilno lo tai tutci
13:54 < selpahi> .i ka'e xamgu lo se pluka .i ku'i lo nu tadni fau lo nu se fanza lo tutci na'o se jalge no xamgu
13:59 < Ilmen> ue la gleki cu zbasu lo .itku'ile proga vau xu
13:59 < selpahi> lo se zbasu na .iku'ile ja na se jinzi lo ka .itku'ile
13:59 < selpahi> .i sa'u mi pilno fi tu'a la .itku'ile
14:00 < selpahi> s/.iku'ile/.itku'ile
14:01 < Ilmen> je'e
14:01 < selpahi> mi finti fe ji'a http://selpahi.de/aspect.htm
14:01 < selpahi> .i ku'i nu'o mo'icli
14:04 < niftg> .ua lo preti sorcu sfaile zo'u me'oi JSON
14:05 < niftg> .i ja'o ka'e gau frili basti fa zo'ei lo drata bangu
14:06 < selpahi> go'i
14:07 < niftg> .a'u .ai ru'e ba'a cipra tu'a lo tokpona valsi ku mu'a
14:07 < Ilmen> zdile skina
14:12 < selpahi> .u'i
14:13 < selpahi> .i .a'o lo zgike cu jai rinka lo nu na dukse lo ka tolzdi
14:15 < selpahi> .i xu tirna lo ponjo zgike pe lo skina
14:20 < niftg> .ue .i le bi'unai skina mi nu'o co'a se mencti .i .a'o la'a la ilmen cu tinytcidu fi le bi'unai ponjo
14:21 < Ilmen> je'a tirna .i melbi
14:22 < Ilmen> .i lo namcu zgike zo'u xajmi
14:22 < Ilmen> sa'e namcu selsa'a
14:23 < selpahi> lo namcu zgike zo'u sanga li pai
14:24 < niftg> lo pamoi ku ji'a namcu se sanga vau .ua
14:30 < niftg> .iu tonga lo cmalu
14:35 < niftg> .au za'u da nalcla lujvo la'oi bass noi tonga
14:40 < niftg> fu'e .ua lo romoi cu ponbauselsa'a bi'unai .i je lo pamoi cu pai zei namcu selsa'a vau bi'unai .i na srana simxu
14:42 < saharl> i do casnu ma
14:57 < niftg> mi zo'u casnu lo skina poi la selpa'i puza gubgau zi'e poi kansa lo bi'unai zgike
14:59 < saharl> .i je'e
14:59 < zipcpi> I think it might be useful to translate an instructional text of some sort; exercise the assignments, scoping and such that are supposed to be Lojban's strengths. But not sure what kind
15:15 < niftg> coi sai vreji
15:26 < niftg> .e'e citka lo jufra poi memkai lo traji be fo lo jai se kakne
15:32 < niftg> tormau .au fanva zoi .gy. as much as possible .gy.
15:33 < durka42> vlaste: tankomo
15:33 < vlaste> tankomo = x1 (agent) does x2 (property of x1) as much as it/he/she/they x3 (relation between x1 and x2)
15:35 < durka42> coi la vukna
15:35 < durka42> vukna: coi
15:35 < vukna> vukna = x1 confuses x2 for x3; x1 fails to tell x2 and x3 apart
15:36 < durka42> niftg: ko'a tankomo fi lo ka kakne
15:38 < niftg> zo tankomo cu zi'evla je'ipau fu'ivla .i za'a .uinai la'oi jbovlaste.lojban.org cu spofu cando
15:38 < selpahi> spano fa lo valkra
15:38 < durka42> jbo:tankomo
15:38 < mensi> tankomo = x1 dukse x2 lo nu x1 me'au x3 lo ka zenba lo ka ckaji x2
15:42 < niftg> la'a la'oi x3 zo'u nitcu
15:42 < niftg> .u'u srera benji
15:42 < niftg> mabla batke
15:46 < niftg> la'a la'oi x3 pe lo jbovelcki be zo tankmo zo'u sarcu fa lo nu ka bridi ce'u lo za'u re moi sumti
15:49 < niftg> en: tantokomo
15:49 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
15:50 < niftg> zo'oi tanto ja'a vrici cenba .i na mapti tezu'e lo nu fukpi
16:09 < ternuzba> mensi: doi rlpowell la lojban.org cu ca morsi pe'a
16:09 < mensi> ternuzba: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.rlpowell.gy. di'a cusku da
16:09 < durka42> ta'e go'i za uinai
16:10 < durka42> .u'i la ternuzba cu du ma
16:10 < durka42> ko na celgunta lo ternuzba
16:18 < selpahi> niftg: .ai mi ca lo bavlamdei cu finti xau do so'o sampu jufra je cu snavei finti
16:18 < selpahi> co'o
16:18 < niftg> co'o itku'ile kansa
16:25 < rlpowell> Sorry, doing an upgrade.
16:25 < mensi> rlpowell: cu'u la'o gy.ternuzba.gy.: la lojban.org cu ca morsi pe'a | 2015-06-23T23:09:21.
16:25 < mensi> 729Z
16:26 < rlpowell> I have to afk for a while; if it's not up on its own in an hour or so when I get back, I'll fix it.  Sorry.
16:27 < durka42> la camgusmis co'a kadno za'a zo'o
17:39 < _mukti_> Has the web site been down for long?
17:39 < mensi> _mukti_: cu'u la'o gy.durka42.gy.: check out my most recent teensy JVS PRs! | 2015-06-21T01:33:43.
17:39 < mensi> 132Z
17:40 < durka42> rlpowell said he was doing an upgrade
17:40 < durka42> about an hour ago
17:45 < _mukti_> ah
21:53  * nuzba @willingtheweird: @_Vanessa_sary_ @c00LbLaCkMAg1c .i la brandon djuno la lojban .i la brandon pendo mi [http://bit.ly/1BLzock]
22:01  * nuzba @willingtheweird: @c00LbLaCkMAg1c @_Vanessa_sary_ .i xu do na tavla fo la lojban .i mi ctuca do zo'e la lojban [http://bit.ly/1IxVDzd]
22:51  * nuzba @fnxTX: @EvanMcM Reminds me why I hate English so, & suspect we'd have world peace w/ or w/o Voluntaryism if only we all spoke lojban.    @ligervision [http://bit.ly/1K9tkvd]
23:02 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 145 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 143 normal]
23:06 < selrun> coi lo pendo be mi .i ri mo lo nu jmive
23:07 < gleki> co'e
23:07 < ldlework> lifri
23:08 < ldlework> mi tadni lo srana be lo nunvoikla
23:16 < selrun> doi .idlework. ia cinri
23:16 < selrun> [la]
23:23 < selrun> doi la .gleki. zo'o lo si'o do lifri cu melbi
23:24 < gleki> je'e
23:33 < selrun> la .sutysisku. cu spofu ki'u ma .i ji'a ma traji tadji lo nu cusku di'u
23:34 < gleki> lo selfu skami be fa la jukni ca spofu
23:37 < selrun> dapma
23:40 < selrun> mi zi ba citka .i mi ba xruti
23:52 < rlpowell> WRT lojban.org: some super-old perl code somewher is using CGI::Apache
23:52 < rlpowell> I'm trying to find it.  :P
--- Day changed Wed Jun 24 2015
00:14 < rlpowell> lojban.org stuff back up!
00:14 < rlpowell> gleki: ^^
00:14 < rlpowell> Testing of jbovlaste would be appreciated.
00:14 < rlpowell> Today's downtime was really shitty; I'm very sorry about that.
00:15 < rlpowell> I kept getting pulled away by other stuff.
00:18 <@Broca> rlpowell: thanks!
00:18 <@Broca> rlpowell: seems to work fine except for search.
00:18 <@Broca> "Cannot connect to any servers (use -v to see why)"
00:20 <@Broca> Maybe the search box hasn't worked in a long while? I exclusively use vlasisku these days.
00:26 < rlpowell> Pretty sure it was working, pretty sure I see the fix.
00:39 < gleki> rlpowell: jvs down
00:40 < gleki> rlpowell: as everything else
00:43 < rlpowell> Uh.
00:44 < rlpowell> Ah, I see.  Working on it.
01:06 < rlpowell> Most things are back up I think?
01:08 < gleki> yes
01:08 < gleki> la sutysisku is now available for Occidental/Interlingue language. Not very relevant to Lojban, still ... http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/ile/index.html#sisku/above
01:26 < rlpowell> Broca: Search fixed?
01:29 <@Broca> rlpowell: yes.
01:29 < rlpowell> Cool.
01:29 < rlpowell> OK, no more big outages for a while I hope!
01:29 < rlpowell> These last few were me upgrading everybody to Fedora 22.
02:07  * nuzba @AmazonComm2: The Complete Lojban Language / John..    入荷しました    価格:122218円    6/24 0:30    http://apr.blauberg.net/pricelist?asin=0966028309 [http://bit.ly/1NhRbJj]
03:07 < kmir> coi coi
03:07 < kmir> ma jmive
03:08 < phma> mi jmive
03:09 < kmir> ui .i do ca mo
03:09 < phma> mi puzi cikybi'o gi'e ca tirna lo nuzba
03:10 < kmir> .ua .i do vu mi xabju
03:11 < phma> mi xabju la .ber.karolinas. i do xabju ma
03:12 < kmir> mi nuzlo
03:13 < phma> la berti daplu ji la snanu daplu
03:13 < Rodericus> coi rodo
03:13 < phma> coi
03:16 < gleki> ue la kmir di'a co'e
03:16 < kmir> la berti .i la .auklynd.
03:17 < kmir> coi la gleki .i mi xenru lo ka na zvati .u'u
03:17 < gleki> lo nu jmive cu nu jmive i ko na xenru
03:18 < kmir> .ie .i mi gunka gunka je milxe lazni
03:19 < gleki> zo gi'e cu mapti zmadu
03:20 < kmir> .ieru'e .i zo je poi cnino noi la selpa'i
03:20 < kmir> .ija mi fliba zo'o
03:21 < kmir> zo .ijo xu mapti .i .oi mi na certu
03:22 < gleki> zo je poi cnino na mapti
03:22 < kmir> .ua je'e
03:22 < gleki> exp:  gunka gunke je milxe lazni
03:22 < mensi> (CU [gunka {gunke <je milxe>} lazni] VAU)
03:22 < kmir> .ua .i jetnu
03:23 < kmir> .i mi pu nelci lo ka sance .u'i
03:24 < kmir> ni'o do mo .i xu kanro a'o
03:25 < gleki> mi xadni kanro
03:29 < kmir> .i mi zgana zoi .url. http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/i/ .i .ue banli
03:30 < gleki> u'i
03:30 < kmir> la muplis cu pilno tcetce
03:31 < gleki> y la muplis cu fukpi la tato'ebas i ku'i lo jbogu'e cu aidji lo ka favgau le datni ciste
03:34 < kmir> .i fanva lu le datni ciste li'u fu mo
03:35 < gleki> zoi gy database gy
03:35 < gleki> i ku'i mi na birti lo nu mi pu pilno lo drani xe fanva
03:35 < gleki> en: database
03:35 < mensi> pinkipai = x1 is Pinkie Pie from My Little Pony
03:35 < kmir> yyy
03:35 < gleki> en: data-base
03:35 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
03:36 < gleki> .w database
03:36 < gleki> .dict database
03:36 < gleki> y i ua i lu datni sorcu li'u
03:37 < gleki> .dict database
03:37 < kmir> zo pinkipai oi
03:37 < phenny> database — noun: 1. (computing) A collection of (usually) organized information in a regular structure, usually but not necessarily in a machine-readable format accessible by a computer, 2. (computing) A set of tables in a database(1) — verb: 1. To enter data into a database
03:40 < kmir> ni'o vidni.lakmeer.com cu milxe akti
03:41 < kmir> ku'i nitcu lo nu su'o gunka
03:44 < gleki> https://github.com/voximplant
03:44 < gleki> kmir: mu nu'o troci tu'a la'e di'u
03:46 < kmir> .a'u
04:30 < phma> mi tumymre .i ca lo prulamdei mi punji lo velpluta dinko .i ba le nu punji kei mi tolcri lo garpata lo mi kerfa
04:35 < kmir> ue zo garpata mo
04:37 < ctefaho> man sei is awesome
04:37 < ctefaho> is there anything sei can't do?
04:37 < ctefaho> {mi'e ctefa'o} {mi sei ri mintu la ctefa'o}
04:39 < ctefaho> {mi'e la ctefa'o}*
04:39 < ctefaho> {doi lo verba} {do sei ri mintu lo verba}
04:40 < ctefaho> ...
04:41 < ctefaho> {mi sei ri la ctefa'o mintu} + {do sei ri lo verba mintu} li'a
04:41 < phma> lo iksode cu garpata .i lo garpata cu jukni
04:42 < phma> .ila'a lo garpata poi mi tolcri cu iksode
04:42 < kmir> ue lo jukni pu zasti lo do kerfa xu
04:44 < kmir> ua mi jimpe zo iksode
04:44 < ctefaho> {.i mi klama} {.i mi sei ri makau noi tavla cu mintu}
04:44 < phma> lo kerfa na zgana lo nu zasti .i lo jukni pu zvati lo kerfa
04:44 < ctefaho> i mi sei ri makau noi tavla cu mintu klama}*
04:45 < kmir> .ie zo zvati cu drani .u'u
04:56 < Ilmen> zo ri na ka'e krati zo mi
04:57 < gleki> la'a lu lo no'a li'u cu mapti
04:57 < ctefaho> {.i mi'e la ctefa'o} {.i mi sei mi la ctefa'o cu mintu}?
04:57 < Ilmen> zo mi'e na sumti zbasu pe'a
04:58 < ctefaho> oh right
04:58 < ctefaho> {.i mi'e la ctefa'o} {.i sei mi la ctefa'o cu mintu}
04:58 < Ilmen> .i lu mi'e X li'u simsa ja dunli lu sei mi me X li'u
04:58 < Ilmen> se.u lu sei mi X mintu li'u
04:58 < Ilmen> ĭe
04:58 < Ilmen> coi
04:59 < ctefaho> coi doi
04:59 < ctefaho> yeah doi and the vocatives sure are like UI in this
05:00 < ctefaho> as for how to formalize {ri/ra/ru}...
05:00 < ctefaho> can't just ri for ri heh
05:03 < ctefaho> "ri is identical to the sumti that precedes zo ri"?
05:05 < Ilmen> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Anaphoric_Pro-sumti#cmavo:_ri_.28KOhA5.29
05:07  * nuzba @uitki: zantufa - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zantufa by Guskant - zantufa_farvi.svg [http://bit.ly/1Nai8xL]
05:07 < ctefaho> "complete sumti" - so only lo/la sumti? O_o
05:08 < Ilmen> ctefaho: it means that the sumti clause has to be complete when "ri" appears
05:09 < Ilmen> for example, in "lo pendo be ri (ku)", ri cannot target "lo pendo be..." because it's not yet finished
05:09 < ctefaho> But zo ri in {.i mi tavla ri} still means mi right?
05:10 < ctefaho> err no
05:10 < ctefaho> wow I had kinda missed that part
05:10 < ctefaho> putting that into words is gonna be fun
05:10 < Ilmen> Unfortunately the creators of {ri} seem to have decided that {ri} shall skip things like "mi" and "do" when back counting, without making clear what was the list of things ri should skip
05:11 < Ilmen> So the BPFK has proposed a complete list in the previously linked definition
05:11 < ctefaho> "Bickerings" -u'i
05:12 < ctefaho> hmm then this kinda breaks my da'i def
05:12 < ctefaho> {.i mi da'i}
05:13 < niftg> vo'a / lo nei ?
05:14 < ctefaho> vo'a would only work as long as the mi is in x1
05:14 < ctefaho> .i mi tavla do da'i
05:15 < ctefaho> can ra and ru refer to any sumti or does just ri have this restriction?
05:17 < ctefaho> seems only ri has his then.
05:20 < ctefaho> hmm would tolsteci work for zo'e?
05:23  * ctefaho uses it for now
05:39 < ctefaho> camxes: zo'e goi lo mlatu
05:39 < camxes> ([zo'e {goi <lo mlatu KU> GEhU}] VAU)
05:40 < ctefaho> does goi have an agreed upon scope?
05:42 < ctefaho> probably not
05:50  * nuzba @uitki: Welcome!/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Welcome!/en by Mukti - Embed video [http://bit.ly/1KctfIX]
06:54 < gleki> modern websites arent paged. so yeah a better front page would be better but MW doesnt support that
07:07 < e`ogan> Hmm I asked last week about "handwave" translation, and now there is a lujvo xansli in the dictionary for that which wasn't fetched to me before
07:08 < gleki> en: xansli
07:08 < mensi> xansli [< xance slilu ≈ Hand oscillate] = s1=xa2 waves hand. |>>> Cf. cusku. |>>>
07:08 < mensi> tijlan
07:08 < gleki> it's an old lujvo
07:08 < gleki> .dict handwave
07:08 < phenny> handwave — noun: 1. (literally) The wave produced by a hand, 2. A glib statement or explanation that glosses over important details — verb: 1. (rhetoric, academia) To explain something superficially, skipping over important details, perhaps appealing to intuition instead
07:09 < e`ogan> Wasn't given to me last time so I had to go with "I oscillate my single hand to show parting"
07:09 < gleki> which meaning? is it even among those?
07:09 < gleki> xance slilu tolrinsa
07:51 < gleki> where is the lyrics of djemynai's songs?
07:51 < durka42> .ei .erve
07:52 < gleki> ta'i ma
07:52 < gleki> i oi pilno la cekitaujaus
07:52 < durka42> lo .erve be lo .albuma cu cpacu lo pemvla
07:52 < durka42> .oinai
07:54 < gleki> jaio ei mi jai gau fatri fai lo me mi bankle
08:06 < akmnlrse> gleki: meio by poi na coie meio vy zoiu https://github.com/mezohe/glekitufa/raw/master/cirkotci.html
08:12  * nuzba @BuckMatthews1: zdotu'a - ← Older revision Revision as of 15:09, 24 June 2015 Line 1: Line 1:   ==Lojban==   ==Lojban== − {{wi http://ow.ly/30ufaK [http://bit.ly/1HgOJC2]
08:15 < latro`a_> what is this {jaio}, {meio}, etc.? is that i supposed to be '?
08:15 < durka42> la nuzba co'u jundi la'oi @BuckMatthews1
08:37  * nuzba @fotono: #lojban zei genturfa'i : .i ma'a kakne lo nu iklki sedi'o ro lo ve farvi nacle'u http://guskant.github.io/gerna_cipra/zantufa_farvi.svg [http://bit.ly/1e3CwFj]
08:43  * nuzba @s_i_d_a: mi be'udzu lo    dziraipau co vacri noi    kuspe lo tsani    #lojban #haiku [http://bit.ly/1e3DjWQ]
09:09 < fpcalep> coi
09:09 < latro`a_> coi
09:12 < gleki> latro`a_: ie y'y
09:12 < gleki> i kuii cizra tarmi
09:25 < Ilmen> xu do sanji tu'a lo .albume pe la .djemynais. doi la latro`a
09:25 < Ilmen> se.u la latro`a_
09:25 < fpcalep> la .azra'el. pu jmina lo .itku'ile skina ne lo do tutci la .redit. doi la gleki .i .y .u'i .i ba misno tutci
09:25 < latro`a_> .i na catlu gi'e ku'i se slabu
09:26 < Ilmen> .e'u jinju'i gi'u catlu
09:26 < Ilmen> *tinju'i
09:26 < Ilmen> ta'o coi
09:26 < fpcalep> coi la .olmen.
09:27 < Ilmen> latro`a_: https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao
09:28 < gleki> fpcalep: ie ie i lo mabla so'i roi co'a misno
09:28 < fpcalep> .u'i
09:29 < gleki> i mu'a https://www.reddit.com/r/lojban/top/
09:29 < gleki> Lojban changes to hanzi writing system
09:29 < gleki> If Lojban gets 1000 votes in the FB poll, LingQ will add support for the language to their online language learning site.approved by shanoxilt 2 years ago (facebook.com)
09:29 < Ilmen> xD
09:29 < gleki> (Lojbanists call loanwords fu'ivla, considering the word "loanword" to be illogical since the words will never be returned) -Sumelicapproved by shanoxilt 1 month ago (i.imgur.com)
09:29 < gleki> Get ready to add Lojban to Duolingo! The Language Incubator comes online October 9th, 2013!
09:30 < gleki> i ku'i lo mi vlaste na co'a misno
09:30 < gleki> i ku'i vajni ke mutce zmadu falo vlaste
09:30 < gleki> i ja'o mo i ja'o lo prenu na tadni le bangu
09:30 < gleki> i po'o kelci
09:30 < fpcalep> ra'u jetnu
09:31 < fpcalep> .i ta'o sai ba'o finti xau lo nintadni (to noi mi ji'a mupli toi) so'o mupyjufra http://selpahi.weebly.com/ithkuil/simple-phrases-for-beginners
09:33 < gleki> Get ready to add Ithkuil to Google Translate!
09:33 < fpcalep> de'i li 2099
09:34 < gleki> ua lo bi'unai do papri cu traji lo ka plixau mi
09:34 < fpcalep> ua
09:34 < Ilmen> .i'o
09:36 < gleki> https://www.reddit.com/r/Ithkuil/comments/3ayvc0/the_best_ive_ever_seen_by_far_simple_phrases_for/
09:37 < Ilmen> banli jufmupli
09:38 < fpcalep> .u'e doi la gleki ki'e
09:39 < gleki> e'u do favgau le papri
09:39 < gleki> tai lo mintu
09:41  * nuzba @464161niftg: ああ、さういやhttp://lojban.orgはしばしばダウンするんだよな… [http://bit.ly/1Het3bo]
09:42 < Ilmen> .u'i
09:42 < gleki> no'isai zo to frica zo sei fi po'onao lo gerna i zo sei srana lo nu cinmo ce va'i lo me'oi attitude i ku'i zo to srana lo nu pinka
09:42 < gleki> s/po'onao/po'onai/
09:42 < phenny> gleki meant to say: no'isai zo to frica zo sei fi po'onai lo gerna i zo sei srana lo nu cinmo ce va'i lo me'oi attitude i ku'i zo to srana lo nu pinka
09:42 < gleki> ki'e la fenki
09:43 < Ilmen> ku'i za'a la jbobau kibystu cu ja'a selfu mi
09:45 < Ilmen> ŭa la mukti xoi lo zabna cu mukti cu jmina lo judysni be lo djemynai selsa'a lo ralju papri pe la jbobau kibystu
09:49 < gleki> mi na nelci lo nu lo ralju papri cu mutce lo ka clani
09:49 < mensi> mi xebni
09:57  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa gunro fa
10:03 < Ilmen> ŭa .i xu me la gunro be lo du be lo du
10:08 < gleki> du ma enai lo du
10:42 < graciebear> hello, i have a question for whoever.
10:43 < fpcalep> Hello, go ahead.
10:43 < graciebear> How do you pronounce vowels in romanian
10:43 < fpcalep> Is this related to Lojban somehow?
10:44 < ldlework> u'i
10:56 < gleki> probably "lojban" sounds as a Romanian word?
11:01 < akmnlrse> fpcalep: ta'o lo .piton. ke .itku'ile gentufa zo'u ia lo valsi za'u mei na ka'e se pruce
11:05 < fpcalep> ua .i ku'i mi nu'o zgana lo nu lo .itku'ile gentufa sampre cu gentufa
11:06 < akmnlrse> ithkuil: íčeitokç
11:06 < ithkuil> íčeitokç: P1S1/DYN-č-ACT-UNI/CSL/U/DEL/NRM-FRC_1/7-EXS-IFL/FRAMED
11:06 < fpcalep> banli
11:07 < fpcalep> ithkuil: ke'a
11:07 < ithkuil> error
11:08 < fpcalep> ju'o cu'i na kakne tau lo .adjunte
11:08 < fpcalep> ithkuil: bye'al
11:08 < ithkuil> error
11:09 < fpcalep> .xym.
11:09 < fpcalep> ithkuil: sa
11:09 < ithkuil> sa: Personal adjunct
11:10 < fpcalep> xu lo .apstrofe cu jai se spofu
11:11 < gleki> akmnlrse: e'ozo'oru'e ko galfi la piton JS
11:13 < deltab> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Romanian
11:13 < gleki> i ku'inai mi nelci lo valsi zbasu tutci i sampu i mi ka'e favgau i mi ka'e cilre fi le bangu fu si ta'i lo ka favgau le proga
11:14 < akmnlrse> ithkuil: ke'a
11:14 < ithkuil> ke’a: Personal adjunct
11:15 < akmnlrse> ki'u lo na se djuno cu kanpetu'a  zo'oi ’ je nai zo'oi '
11:20  * nuzba @s_i_d_a: @oka_iu_tcan 今は http://www.lojban.org/corpus/ で短いの／簡単そうなのからやってみてます。『la mapkun jizon』がどうにか終わったとこです。YouTubeのやつも試してみようかな、とか。短くて音声付いてるし。 [http://bit.ly/1Iz5BjO]
11:50 < gleki> en: fa'ai
11:50 < mensi> fa'ai = [VUhU] mathematical ordered n-ary operator: (pointwise) functional left composition; ° |>>> Inputs must be
11:50 < mensi> appropriate functions; outputs a function; follow by boi in order to include arguments (producing a number). a1 ° a2 °…°
11:50 < mensi> an = a1(a2(…(an(•))…)). Replaces all of the inputs with a (possibly stripped, as appropriate) tuple; for replacing a
11:50 < mensi> single argument in a multivariate function with a function (either evaluated or not), use (partial) (e)valuation. |>>>
11:51 < gleki> half of the symbols got lost
11:51 < gleki> en: mardeji
11:51 < mensi> mardeji = x1 judges/rates/opines x2 [abstraction] to have morality score x3 [number; default: 1] in respect/according to
11:51 < mensi> standard/judged according to or in system x4; x1 believes in (the (im)morality of) x2 |>>> Beware sumti-raising in x2.
11:51 < mensi> x3 should be a real number between -1 and 1 (inclusive); x3=1 is perfectly good/moral/virtuous, x3=0 is neutral, and
11:51 < mensi> x3=-1 is completely immoral/despicable. |>>> krtisfranks
11:51 < gleki> similar to lindari and gleua in structure :P
12:02  * xeizlif reads the definition of lindari, sees "lavatoriously humorous" and cackles, and notes that {tu'a mi lindari li za'u no pi no pa lo'o} [not guaranteed to be correct but it is gerna]
12:02 < xeizlif> si gendra
12:03 < xeizlif> it only takes three lindars to get stabbed, wow
12:18  * nuzba @uitki: emotions in Lojban - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/emotions_in_Lojban by Clakre [http://bit.ly/1TNmb8v]
13:35 < fpcalep> ithkuil: bya'el
13:56 < fpcalep> ithkuil: fpçalepʰ
13:56 < ithkuil> fpçalepʰ: P1S1/STA-fpç-OBL-UNI/CSL/M/DEL/NRM-MAT_1/3-EXS-IFL/UNFRAMED
13:57 < durka42> ue
13:57 < durka42> xu pegli
13:57 < fpcalep> na go'i
13:58 < durka42> vlaste: pegli (gimka)
13:58 < vlaste> zo pegli gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo pegli gimkamsmikezypro zo fegli noi cipra gismu
13:58 < durka42> oi zo pegli cu fegli jecu janli zo fegli
13:58 < fpcalep> .i'o
13:59 < durka42> mi terpa lo nu zo gimka co'a smuni lo ka gimkamsmikezypro iau .u'i
13:59 < durka42> vlaste: gimka (gimka)
13:59 < vlaste> zo gimka gimkamsmikezypro zo ginka noi catni gismu .i zo gimka gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
13:59 < durka42> ua
13:59 < durka42> roldei cilre
13:59 < durka42> vlaste: ginka
13:59 < vlaste> ginka = x1 is a camp/encampment/temporary residence of x2 at location x3.
13:59 < durka42> vlaste: gimka (fapro)
13:59 < vlaste> zo gimka gimkamsmikezypro zo ginka noi catni gismu .i zo gimka gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
14:00 < fpcalep> lo mi sampu fanvyrgloso zo'u STA-'butterfly'-(OBL)-MAT_1/3
14:00 < durka42> lo nu gimkamsmikezypro lanli minde zo'u so'i da smudu'i
14:00 < fpcalep> .i sampymau
14:00 < durka42> ua
14:00 < durka42> zo fpc genja valsi ma
14:00 < fpcalep> lo si'o toldi
14:02  * ctefa`o tinker tinker with cool stuff
14:04 < ctefa`o> One day we shall be able to formalize all of jbobau
14:04 < fpcalep> ka'e setca zoi gy. [] .gy
14:05 < fpcalep> 'butterfly'-(OBL)-[]-MAT_1/3
14:05 < fpcalep> panrymau
14:06 < ctefa`o> Also: {mi sutra da'i klama} -> {mi sutra noi xanri ku'o klama}
14:06 < durka42> y
14:06 < ctefa`o> How many si si Does anyone disagree?
14:06 < durka42> well {noi} only works on sumti...
14:06 < fpcalep> fpç-a-l-e-pʰ
14:06 < durka42> there is the experimental {no'oi}
14:06 < fpcalep> mu rafsi cu pagbu !
14:06 < durka42> ua
14:07 < durka42> camxes: +exp mi sutra no'oi xanri ku'oi klama
14:07 < camxes> (mi [CU {<sutra (¹no'oi [CU {xanri VAU}] ku'oi¹)> klama} VAU])
14:07 < durka42> ^ @ctefa`o
14:07 < ctefa`o> Oh right
14:08 < fpcalep> da'i dramau fa lo nu skicu fo lo ka vo rafsi cu pagbu
14:08 < ctefa`o> Must have mixed them up
14:08 < durka42> fpcalep: vo rafsi je pa mo
14:08 < fpcalep> epʰ = cifnu/citnytce
14:08 < durka42> ua
14:10 < niftg> toldi curnu
14:11 < fpcalep> zoi ty. -pʰ .ty sinxa lo si'o ni makcu
14:19 < ctefa`o> How about {mi sutra be xoi xanri be'o klama}
14:19 < ctefa`o> (ki'e la cliva)
14:20 < fpcalep> So you want klama to be asserted?
14:21 < ctefa`o> You mean non-imaginary?
14:21 < ctefa`o> If so yeah
14:21 < fpcalep> How do you justify that? :)
14:22 < durka42> camxes: +exp mi sutra be xoi xanri be'o klama
14:22 < camxes> (mi [CU {<sutra (¹be [xoi {CU <xanri VAU>} SEhU] be'o¹)> klama} VAU])
14:22 < ctefa`o> Cause if you want the klama to be imagimsry just put the da'i on it/the bridi
14:22 < ctefa`o> "I go with some imaginary speed"
14:23 < fpcalep> And that means what?
14:23 < ctefa`o> I have no clue
14:23 < ctefa`o> But that is what it means
14:23 <@xalbo> mi klama fi'o ni sutra kei li ka'o
14:23 < ctefa`o> Or rather
14:23 < ctefa`o> "I am imaginary-speed type-of going"
14:24 < fpcalep> sutra means quick, not speed
14:24 < ctefa`o> quickness I meant
14:24 < durka42> I don't think {mi sutra da'i klama} means "I go with an imaginary speed"
14:24 < ctefa`o> Fast-speedness
14:24 < ctefa`o> durka42: then what would you expand it to?
14:25 < fpcalep> To me it means "I'd go *quickly*"
14:25 <@xalbo> fpcalep: Thanks, that's the best paraphrase I've seen yet.
14:25 < ctefa`o> Is that veridicality again
14:25 < durka42> er, what do you mean with those asterisks
14:25 < fpcalep> Focus.
14:25 < durka42> from {da'i}??
14:25 < fpcalep> That is:
14:25 < ctefa`o> Cause if so I will jump out the window next to me
14:25 < durka42> da'i isn't ba'e ...
14:26 < fpcalep> It is quickly that I'd go. (sounds weird)
14:26 < durka42> wait wait
14:26 < fpcalep> ba'e is not focus.
14:26 < durka42> neither is da'i
14:26 < durka42> maybe kau is focus
14:26 < ctefa`o> how do you get "focus" from xanri???
14:26 < durka42> that's what I'm wondering...
14:26 < fpcalep> The placement of UI is where the focus comes from
14:26 < ctefa`o> da'inai??
14:26 < fpcalep> Compare to {xu do klama} {do xu klama} {do klama xu}
14:27 < durka42> ah so you're just saying using *any* UI causes focus
14:27 <@xalbo> It's the location of the focus of the "'d" (the "would", or hypothetical)
14:27 < ctefa`o> fpcalep: please expand {mi sutra da'i klama} into what you think it means
14:27 <@xalbo> It's not focus of the sentence as a whole, it's the focus of that UI
14:27 < durka42> okay but {da'i} also has a meaning
14:27 < durka42> it's not just a focus marker
14:27 < fpcalep> {da'i} turns the sentence into a hypothetical/irrealis
14:27 < durka42> (if it's a focus marker at all, not sure I agree)
14:28 < durka42> ah
14:28 <@xalbo> It's not a focus marker at all. But what it does (the hypotheticality/irreality) is focused.
14:28 < ctefa`o> I have no idea what this "focus" is and how it is "imaginary"
14:28 < ctefa`o> Welll yeah
14:28 < ctefa`o> Hence sutra be xoi xanri
14:28 < durka42> so a parapharse would be something like {mi sutra da'i klama} => {mi se xanri lo du'u mi ba'e sutra klama}
14:28 < ctefa`o> It doesn't leak to klama
14:28 < fpcalep> I'd use {kau}, not {ba'e}
14:29 < durka42> sure
14:29 < ctefa`o> that's one expansion I didn't expect
14:29 < fpcalep> A correct paraphrase needs to have it leak out
14:29 < durka42> me neither :p
14:29 < durka42> I see the reasoning now though
14:30 < durka42> my conception of UI is that it's much more tightly bound than that to what it's grammatically attached to
14:30 < ctefa`o> Is that like {mi klama noi da'i sutra}?
14:30 < ctefa`o> what you mean
14:30 < fpcalep> No event of going is asserted, but it's imagined that if any going of you were to take place, it would be quick.
14:31 < ctefa`o> No that basically expands to something like {mi klama noi sutra noi xanri}
14:33 < ctefa`o> {mi klama noi sei lo su'u no'a xanri   (cu?) sutra}
14:34 < fpcalep> It's generally a good idea to place your sentence in a sub-bridi if your intention is to not assert it.
14:36 < ctefa`o> Well in any case that's how I am going to formalize any UI for any tanru
14:36 < fpcalep> lo ka sutra ku kau cu poi'i mi se xanri lo nu [da'i] mi me'au ke'a klama
14:38 < ctefa`o> If "be xoi" excludes that, too
14:38 < ctefa`o> si
14:38 < ctefa`o> I don't really understand poi'i yet. Does "be xoi" *exclude* that?
14:39 < ctefa`o> Or do I need to put the xanri in sei again sigh
14:40 < fpcalep> I'd think that {be xoi} does not prevent the klama from being asserted
14:40 < fpcalep> While {da'i} does make the whole bridi irrealis.
14:41 < fpcalep> I don't recommend {sei}, not only because its relation to the main-bridi is hard to formalize in the first place, but also because then the main bridi is still at top-level, even though it should be subordinate to the {da'i}.
14:42 < durka42> is this going to be different for the realis attitudinals
14:42 < ctefa`o> sei is how I formalize things
14:43 < fpcalep> I don't think it would be different
14:43 < ctefa`o> I consider sei a language primitive. And I don't see how it shuffled around bridi relations. sei stays in the bridi it is in
14:44 < ctefa`o> It has top scope in its bridi only
14:45 < fpcalep> And how is it related the bridi it is in?
14:45 < fpcalep> Also, are you saying that it doesn't escape out of abstractions in your model?
14:46 < ctefa`o> It has top scope? Anything else depends om what it actually says
14:46 < ctefa`o> No my model has no such leakage
14:46 < fpcalep> Top scope does not say how it's related to the bridi.
14:46 < ctefa`o> then it depends on what it sats
14:46 < fpcalep> Is the bridi an argument of the sei clause?
14:47 < ctefa`o> {.i mi co'e lo nu da'i co'e}
14:47 < fpcalep> If it doesn't get out of abstractions, then it breaks existing usage of {sei} in all major translations
14:47 < fpcalep> But ignoring that, you still need to define the relation
14:48 < fpcalep> Is there a {ke'a} in your {sei}?
14:48 < durka42> we can just replace it with {soi} :)
14:48 < ctefa`o> ---> {.i mi co'e lo nu co'e sei lo nu no'a cu xanri}
14:48 < ctefa`o> No only no'a
14:49 < durka42> isn't ke'a == lo nu no'a ?
14:49 < ctefa`o> Which is in the event expression
14:49 < ctefa`o> for sei?
14:49 < ctefa`o> sei is a relative clause?
14:50 < ctefa`o> Ah for soi
14:50 < ctefa`o> Well sei has higher scope then soi
14:50 < fpcalep> For xoi also
14:50 < ctefa`o> Attitudinals always have top-scope
14:50 < fpcalep> What you call top-scope isn't top-scope
14:51 < ctefa`o> So I should probably fix my case tag and tanru UI expansion
14:51 < fpcalep> If it were top-scope, then {co'e lo nu co'e sei xanri} would be the same as {co'e lo nu co'e kei sei xanri}
14:51 < fpcalep> But you said it stays in the abstraction
14:51 < djois> i'm looking for picture books in lojban... like illustrated childrens books. or a group of people interested in creating some
14:51 < ctefa`o> It has top-scope hierarchy not top-scope *coverage*
14:52 < ctefa`o> Scope Coverage: Word - Construct - Bridi - Sentence - Paragraph
14:52 < ctefa`o> It is totally unrelated to hierarchy
14:53 < durka42> djois: there's this one http://selpahi.de/cilce_prenu.html
14:53 < ctefa`o> Maybe I should just put everything together om the wiki first
14:53 < ctefa`o> Gotta fix all the stupid subordinators first though
14:54 < fpcalep> A wiki page would be good. And it'll make gleki happy.
14:55 < djois> thanks durka42
14:55 < fpcalep> .e'e gau ko la gleki cu ckaji la'e lo cmene be ri
15:06 < sezycei> What is Djemynai trying to convey in the chorus of {na ku}? {.i pu ku zvati fa do .i je ca ku zvati fa do na ku}
15:07 < durka42> Long ago you were here. Now you aren't here.
15:07 < sezycei> {na ku} ?
15:08 < durka42> naku is the standalone form of na
15:08 < durka42> it's a negator
15:08 < sezycei> OH WOW
15:08 < ctefa`o> i have formalized it too
15:08 < ctefa`o> look at "new-fi'o" at uiki
15:08 < sezycei> I didn't even think about the fact that you could use na that way. I always thought it had to be before the selbri - but that wouldn't make much sense.
15:09 < ctefa`o> {.i mi na klama} -> {.i zo'e natfe lo su'u mi na klama}
15:09 < ctefa`o> sort of
15:09 < durka42> {caku zvati fa do naku} is the same as {caku naku zvati fa do} -- you can't move the {naku} any further "left" because that would change the relative scope of {ca} and {na}
15:09 < ctefa`o> Err
15:10 < ctefa`o> ...just look at the uiki if you are interested
15:10 < durka42> parentheses for scope: (ca ku (naku (zvati fa do))
15:10 < durka42> ctefa`o I think you're getting too complicated for this question :)
15:10 < ctefa`o> Probably
15:11 < sezycei> I just thought his placement of {na ku} at the end was strange - and I had also not realized the possibility of placing na at the end followed by a terminator
15:11 < sezycei> That's why I wasn't catching on
15:11 < sezycei> But I figured that was the concept he was trying to convey
15:12 < durka42> you can do it english too, but it sounds weird
15:12 < durka42> Before you were here. Now you are here not.
15:13 < sezycei> I just thought it was strange and the strangeness threw me off. Haha
15:14 < fpcalep> I know someone who loved to put {naku} at the end
15:15 < sezycei> mu'i ma
15:16 < fpcalep> zifre lo ka punji lu na ku li'u lo jai se djica
15:16 < fpcalep> .i lo jbobau cu xendo
15:20 < sezycei> .i mi ca ku na jimpe lo du'u mu'i ma da djica lo nu punji lu na ku li'u lo fanmo kei ku
15:20 < rutytar1> coi
15:21 < sezycei> coi
15:21 < rutytar1> http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/klama in notes it says "cmavo list ka'a". what is this referring to?
15:22 < durka42> the word {ka'a}
15:23 < rutytar1> isn't that a single cmavo, and not a list?
15:23 < durka42> in ye olden days, there was a "gismu list" and a "cmavo list"
15:23 < durka42> which were separate text files
15:23 < durka42> it's just saying to go find ka'a in cmavo.txt
15:23 < rutytar1> okay. i was figuring something like that
15:25  * nuzba @uitki: BPFK Section: Subordinators - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Subordinators by Durka42 - /* Formal Definitions */ table syntax [http://bit.ly/1e4aVnv]
15:49 < fpcalep> ca lo bavlamdei mi klama lo xamsi
15:49 < fpcalep> noi mi zvasta ze'a lo jeftu be li ji'i re
15:51 < durka42> xu lo na du be do cu zbasu lo .itku'ile .albuma ze'a lo jeftu be li ji'i re
15:51 < durka42> zo'o
15:51 < fpcalep> :)
15:52 < fpcalep> lakne fa lo nu na jorne lo kibro
15:52 < fpcalep> .i ji'a ponse no selbeiskami
15:52 < durka42> lo zabna ko se li'i xamsi
15:53 < durka42> lo zabna ko li'i xamsi
15:53 < fpcalep> .a'o
15:54 < fpcalep> .i xrukla ca lo 11moi be lo zelmasti djedi
15:55 < durka42> mi voikla lo dotygu'e ca lo 11moi be lo zelmasti djedi
15:55 < fpcalep> ua
15:55 < fpcalep> .i xu za'o .aidji lo ka penmi la cirko
15:55 < durka42> ku'i .ai kibro jorne ca'o
15:55 < durka42> .y
15:55 < durka42> la cirku cu xabju ge pagbu be lo dotygu'e
15:55 < fpcalep> no
15:56 < fpcalep> .i xabju lo xelveto
15:56 < fpcalep> .i ku'i do'o pu casnu lo nu da'i pensi'u
15:56 < fpcalep> .i ba'a nai ru'e la cirko pu friti lo ka klama lo ba se klama be do
15:57 < fpcalep> .i do ze'a ma zvati lo doitco
15:57 < durka42> mi ba zbati la .tubingen. je la .frankfirt.
15:57 < fpcalep> mi morji
15:57 < durka42> ze'a lo jeftu be li ci
15:58 < fpcalep> ue
15:58 < fpcalep> xabju ma
15:58 < fpcalep> .i xu xotli
15:58 < fpcalep> .i ua ba'a nai lo do ckule cu pleji
15:58 < durka42> pleji ro drata be lo .frankfirt. xutli
15:58 < durka42> si xotli
15:59 < fpcalep> franfurt sei na'e zifcme
16:43  * nuzba @fotono: @s_i_d_a #lojban corpusの内容が壊れていて元ファイルも辿れない場合は、 http://korp.alexburka.com/ の "6 corpora selected" 内の "ralju korpora" にマウスオンすると、元ファイルへのリンクが表示されます。 [http://bit.ly/1Lvw7ky]
17:53 < fpcalep> co'o jbopre
19:19 < _mukti_> So I've noticed in {za'o} an unusual use of {ce}
19:20 < durka42> cekitaujau?
19:20 < _mukti_> Ah, must be part of that.
19:20 < _mukti_> What is it?
19:20 < _mukti_> .i ta'o coi
19:21 < durka42> coi
19:21 < durka42> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ce_ki_tau_jau
19:21 < _mukti_> Thank you. Google doesn't know "cekitaujau" yet
19:21 < durka42> it's a slakyjamna dialect
19:22 < durka42> neither does LMW search :p I always forget that the page title has spaces in it
19:22 < _mukti_> haha, I haven't heard that term yet
19:22 < _mukti_> slakyjamna
19:22 < durka42> I think I invented it :)
19:22 < _mukti_> Well played
19:22 < durka42> so are those PRs live? can I lose my fear of typing {} and [] in JVS comments?
19:23 < _mukti_> Oh, no, let me do that. When I merged, jukni was still ailing.
19:23 < durka42> I know the server's been up and down, so I'm not surprised if you haven't been able to do it...
19:24 < _mukti_> nau mi ca'a gasnu
19:24 < _mukti_> (nau ku)
19:25 < _mukti_> coi la djak
19:25 < _mukti_> la djakyze
19:25 < _mukti_> I guess that would actually be jakyze
19:27 < _mukti_> nau ku la jukni cu masno
19:27 < durka42> depends on the pronunciation
19:27 < durka42> the webcomic artist Jeph Jacques pronounces it Jacks, IIRC
19:27 < _mukti_> ua
19:27 < durka42> speaking of crazy proposals, did you know Ilmen likes nau => nauku ?
19:28 < _mukti_> No, that's new on me. But apparently, I already agree with him.
19:28 < _mukti_> Subconsciously at least.
19:28 < _mukti_> I suppose {nau} would be kind of awkward for tcita...
19:28 < durka42> :)
19:28 < durka42> it's why he always says {ca nau}
19:28 < _mukti_> sumti tcita I mean
19:29 < durka42> right
19:29 < durka42> the whole point of {nau} is it doesn't need to be referenced to anything else
19:29 < _mukti_> camxes nau lo balvi mi pu zvati
19:29 < _mukti_> camxes: nau lo balvi mi pu zvati
19:29 < camxes> ([{<nau (¹lo balvi KU¹)> mi} CU] [pu zvati] VAU)
19:31 < durka42> sounds jabberwocky-ish :)
19:32 < _mukti_> mi mo'u ningau la jbovlaste .i mi ckire do doi la durkavore
19:32 < durka42> ki'e
19:33 < durka42> .ai mi piksku zo .test.
19:34 < clakre> .ua ki'e for the cekitaujau pointer
19:34 < _mukti_> .a'u
19:34 < _mukti_> .i coi la clakre
19:34 < clakre> coi!
19:34 < durka42> clakre: are you the same A. Furrow as on the LCS board?
19:35 < clakre> go'i
19:35 < durka42> ua
19:35 < clakre> I'm tryin' to become jbopre
19:35 < clakre> not quite there yet
19:35 < _mukti_> Nice!
19:36 < _mukti_> durka and I were just talking about how jbopre ought to get more involved with LCS
19:36 < durka42> oi
19:36 < durka42> .oi .oi .oi http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=26591;natlangword=0;commentid=2091;definition=0
19:36 < _mukti_> Hm
19:36 < durka42> .ai nai la jbovlaste co'a .votcan.
19:37 < _mukti_> xu na mansa do
19:38 < durka42> I mean the PRs worked
19:38 < durka42> apparently images are not "for admin use only" as the comment says :)
19:38 < durka42> as I did not hack officialdata's cookie this time
20:47 < gleki> i suggest that by focus we assume only the main level bridi of sentence
21:41  * nuzba @canweriotnow: @mj1856 @zedshaw Oddly enough, the official ISO 639 Language Tag spec includes Klingon... not #Lojban http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/English_list.php [http://bit.ly/1GzykDU]
22:51  * nuzba @lojban_org: @canweriotnow @mj1856 @zedshaw Lojban is listed on that page. Its code is "jbo". [http://bit.ly/1LpYRu3]
--- Day changed Thu Jun 25 2015
00:04 < cflep> coi
00:05 < gleki> coi
00:06 < gleki> i lo do cmene cu itku'ile simlu
00:08 <@Broca> i ba'e do itku'ile simlu
01:04 < oewtxwpnc> mensi: doi mukti|durka si'au la jbovlaste co'u curmi lo nu jmina lo valsi (to lo batke pe lu benji lo velcki na tolcanci toi)
01:04 < mensi> oewtxwpnc: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.mukti|durka.gy. di'a cusku da
01:06 < gleki> oewtxwpnc: uanai i mi puzi jmina pa valsi http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/kreiva
01:06 < oewtxwpnc> xm
01:07 < oewtxwpnc> ka'e ku lo nu troci co jmina lo poi cnino vau rarbau valsi cu rinka
01:07 < oewtxwpnc> i ai cipcta
01:09 < oewtxwpnc> na go'a
01:10 < gleki> ko lumci lo do me'oi cache
01:11 < gleki> to la vivaldis si gleki cu xusra lo du'u zo'oi cache lu se sorcu li'u
01:11 < gleki> toi
01:13 < oewtxwpnc> mensi: doi mukti|durka JUhI NAI UhU
01:13 < mensi> oewtxwpnc: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.mukti|durka.gy. di'a cusku da
01:16 < oewtxwpnc> xm i xu da'i xamgu fa lo nu la mensi cu curmi lo nu vimcu lo benji se ralte
01:17 < gleki> xamgu i ku'i no da pu cpedu ije no ju'osai de cu aidji lo ka favgau
01:17 < oewtxwpnc> la'a bazaku mi jmina
01:25 < gleki> coi
01:25 < gleki> xm
01:26 < djan> coi
01:27 < danlu> coi
01:27 < mensi> danlu: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: ko klama la .Bobruisk. [2332287] | 2015-01-10T14:44:39.
01:27 < mensi> 684Z
01:27 < mensi> danlu: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: ko klama la .Bobruisk. [2332287] | 2015-04-29T20:52:03.
01:27 < mensi> 177Z
01:27 < mensi> danlu: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: ko klama la .Bobruisk. [2332287] | 2015-05-17T10:08:50.
01:27 < mensi> 437Z
01:27 < mensi> danlu: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: ko klama la .Bobruisk. [2332287] | 2015-06-07T08:47:04.
01:27 < mensi> 018Z
01:27 < mensi> danlu: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: ko klama la .Bobruisk. [2332287] | 2015-06-08T09:52:37.
01:27 < mensi> 724Z
01:28 < verba> coi
01:28 < mensi> verba: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: ko na pencu le minra [1958890] | 2015-02-20T18:06:01.
01:28 < mensi> 186Z
01:28 < mensi> verba: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: ko na pencu le minra [1958890] | 2015-04-12T08:53:18.
01:28 < mensi> 197Z
01:29 < loi> coi mi'e lois
01:29 < mensi> loi: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: nu'o jai daspo be lo munje mi'a jinga fi do [683920] | 2015-04-01T17:57:29.
01:29 < mensi> 432Z
01:29 < mensi> loi: cu'u la'o gy.livla.gy.: nu'o jai daspo be lo munje mi'a jinga fi do [683920] | 2015-04-13T02:16:10.
01:29 < mensi> 204Z
01:31 < dutchie> coi rodo
02:21 < ctefaho> hey guys I fixed the gadri for you
02:21 < ctefaho> lo broda - zo'e cu broda
02:21 < ctefaho> le broda - zo'e cu broda je cu me zo'e
02:21 < ctefaho> you are welcome
02:26 < ctefaho> (that "me" expands to {zo'e cu broda je cu menre zo'e}
02:29 < _mukti_> ua nai
02:29 < mensi> _mukti_: cu'u la'o gy.oewtxwpnc.gy.: si'au la jbovlaste co'u curmi lo nu jmina lo valsi (to lo batke pe lu benji lo
02:29 < mensi> velcki na tolcanci toi) | 2015-06-25T08:04:41.015Z
02:30 < mensi> _mukti_: cu'u la'o gy.oewtxwpnc.gy.: JUhI NAI UhU | 2015-06-25T08:13:52.715Z
02:30 < ctefaho> _mukti_: Basically {lo broda} -> {zo'e noi broda}, {le broda} -> {zo'e poi broda}
02:31 < _mukti_> Are you proposing something different from the BPFK formulae?
02:31 < _mukti_> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri
02:32 < ctefaho> you could say that
02:32 < _mukti_> Because the BPFK definition is {zo'e noi ke'a broda}
02:33 < _mukti_> Which seems to me the same, except with explicit {ke'a}, no?
02:33 < ctefaho> well I though everyone kinda agreed that no ke'a = ke'a in first open sumti
02:33 < _mukti_> Oh, I see, you're differing in {le}
02:33 < ctefaho> {lo broda} -> {zo'e noi ke'a broda}, {le broda} -> {zo'e poi ke'a broda} then
02:33 < _mukti_> There have been some interesting discussions about what {poi} means without quantification
02:34 < _mukti_> Martin Bays has really dug into that
02:34 < ctefaho> well it is one thing what it means, one thing what it expands to
02:35 < ctefaho> (this relies on a sanitized noi such that {lo broda} = {zo'e cu broda} without any ri-xi-rau crap)
02:35 < ctefaho> and poi not being a stupid tanru anymore
02:36 < _mukti_> So one of the wrinkles I've seen debated about {noi} in the definition is whether or not it is in fact asserted that {zo'e cu broda}
02:36 < ctefaho> "lo mlatu" not asserting something is a cat?
02:36 < _mukti_> The prevailing argument seems to be that {broda} is presupposed, and that noi only approximates the presupposition
02:36 < ctefaho> why would you ever want to do that
02:37 < _mukti_> Apparently this goes deep into the doctrine of description
02:37 < ctefaho> use lo da'i broda or something for that...?
02:38 < _mukti_> Lots of relevant argumentation here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descriptions/
02:38 < ctefaho> holy crap
02:39 < ctefaho> well, pe'i whatever we want "le" to mean, "me" has to give it that definition
02:40 < _mukti_> Say more?
02:41 < ctefaho> that's how the language is built if there is to be consistency. it has noi and poi and the gadri should use them properly
02:42 < _mukti_> I think I understand you as emphasizing the importance of the {me} relation?
02:43 < ctefaho> yes
02:43 < _mukti_> I agree. It's hugely important.
02:43 < ctefaho> le - Is an explicit reference to something that brodas
02:44 < ctefaho> lo - Is just something that brodas
02:44 < _mukti_> guskant's big writeup emphasizes me
02:44 < _mukti_> {me}
02:44 < ctefaho> well good
02:44 < _mukti_> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadri:_an_unofficial_commentary_from_a_logical_point_of_view
02:44 < ctefaho> (also yeah using bare "me" gets kinda fun)
02:45 < ctefaho> (I said something like "I want your quantifiers in me!" yesterday)
02:45 < _mukti_> .u'i
02:46 < _mukti_> She starts by defining {me} and {jo'u}, and uses those as the primitive building blocks
02:46 < gleki> _mukti_: coi. so i guess we are waiting for tsani to work on vlasisku in order to have JVS API in jbogu'e?
02:46 < ctefaho> gleki: does this le conflict with your le?
02:47 < _mukti_> gleki: I'm not waiting, but I'm tempted to read that as you're giving up on me. ;)
02:47 < _mukti_> .i ta'o coi
02:48 < _mukti_> Oh, you may have noticed: I added a video embedding extension to the wiki. I think we should start enriching it.
02:48 < ctefaho> {le broda} refers specifically to a referent of {lo broda}, and explicitly express that the speaker has the referent in mind.
02:49 < ctefaho> sounds exactly like my def
02:49 < _mukti_> Like I think Wesley's "The Perfect Language" video would be a good one to showcase prominently
02:50 < _mukti_> Also selpa'i's corpus readings
02:50 < ctefaho> "(zo'e cu broda je cu menre zo'e)" Something is a referent of something that brodas
02:50 < ctefaho> brodas/lo brodas
02:50 < ctefaho> equal in my meaning
02:53 < ctefaho> that article is awesome
02:53 < _mukti_> ctefaho: Are you trying to express something other than the reflexivity of {me} ?
02:53 < _mukti_> Which article? guskant's?
02:54 < ctefaho> ah yeah that http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadri:_an_unofficial_commentary_from_a_logical_point_of_view
02:54 < _mukti_> Yay!
02:54 < _mukti_> I don't think it has gotten as much attention as it deserves.
02:54 < ctefaho> well I am gonna ref it any time I mention my gadri;)
02:55 < akmnlrse> my reading of ctefa'o's "je cu me zo'e" is that the second zo'e is the thing(s) "in the speaker's mind"
02:55 < _mukti_> guskant seems to have done her doctoral work in graph theory, so it's pretty cool that she then turned her fire on lojban
02:56 < ctefaho> akmnlrse: yeah
02:56 < ctefaho> as for the quantifiers...looking into that right now
02:57 < _mukti_> { zo'e broda gi'e menre zo'e noi se pensi mi } ?
02:58 < ctefaho> well...they are obviously in your mind in the first place if you use me(nre)
02:58 < _mukti_> It would be ironic if {le} were redefined to actually assert {broda}, since it has traditionally also carried the "non-veridical" baggage
02:59 < _mukti_> Yeah, that argument makes me skeptical of the whole "in the speaker's mind" bit...
02:59 < ctefaho> it is trash
02:59 < _mukti_> Not much use for ways to talk about things not in the speaker's mind
02:59 < ctefaho> hey Ilmen
02:59 < _mukti_> coi la .Ilmen.
03:00 < Ilmen> coi
03:01 < ctefaho> Ilmen I fixed le for yall
03:01 < ctefaho> lo broda - zo'e cu broda
03:01 < ctefaho> le broda -  zo'e cu broda je cu me zo'e (zo'e cu broda je cu menre zo'e)
03:02 < Ilmen> Sounds much like the {lo broda poi co'e} that I once suggested
03:02 < ctefaho> well {le broda} -> {zo'e poi broda} vs lo's {zo'e noi broda}
03:02 < Ilmen> (lo broda poi co'e = lo poi'i ke'a broda gi'e co'e)
03:03 < _mukti_> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/cHwNqMmaR2A/HWhv-NtdTPUJ
03:03 < _mukti_> (relevant discussion)
03:04 < ctefaho> well me/menre gives the le referentiality, which I think le is what it should be all about
03:04 < ctefaho> does poi'i do "me"?
03:06 < _mukti_> en: poi'i
03:06 < mensi> poi'i = [NU] x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds ke'a within the abstraction.  |>>> Originally proposed
03:06 < mensi> by And Rosta around 2001. |>>> selpahi
03:07 < _mukti_> {ko'a poi broda} => {lo me ko'a je poi'i broda}
03:07 < ctefaho> what does poi'i *expand* to?
03:07 < Ilmen> poi'i is a syntactic sugar
03:07 < _mukti_> jbo: poi'i
03:07 < mensi> 14 da se tolcri: aiste, comco'e, djefau, eiste, fanva, gismu, jbebau, jo'u, porsumji, suzmeidza, urja, zildika, ziltodi,
03:07 < mensi> zilzena
03:07 < ctefaho> I can't find on his blog
03:07 < ctefaho> maybe in archive
03:07 < Ilmen> mi poi'i do viska ke'a = do viska mi
03:08 < Ilmen> poi'i do viska ke'a kei fa mi = do viska mi
03:08 < ctefaho> still no "me" then
03:08 < ctefaho> me/menre
03:08 < ctefaho> you like menre Ilmen don't you;)
03:08 < Ilmen> poi'i is a NU, it binds ke'a to the x1 of the resulting poi'i—kei selbri
03:09 < Ilmen> poi'i is especially nice with LE and GIhA
03:09 < ctefaho> okay now I get it
03:10 < Ilmen> lo pendo be mi ku = lo poi'i (ke'a) pendo mi kei
03:10 < ctefaho> that's new-voi too right
03:10 < mindszenty> coi lo kansa
03:10 < Ilmen> lo broda be X bei Y bei Z = lo poi'i broda X Y Z
03:10 < Ilmen> ctefaho: exactly
03:11 < ctefaho> good
03:11 < _mukti_> coi la'o zoi mindszenty zoi
03:11 < ctefaho> and well, I don't think that's what "le" should do
03:11 < ctefaho> just me
03:11 < ctefaho> simple
03:11 < ctefaho> asy
03:11 < ctefaho> si easy
03:11 < ctefaho> consistent
03:12 < ctefaho> *Does not generate endless le discussion
03:12 < _mukti_> .u'i
03:12 < cliva> coi .i ze'u ku mi na snada lo ka djuno lo du'u xu kau ro'oi da ro de poi na'e plurale selbri zo'u lo du'u su'oi me da cu me'au de cu nibli lo du'u da me'au de
03:12 < cliva> .i ma se jinvi
03:13 < _mukti_> I find {le} very useful for detecting pre-xorlo usage. If someone actually comes up with a serviceable {le}, that will mess that all up. :P
03:13 < ctefaho> >_> <_<
03:13 < Ilmen> .u'i
03:14 < _mukti_> Imagine if {le} is revived along with cmavo clusters. Attack of {lenu}!
03:14 < ctefaho> actually
03:14 < ctefaho> my {le} is probably kinda backwards compatible with old {le}
03:15 < ctefaho> it is just lo + some referent
03:15 < ctefaho> which is a *very* slim way of defining "A" vs. "The"
03:15 < darca> nandu preti doi la cliva
03:16 < darca> lo ka plurale selbri cu mo
03:16 < ctefaho> "A cat" is something that is a cat
03:16 < ctefaho> that "lo mlatu"-s/"zo'e cu mlatu"
03:17 < darca> "su'o da poi mlatu"
03:17 < _mukti_> Oh, now, you're moving in the direction of gleki/v4hm ... Donellan territory
03:17 < ctefaho> "The Cat" is a referent to something that is a cat
03:17 < darca> za'a la cliva mo'u cliva
03:17 < _mukti_> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/knCfUgwwKxY/3it-3ScrXugJ
03:17 < darca> .i xu mi zo'u mo'u darca
03:18 < ctefaho> and that's all our A/The, lo/le, should do
03:18 < ctefaho> no need for this mess: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
03:18 < _mukti_> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Keith_Donnellan
03:19 < ctefaho> i would like to see how all of those are supposed to be expanded, too
03:19 < _mukti_> "Some Lojbanists believe that le is to be used for referential (or super-referential) sense whereas lo is to be used for attributive sense."
03:19 < ctefaho> sounds meeenreee
03:20 < cliva> Ilmen: lo plurale selbri zo'u mupli fa lo ka menre .i .u'u mi na ka'e jdice tu'a lo satci selkai
03:20 < ctefaho> but I gtg and do other stuffz now
03:20 < ctefaho> enjoy my le
03:20 < _mukti_> co'o
03:20 < cliva> s/menre/simxu
03:20 < phenny> cliva meant to say: Ilmen: lo plurale selbri zo'u mupli fa lo ka simxu .i .u'u mi na ka'e jdice tu'a lo satci selkai
03:20 < ctefaho> well-defined logical definiteness for everyone
03:20 < Ilmen> je'e
03:20  * ctefaho cu bajra noi sutra
03:21 < Ilmen> .u'e
03:21 < cliva> fanoi
03:21 < cliva> .i ja la ctefa'o cu mintu la gleki vau zo'o
03:25 < Ilmen> doi la cliva .i mu'a pei lo si'o viska
03:25 < Ilmen> .i mu'a pei lo si'o se tuple be vo da
03:27 < autstralopitrku> (to mi kibro jai nu mabla toi)
03:27 < autstralopitrku> .i ie ro lo re zo'e cu simlu co na'e plurale
03:27 < Ilmen> cui la remdze
03:28 < autstralopitrku> ^:i -glu
03:28 < _mukti_> Da cui mutce sadji ce gudbi farfu
03:29 < Ilmen> .u'i
03:29 < autstralopitrku> Ra loglo ga cidja
03:29 < Ilmen> ba'a fancu lo smuni pe lo selbri
03:30 < autstralopitrku> .i ro cumki cu simlu lo ka naldra su'o da .i mu'a va'o lo nu na go'oi nibli zo'u xu ro me la Pa Broda poi Sucta je ku'i Broda ku (to noi da'i dunli lo .olkai be lo ka broda toi) cu no roi se menre su'oi broda poi na ca ca'a se casnu
03:30 < Ilmen> .i mi kanpe lo nu su'o so'e lo pavmei selbri cu curmi lo plurale sumti do'e lo ra velski
03:31 < autstralopitrku> ie
03:31 < Ilmen> .i mu'a zo pavmei cu na curmi lo plurale .i lo ri velski cu tolcru
03:31 < autstralopitrku> .i va'o lo nu la Pa Broda na dunli lo .olkai zo'u ma formale je cu velcki la Pa Broda
03:31 < Ilmen> s/ri/vo'a
03:31 < phenny> Ilmen meant to say: .i mu'a zo pavmei cu na curmi lo plurale .i lo vo'a velski cu tolcru
03:31 < mindszenty> I am beginning to tinker with lojban type system(s). For now, I am trying very simple duck-typing/contract system. So {sy cu selbri} means just that - {sy} has type of a predicate; {sy cu selbri fi lo prenu ce'oi lo bende} means it is typed as a predicate between a person type and a team type - sort of sy :: Person -> Team
03:33 < Ilmen> I've never understood why ce'o wasn't okay for bridi3
03:34 < _mukti_> lojban seems to have a limited form of type inference, with compiler warnings when inferring an abstraction from a non-abstraction
03:34 < Ilmen> also you may be interested by {zilbri}
03:34 < mindszenty> Because one of predicate in question might be sequence in itself
03:35 < Ilmen> mindszenty: Just make a sequence of sequence
03:35 < Ilmen> %)
03:36 < mindszenty> So {sy cu selbri fi lo prenu ce'o lo bende} might be interpreted as "sy is unary predicate with x1 being sequence of person and team" :)
03:36 < Ilmen> if bridi-1 is a sequence, then it'll look into the sequence slots for the predicate arguments
03:37 < akmnlrse> ta'o ru'e zo'u xu fadni te tugni fa lo du'u zo joi mu'a na kodmutativa
03:37 < Ilmen> and it'll probably reject non-sequence bridi-1
03:37 < akmnlrse> A joi B joi C -> [A B C], A joi B joi bo C -> [A [B C]] mu'a
03:37 < Ilmen> er, bridi-3
03:37 < Ilmen> en: bridi
03:37 < mensi> bridi = x1 (du'u) is a predicate relationship with relation x2 among arguments (sequence/set) x3. |>>> Also: x3 are
03:37 < mensi> related by relation x2 (= terbri for reordered places).  (x3 is a set completely specified); See also sumti, fancu. |>>>
03:37 < mensi> officialdata
03:38 < Ilmen> if selbri1 is an unary predicate, you may want {vu'i} for selbri3
03:39 < Ilmen> mi sipna ----> lo du'u mi sipna cu bridi lo ka sipna ku vu'i mi
03:40 < Ilmen> mi ti citka ---> lo du'u mi ti citka cu bridi lo si'o citka ku mi ce'o ti
03:40 < Ilmen> pei
03:41 < mindszenty> Remind me, please, a word for predicates between just bridi x2 and x3
03:41 < Ilmen> zilbri?
03:41 < _mukti_> ua lo se bridi cu sidbo
03:42 < Ilmen> _mukti_: well maybe I misuse si'o
03:42 < _mukti_> But maybe you don't. I've never been entirely comfortable with {si'o}. That seems like a good use to me, however.
03:42 < Ilmen> I'm not sure what si'o means, I sometimes use it as a ka with every sumti slot filled with ce'u
03:42 < autstralopitrku> go'i ra'o
03:42 < mindszenty> Yes, {zilbri}. {selbr} is sligtly unwieldy because of places rearrangement )
03:43 < ctefa`o> le prenu cu tolcanci
03:43 < Ilmen> zilbri = x1 (predicate) is satisfied by argument structure x2 (sequence)
03:43 < autstralopitrku> coi la prenus.
03:44 < _mukti_> .i ku'i xu lo se skicu be fo lo ka prenu cu prenu
03:44 < Ilmen> ŭa xu naku do dzotsidypli
03:44 < ctefa`o> Actually that was probably wrong le-usage
03:44 < ctefa`o> Or not
03:44 < ctefa`o> Not used to it yet
03:45 < mindszenty> {vu'i}, as defined now, has vague order, so it is not very useful as a sequence constructor
03:45 < autstralopitrku> lenu pilno zo le cu gasnu lenu mi tavla zo'e zo'e la lojban. po'u le tolci'o
03:45 < Ilmen> mindszenty: I'd use vu'i/lu'i for constructing an unary sequence
03:45 < ctefa`o> .i lo prenu cu klama .i le prenu cu cidja
03:45 < _mukti_> .u'i
03:45 < ctefa`o> That's more like it
03:46 < Ilmen> lo ka prenu cu mulno lo ka nonseljmi mi
03:46 < ctefa`o> But yeah I could have used ri there, sure
03:46 < Ilmen> zo'o ru'e .u'i
03:46 < _mukti_> pe'i zo laldo cu mapti
03:46 < _mukti_> ju'o cu'i logbo ji lojbo
03:47 < _mukti_> Wait, that's not the connective question
03:47 < Ilmen> mindszenty: I guess an unary sequence is identical to an unary set
03:47 < ctefa`o> Natlang "A"/"The" is *vague*
03:47 < ctefa`o> And yet it works
03:48 < ctefa`o> The broda is just some referent of an A broda
03:48 < _mukti_> Hmm, but a lot of things "work" if you're not interested in the messy details
03:48 < ctefa`o> Yeah
03:49 < ctefa`o> But if I start a sentence with "The cat eats food" it feels a bit weird eh
03:49 < mindszenty> Ah, I understand now. So {sy cu zilbri by ce'o cy} is a binary predicate between by and cy, and {sy cu zilbri vu'i by} is an unary one with x1 :: by?
03:49 < Ilmen> Yes
03:49 < _mukti_> .i xu lo mlatu cu xagji
03:50 < ctefa`o> (Also I would heavily recommend no'u/po'u, iirc people don't seem to use it that much)
03:51 < ctefa`o> lo no'u ti djacu
03:52 < Ilmen> en: tersumei
03:52 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
03:52 < Ilmen> en: tersu'imei
03:52 < mensi> tersu'imei [< te sumti mei ≈ 3rd conversion argument cardinal selbri] = x1 (property/relation) is x2-ary/-adic |>>>
03:52 < mensi> Ilmen
03:52 < mindszenty> Ilmen, I agree, that seems clearer
03:52 < Ilmen> ti ji'a ka'e plixau do doi la'oi mindszenty
03:53 < ctefa`o> So if we use "le" there has to be a previous "lo" for it to glork properly
03:53 < Ilmen> Sure, {le broda} is a subset of {lo broda}, as far as I can tell
03:54 < ctefa`o> iep
03:54 < _mukti_> lo po'u mi cusku cu cusku
03:55 < ctefa`o> ...i guess you could do that
03:55 < ctefa`o> Wow I kinda understand natlang A/The better now
03:57 < Ilmen> "A cat" is often {su'o mlatu}
03:57 < Ilmen> I think
03:57 < ctefa`o> Starting a book with "The dragon flew ahead" would only be really *ok* if it is referred to as "A dragon" later on, backwards in time
03:58 < ctefa`o> Well su'o mlatu is still noi
03:58 < ctefa`o> No wait
03:58 < gleki> _mukti_: one can say that everyone should give up on everyone here and be right in 90% of the time.
03:58 < ctefa`o> I kinda skipped the quantifiers for now to integrate the rest properly
03:58 < _mukti_> ?
03:59 < gleki> graph theory, i wonder why she hasnt created a graph of interlinks between gismu that are in notes
03:59 < ctefa`o> does su'o mlatu expand to noi or poi?
04:00 < Ilmen> su'o mlatu = su'o da poi mlatu
04:00 < ctefa`o> There were special rules, forgot which
04:00 < ctefa`o> Right
04:01 < ctefa`o> I don't think that is "A cat"
04:01 < ctefa`o> "A cat" is not a referent
04:01 < ctefa`o> Or something is very broken somewhere
04:01 < autstralopitrku> "There is a cat that..."
04:01 < ctefa`o> Do you *mean* one cat, or a cat?
04:02 < autstralopitrku> "at least one cat"
04:02 < gleki> au_stralo_pi_te_ku
04:02 < gleki> autstralopitrku: drani xu fa di'u
04:02 < autstralopitrku> ba'a nai go'i
04:02 < ctefa`o> Right this needs to be sorted out
04:02 < _mukti_> gleki: Ah, I see, you're responding to my earlier comment when you asked about the API. I'm glad that you keep expecting things, and hope that you understand that not all of us have the resources we'd like to have.
04:02 < gleki> #au_stralo_pi_te_ku
04:02 < ctefa`o> Maybe fixing le will solve the rest too
04:02 < dutchie> "a cat" could be either {su'o mlatu} or {pa mlatu}: "A cat is black" vs "A cat is on the chair"
04:02 < ctefa`o> With sanitized le we got the definite/indefinite we need
04:03 < ctefa`o> But if we put in quantifiers/poi we get "me"!
04:03 < ctefa`o> Actually make that "menre"
04:03 < _mukti_> I'm interested, for example, in a jbovlaste API. But when I find time for lojban, there are other things that I think I might more usefully contribute to.
04:03 < ctefa`o> I am going to use "menre" as a synonym for old-me from now on
04:03 < gleki> i can only suggest that {le} is expanded into {da xirau poi} but that's probably too early since {da xi rau} isn't formalized. anyway, its main usage should be as in past i.e. anaphorically IMO
04:04 < gleki> _mukti_: i lost interest in jvs long ago when it became no longer printable due to kurtyvla
04:04 < ctefa`o> gleki, natlangs allow forward-referention too
04:05 < ctefa`o> Will write a simple saga to illustrate this
04:05 < ctefa`o> If natlangs support it then we can bloody well too
04:05 < gleki> ctefa`o: yeah, sure feel free to refer to my page on {le}
04:05 < Ilmen> di'e/go'o/rixini'upa
04:05 < _mukti_> That might be an interesting feature... Printable dictionary with no definitions longer than THRESHOLD
04:06 < gleki> _mukti_: for JVS 1.5 i want only API and tags as a new field. the rest will be done via api, i.e. GUI, accounting etc.
04:06 < gleki> _mukti_: for JVS 2.0 i need relinking definitions to meanings, not to words
04:06 < ctefa`o> I wonder if the special rules depended on pre-xorlo madness
04:07 < gleki> special?
04:07 < ctefa`o> lo expansion
04:07 < gleki> lo expanded into {da poi} at that time
04:07 < ctefa`o> It has special rules for "ro" and "su'o"
04:07 < gleki> oh
04:08 < gleki> where is that in CLL?
04:08 < ctefa`o> Dunno, I go by bpfk definition
04:08 < ctefa`o> (In Subordinators)
04:12 < ctefa`o> I think ro special rule may have been for "not all that exist"
04:12 < ctefa`o> And su'o... Dunno. At least one of something implying existence?
04:12 < ctefa`o> "At least one unicorn is in my garden"
04:14 < Ilmen> PA+da is a counting device, it counts the number of things in the universe of discourse tht satisfies the bridi
04:14 < _mukti_> su'o pa xagji pavyseljirna cu zvati le purdi
04:14 < ctefa`o> Does the universe of discourse include imagination?
04:14 < Ilmen> ci da mlatu ---> the universe of discourse contains exactly three cats
04:15 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: Yes, it can
04:15 < ctefa`o> (Cause imagination should pe'i be bound to da'i and xanri only)
04:15 < Ilmen> su'o nu mi sipna cu fasnu --- there exists at least one event of me sleeping that happens
04:16 < gleki> when {da'i} is absent nothing says that you are in the real world
04:16 < autstralopitrku> "lo lisri zo'u re da drakono"
04:16 < ctefa`o> Some seem to confuse factuality with assertion
04:16 < gleki> {da'inai}, not the lack of attitudinals refers to the real world
04:16 < Ilmen> ctefaho: One can assert things about an imaginary words (such as a fiction...)
04:16 < ctefa`o> and think that abstractions/expression types would somehow not assert a claim
04:16 < Ilmen> *world
04:16 < ctefa`o> Yeah
04:17 < _mukti_> lo ro pavyseljirna cu melbi .i je ro lo pavyseljirna cu melbi .i je na ku ro lo pavyseljirna cu melbi
04:17 < ctefa`o> gleki: Yeah. da'inai to "switch on" factuality-mode only
04:18 < autstralopitrku> ro pavyseljirna ge melbi gi na melbi
04:18 < _mukti_> li'a
04:18 < ctefa`o> But everyone agrees that a NA is integral to any bridi, right? That {.i mi klama} is *identical* to {.i mi ja'a klama}?
04:19 < autstralopitrku> identical, except for emphasis and GOhA weirdness
04:19 < ctefa`o> pe'i Lojban only ever does emphasis via ba'e
04:20 < ctefa`o> {.i mi ba'e ja'a klama} only
04:21 < _mukti_> .i zo kau zo'u pei
04:21 < gleki> that's a different emphasis.
04:21 < ctefa`o> If we have an emphasis marker people should ba'e really use it.
04:22 < _mukti_> .i mi basna .i zu'u nai mi ba'e basna
04:22 < autstralopitrku> {mi djuno lo du'u do djuno lo du'u xo kau da klama} -> xu mi djuno lo du'u ma kau jai se jinvi do fai lo ka se memkai lo klama?
04:23 < ctefa`o> Well true
04:23 < ctefa`o> basna <-> ba'e
04:23 < ctefa`o> I meant using ba'e instead of word order or adding extra specifiers or anything like that
04:24 < ctefa`o> Haven't looked into kau yet
04:24 < ctefa`o> I literslly just gave you a sanitized le! Enjoy!
04:25 < ctefa`o> ---> le/The is just a "tag" that says something is a referent to an "A"
04:25 < ctefa`o> ./lo
04:26 < _mukti_> Hmm. I'm not sure it's a good idea, or even possible, to overlook the power of order to emphasize.
04:26 < _mukti_> In some ways I see {ba'e} as checking or providing an alternative to the emphasis that is implicit in ordering.
04:26 < ctefa`o> I don't read emphasis from anything but ba'e
04:27 < ctefa`o> Word order is prose
04:27 < ctefa`o> If that is the right word
04:28 < _mukti_> So for you, there is no difference in emphasis in {mi prami do} and {do se prami mi}
04:28 < ctefa`o> None whatsoever
04:28 < ctefa`o> prami fa mi do
04:28 < ctefa`o> mi prami di
04:28 < autstralopitrku> .y ue
04:28 < ctefa`o> si do
04:29 < ctefa`o> You just put it in different words for me
04:29 < ctefa`o> No emphasis
04:29 < ctefa`o> However
04:29 < ctefa`o> .i mi do prami
04:30 < ctefa`o> .i prami fa mi do
04:30 < ctefa`o> .i mi prami do
04:30 < gleki> btw, i think that {zi'o} might be very similar to anticausative voice.
04:30 < ctefa`o> Keep in mind language, speech and thought are sequential
04:30 < ctefa`o> lo nu binxo *would* have been a great example of this
04:31 < ctefa`o> But xorxes kinda missed it when, I presume, he translated from English
04:31 < ctefa`o> Or didn't consider it important
04:32 < ctefa`o> Original is something like
04:32 < ctefa`o> "Gregor Samsa woke up one day to find that he a giant insect had become"
04:32 < ctefa`o> become/Verwandlung
04:33 < ctefa`o> If you move the "become" around it gives different effects but that is not emphasis
04:33 < ctefa`o> It guides the "mental picture" you get
04:34 < _mukti_> Well, I can't speak to the effect in German, but when I use a different word order in English, especially if I deviate from expected word order, my interlocutors are likely to perceive emphasis.
04:35 < _mukti_> If I say "You I love", it means something different from "I love you" by way of emphasis.
04:35 < ctefa`o> That I think also depends on how you say it
04:35 < ctefa`o> Tone etc
04:35 < ctefa`o> Try saying it differently to yourself
04:35 < mindszenty> That's just natlang feature. I am not sure if it applies to lojban, and ctefa`o opines that it does not.
04:35 < ctefa`o> Remove any tone or things like that
04:36 < autstralopitrku> This might be not exactly emphasis but topic marking
04:36 < _mukti_> That's a possibility.
04:36 < autstralopitrku> (which is what putting something in x1 seems to do, though not as strongly as zo'u)
04:36 < _mukti_> do zo'u mi prami
04:37 < gleki> closer to bi'u}
04:37 < mindszenty> lojban has explicit means for emphasis, topic-comment strucure, etc, and tends to avoid implicit meaning, and if there _is_ implicit meaning, it is most often "neutral" or "undefined".
04:37 < ctefa`o> To me "I love you" and "You I love" are the same unless I put natlang "tone" emphasis in
04:37 < ctefa`o> I LOVE you
04:38 < ctefa`o> But that's ba'e
04:38 < _mukti_> In any case, I'm not sure that the power of ordering to indicate significance is limited to natlang.
04:39 < ctefa`o> ba'eeeeeee
04:39 < ctefa`o> Just use ba'e and we shall all be happy
04:39 < mindszenty> I am not saying it is limited to natlang - but lojban grammar, afaik, doesn't define semantics of word order (or tone, for that matter).
04:39 < ctefa`o> Or everyone will use word order to indicate their natlang-specific emphasis
04:39 < _mukti_> Take the case of a ponderously long sentence. Your attention may fail before you reach the end of the sentence. Whether my intention was to emphasize what came before or not, the result is similar.
04:40 < ctefa`o> Emphasis is also that one particular word is used instead of another
04:40 < ctefa`o> Or construct or sentence
04:41 < _mukti_> When we're talking about emphasis, are we still in the domain of semantics? Or have we moved on to something like rhetoric?
04:41 < mindszenty> _mukti_: That is what I just thought
04:41 < ctefa`o> Well, I just want to say that word order is style, nothing else
04:42 < ctefa`o> It is mostly important for connectives
04:42 < mindszenty> Maybe emphasis _can_ be language grammar feature, but in case of lojban, the only grammatic mean of emphasis is {ba'e}, and everything other is rhetoric?
04:42 < ctefa`o> mi cu prami do je cu viska
04:42 < ctefa`o> mi do cu prami je cu viska
04:43 < ctefa`o> do'e zo'e cu prami fa mi do je cu viska
04:44 < _mukti_> mindszenty: That seems valid.
04:44 < ctefa`o> Do you consider putting "had become" at the end of the sentence rhetoric?
04:44 < ctefa`o> mindszenty: Hmm I guess so
04:44 < ctefa`o> mindszenty: Hmm I guess so
04:45 < ctefa`o> internets++
04:45 < _mukti_> Well, in the case of German, I understand that there are particular rules for locating verbs at the end of utterances.
04:45 < ctefa`o> you put ver- in front of them
04:45 < ctefa`o> More or less
04:46 < autstralopitrku> huh?
04:46 < ctefa`o> You put ver- as a prefix on the verbs
04:46 < _mukti_> ich habe nur ein bischen deutsch gelernt
04:46 < ctefa`o> iirc
04:46 < ctefa`o> ge
04:46 < ctefa`o> Ge it was
04:46 < ctefa`o> Some verbs ver
04:46 < dutchie> any verb that isn't the main verb goes at the end in german
04:46 < ctefa`o> Dunno I don't speak german tbh
04:47 < dutchie> so also infinitives that are associated with modals e.g. ich muss mein Auto finden
04:47 < dutchie> mostly infinitives and participles in compound tenses
04:47 < mindszenty> ctefa`o: In lojban translation, yes. In German original, I am not sure - I do not know how German word order is working. But in English translation, I guess it would be deviation from grammatically default word order - that is, inversion - and maybe in this case it could be considered a grammatical way of emphasis.
04:47 < mindszenty> Though I am not sure.
04:48 < ctefa`o> The point is the author there used that construct for more dramatic "effect"
04:48 < ctefa`o> He puts a lot of significant verbs at end of sentences
04:48 < dutchie> well, i would say he took advantage of german's rules
04:48 < ctefa`o> iep
04:49 < dutchie> my german is a bit rusty, but i'm pretty sure verb placement is quite rigid
04:49 < ctefa`o> But as I showed you *can* do that in English too
04:49 < dutchie> other words/clauses you can move around, but main verb is always second, and other verbs go last in a kind of LIFO order
04:50 < autstralopitrku> nice, the German Wikipedia doesn't mention the verb placement, which is ba'a nai given a paragraph in the English one
04:51 < _mukti_> «Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren Ungeziefer verwandelt.»
04:51 < ctefa`o> The *point* was that it created special dramatic effecrs, but there is no emphasis and it means the same
04:51 < ctefa`o> verwandelt
04:51 < ctefa`o> Yeah
04:51 < mindszenty> In Russian, word order is more free, but it would be still very unusual to place the verb at the very end of this sentence. And that's why I am not sure if we can draw grammar/rhetoric distinction here.
04:51 < ctefa`o> One first thinks he found a big insect in the bed
04:51 < ctefa`o> Then we learn he has become one!
04:53 < ctefa`o> pe'i Lojban word order should be consideres style and nothing else
04:53 < ctefa`o> considered*
04:56 < ctefa`o> That's my word on the word order:)
04:57 < _mukti_> Hmm. This is interesting.
04:57 < _mukti_> http://www.lojban.org/static/publications/brochures/lojex.txt
04:57 < _mukti_> Discussing inversion of {vecnu}: "The effect is similar to what in English is called 'passive voice'."
04:57 < _mukti_> Also appears in CLL 2.7
04:58 < ctefa`o> ...also realized we should probably be putting a lot more ba'e in translations
04:58 < ctefa`o> Or nuances will get lost
04:58 < gleki> SE is not passive voice.
04:59 < _mukti_> gleki: Is CLL not saying that inversion has an effect similar to the passive voice?
04:59 < ctefa`o> I don't think I saw one ba'e in lo nu binxo or le cmalu noltru
04:59  * ctefa`o thinks
04:59 < ctefa`o> That title still works with my le, phew
05:00 < gleki> _mukti_: it's just a misusage of linguistic terms. CLL is pretty bad at linguistic terms in general
05:00 < ctefa`o> Maaaaaalgliiiiiiii (?)
05:00 < _mukti_> Well, that has often been observed. But let's set aside the particulars of the term "passive voice". CLL is asserting that inversion has an effect.
05:01 < gleki> not malgli of lojban but malgli-zation of CLL English.
05:01 < ctefa`o> je'e
05:01 < gleki> _mukti_: what effect?
05:02 < _mukti_> gleki: Well, that's a good follow up question. You seem to reject the idea that it is like the "passive voice", at least if that term is properly used.
05:02 < gleki> passive voice is rather {jai ri'i} or {li'i ce'u}
05:03 < gleki> although again since linguistcs cant agree on what it means i wont adapt lojban to broken theories
05:03 < autstralopitrku> (se li'i?)
05:03 < gleki> *linguists
05:03 < gleki> yes, se li'i
05:03 < ctefa`o> gleki: also, your version of le you showed me before, how restrictive was it?
05:03 < gleki> ctefa`o: isnt the page enough?
05:04 < ctefa`o> I don't have a link to it on my phone and forgot what article it was
05:04 < ctefa`o> si page
05:04 < autstralopitrku> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Particle_"le"_for_anaphora,_cataphora,_exophora
05:04 < ctefa`o> ki'e
05:05 < gleki> the word "restritive" doesnt say anything to me except when we talk about NOI
05:05 < ctefa`o> Ehm broken link?
05:05 < ctefa`o> Ah nvm
05:06 < gleki> i tried to rename that page but could invent a way to properly quote lojbanic words in titles.
05:06 < gleki> {} dont work since those are special symbols.
05:06 < gleki> "" are escaped in URLs
05:06 < gleki> no, they are not
05:07 < gleki> '' are escaped.
05:07 < _mukti_> Jordan Delong (2002, mriste): "Varied word order will make people pay attention to different aspects of your sentence, but it doesn't allow for saying the same sentence with different emphasis"
05:08 < _mukti_> So there seems to be a history of making some distinction between the kind of emphasis indicated by {ba'e} and the act of calling attention to some aspect of speech
05:09 < ctefa`o> Hmm I seems menre-le does at least not restrict your le
05:09 < _mukti_> (I'm not clear on the nature of that distinction, however.)
05:09 < ctefa`o> ...
05:09 < ctefa`o> Precent
05:09 < ctefa`o> Whatever
05:10 < ctefa`o> phone--
05:11 < autstralopitrku> gleki: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words#DISPLAYTITLE
05:11 < autstralopitrku> xu banzuka
05:13 < ctefa`o> gleki: What would you expand your le-construct into?
05:13 < ctefa`o> I really agree with the idea of "semantic" backtracking now that I think about it
05:14 < gleki> ctefa`o: for now i'll pretend that only a parser can deal with it, so from the viewpoint of the parser it's a primitive with its own special function finding referenced by {le} constructs.
05:15 < ctefa`o> Would my definition at least allow for your le? The rules could be seen as conventions.
05:16 < ctefa`o> They don't seem to conflict. As for quantifiers, dunno yet
05:17 < ctefa`o> menre is really the only thing we need
05:17 < gleki> i forgot your definition. {zo'e poi}?
05:18 < _mukti_> srera to mi mutce lo ka xenru toi fa mi
05:18 < ctefa`o> {le broda} {zo'e poi broda} {zo'e cu menre zo'e je cu broda}
05:20 < gleki> no, rather {da* poi broda} if that matters although one needs to reconstruct references of {da*} to other parts of UD to parse it semantically
05:20 < gleki> and since no tool can do that atm, just think that {le} can't be decomposed.
05:21 < ctefa`o> Why do you want to put "da" in there?
05:21 < gleki> because it's about UD
05:21 < _mukti_> Is there a cmavo to make a UI sticky?
05:22 < gleki> {le mlatu cu nerkla}, {da poi mlatu cu nerkla} = There is a cat that enters.
05:22 < ctefa`o> Why not just do "da poi broda" in the first place then?
05:23 < gleki> because {le} operates semantically as well, it understands that {lo mlatu bi'ai danlu} thus you can reference a cat as {le danlu}
05:23 < gleki> mudri: sticky to what?
05:24 < _mukti_> Like {ki} does for tenses
05:24 < gleki> oops
05:24 < _mukti_> .i ta'o mi na me la mudri
05:24 < gleki> mudri: u'u ju'inai
05:24 < mudri> .u'i
05:24 < _mukti_> .u'i
05:24 < gleki> _mukti_: using {i ui mo ije mo}
05:25 < _mukti_> IT'S A GOOD THING WE CAN'T MAKE BA'E STICKY.
05:26 < autstralopitrku> FUhE BIhA KO TINJUhI LO CLADU JE ME MI MOI :I BRODA BRODA BRODA BRODA :I XU XAhO TATPI fu'o
05:26 < gleki> not fu'e i suppose?
05:27 < _mukti_> There it is.
05:27 < gleki> zo tu'e pei
05:27 < autstralopitrku> pe'i pei lo zo fu'e stura na bi'ai kuspe su'e pa jufra
05:27 < ctefa`o> Hmm well from what I understand putting da in le isn't really needed. But then I need to read that article. And fix the subordinator hacks.
05:27 < _mukti_> I didn't know bi'a.
05:27 < _mukti_> Horrors.
05:27 < gleki> because it's exp.
05:27 < _mukti_> ua
05:28 < _mukti_> bi'a = postfix ba'e ?
05:28 < autstralopitrku> ba'e except in UI
05:28 < gleki> gleki looked at the table of cmavo and noticed that zi'a/bi'a were not filled. how interesting, he thought, that za'e and ba'e are so weird so why not copy them
05:29 < _mukti_> gleki should always narrate in the third person.
05:29 < gleki> There was once a Lojbanist Kuai Le who worked on the king Wu...
05:30 < gleki> and he wondered how to translate "Wu" to Lojban ...
05:32 < autstralopitrku> xu finti la'au .u noi bangu vau se ba'i ku
05:32 < gleki> u'i
05:33 < gleki> i je'u ky ne naku pu finti la'oi u noi bangu
05:34 < autstralopitrku> "xu lo gerku cu se jinzi lo budjo" ".i lo gerku goi na ku cu go'i"
05:36 < gleki> zo na'i mapti
05:36 < autstralopitrku> li'a
05:36 < gleki> i tordu zmadu
05:36 < gleki> en: australo
05:36 < gleki> la vrici na vrici
05:37 < gleki> i stodi
05:37 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
05:39  * nuzba @uitki: sandbox - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/sandbox by Cirko [http://bit.ly/1BCZmhY]
05:40 < autstralopitrku> cmanysno
05:40 < autstralopitrku> .i stika pu zu lo cacra xadba
05:40 < gleki> brasmani i braremna zo'o
05:41 < gleki> nuzba should inform us of JVS news
05:42 < gleki> ctefa`o: i think your be'ei is just seva'u or xau
05:42 < autstralopitrku> ie .i ji'a .ei gau la su'o da lo JVS me'oi diff cu se vreji
05:42 < gleki> ja'o le brasmani cu du sy
05:43 < autstralopitrku> zo be'ei zo'u lo se benre na bi'ai xamgu lo benre .i ja'o zmasmi lo'u te zu'e tu'a le'u
05:49 < gleki> en: benre
05:49 < mensi> benre = x1 is the benefactor of x2 (event/action), x2 is done for x1 |>>> A benefactor is someone or something for which
05:49 < mensi> something is done, and this relation may be either beneficial or disadvantageous. Consider "I poisoned the cake for him"
05:49 < mensi> vs "I baked a cake for him" ("for him to eat" would be a purpose). See also kosmu |>>>
05:49 < mensi> ctefaho
05:50 < gleki> lo'u te zu'e tu'a le'u pei
05:54 < durka42> .w benefactor
05:54 < mensi> durka42: cu'u la'o gy.oewtxwpnc.gy.: JUhI NAI UhU | 2015-06-25T08:13:52.715Z
05:54 < phenny> "Benefactor (law) for a person whose actions benefit another" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefactor
05:54 < durka42> this word benefactor
05:54 < durka42> I do not think it means what you think it means
05:55 < ctefa`o> I may be using the word wrong then
05:57 < ctefaho> yes ctefa`o
05:57 < ctefaho> "beneficiary" is obviously the right word
05:57 < durka42> yes that's it
05:57 < durka42> except "beneficiary" implies zabna
05:58 < ctefaho> not in this sense
05:59 < ctefaho> need another word still
05:59 < durka42> it seems like {benre} == {jai kosmu}?
05:59 < ctefaho> yes
06:01  * durka42 wonders if we really need two words if they are so closely related by {jai}
06:01 < ctefaho> maybe not
06:03 < ctefaho> I will find the perfect english word/description for it later mkay
06:12  * gleki he will find the perfect english zo'o
06:13 < zipcpi> Eh?
06:20 < dutchie> zipcpi: disagreement over...
06:20 < dutchie> en: benre
06:20 < mensi> benre = x1 is the benefactor of x2 (event/action), x2 is done for x1 |>>> A benefactor is someone or something for which
06:20 < mensi> something is done, and this relation may be either beneficial or disadvantageous. Consider "I poisoned the cake for him"
06:20 < mensi> vs "I baked a cake for him" ("for him to eat" would be a purpose). See also kosmu |>>>
06:20 < mensi> ctefaho
06:20 < zipcpi> Yeah I changed the definition
06:20 < zipcpi> From "benefactor" to "beneficiary
06:21 < durka42> that's a start
06:21 < zipcpi> And more specifically, "intended recipient"
06:22 < zipcpi> And since it is the "intended recepient" I think an x3 place is justified
06:22 < zipcpi> Cause it has to be the intention of someone
06:23 < ctefaho> sure go and add an x3
06:23  * zipcpi nods
06:23 < durka42> lo ka ce ce ce benre cu ka ce ce ce jai kosmu
06:23 < ctefaho> and make a new dunda or wtf it will become
06:23 < ctefaho> also zipcpi
06:23 < ctefaho> I fixed le for you
06:23 < zipcpi> ?
06:23 < ctefaho> lo broda - zo'e cu broda
06:23 < ctefaho> le broda - zo'e cu broda je cu menre zo'e
06:23 < ctefaho> enjoy
06:24 < durka42> .u'i wat
06:24 < zipcpi> I don't get it
06:24  * durka42 is late for a tautology club meeting, co'o
06:24 < zipcpi> Oh is that your new definition for {itca}?
06:25 < gleki> pe'i fa zo'e noi fa ke'a cu co'e fe zo'e cu co'e fe zo'e
06:25 < ctefaho> zipcpi: {le} now works as it should
06:25 < zipcpi> Ah yeah I see what you're trying to get at
06:25 < ctefaho> {me-le*}
06:27 < zipcpi> And it's not exactly a new dunda; {se dunda} is an object
06:27 < zipcpi> So it is good for something
06:27 < zipcpi> "recipient" was just the best word I could find for it
06:28 < zipcpi> Incidentally I'm also bothered by lack of a {te krinu}
06:28 < zipcpi> I think it has even more justification than {te kosmu}
06:28 < zipcpi> Whether {te kosmu} is necessary tends to depend on one's worldview I find
06:31 < zipcpi> But yeah I think durka's assessment is about correct (though I think {te zukte} first better than {kosmu} there)
06:31 < zipcpi> ce'u ce'u ce'u jai te zukte
06:31 < zipcpi> -> ce'u ce'u ce'u benre
06:32 < _mukti_> The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
06:32 < _mukti_> The second rule of tautology club is the second rule of tautology club.
06:34 < zipcpi> ctefaho: zo le zo'u: Yeah thanks for that. Dunno how to prevent it from running into the same problems that {itca} does though
06:37 < zipcpi> Hmm... maybe it's best to define it by it's negatives. My current thinking of {le} is that it = {xe'enai} + {su'anai}
06:37 < ctefaho> zipcpi, as for your drama example, it works just fine there
06:37 < ctefaho> it is even kinda compatible backwards too
06:37 < durka42> sorry I'm really thick, but what does "zo'e menre zo'e" add to anything
06:38 < zipcpi> Some particular members of a set
06:38 < ctefaho> that something is a referent of something?
06:38 < zipcpi> Hmm... somethings among somethings
06:38 < durka42> ohh it's a different zo'e
06:38 < durka42> ok
06:38 < zipcpi> Ah yeah... have to be careful about zo'e there; it's not sticky
06:40 < zipcpi> OK, le is neither {xe'e} nor {su'a}; {xe'e} is really new and disputed, but my intension is that {ko dunda mi rexe'e plise} = "Give me any two apples". I am referring to the set of "apples", and I want two of them, but I don't care which two
06:40 < zipcpi> So xe'enai on the other hand means I very much care about the specific referents
06:41 < zipcpi> {su'a} means generalization; hence {le} signals that you aren't generalizing
06:41 < ctefaho> sorry I am really thick
06:41 < ctefaho>   Definition: x1 is/are among the referent(s) of x2
06:41 < ctefaho> where is the *set only* tag?
06:42 < zipcpi> I'm not the one who defined it; their desire is to make a brivla out of {me}; but its official definition has been changed
06:42 < durka42> it's not a set...
06:42 < durka42> who needs a set
06:42 < zipcpi> lol
06:43 < zipcpi> Well in my opinion {lo re plise} is a set of two apples *shrugs*; dunno how people would feel about that vs old-lo'i though
06:44 < durka42> the trouble is {lo re plise cu xunre}, but some people will say that a "set" isn't red
06:44 < zipcpi> Right
06:44 < zipcpi> We might need a new brivla for mathematical set then
06:44 < zipcpi> If there already isn't one; but I don't know if any existing gismu would have been laicified
06:45 < durka42> well we already have cmima
06:45 < zipcpi> But does {se cmima} always refer to a set?
06:45 < zipcpi> Hmmmmmm
06:46 < autstralopitrku> {lo gunma cu se cmima} isn't unheard of
06:47 < zipcpi> You might still see {me} defined as "specific to referents in aspect x2", but I think that is now considered wrong
06:47 < durka42> {me} means "among"
06:47  * zipcpi nods
06:48 < zipcpi> JVS doesn't say that though
06:49 < gleki> one could at least fix UI scale definitions
06:50 < zipcpi> So that we all use {ne'e} instead? Hrr
06:50 < zipcpi> Part of the problem though is that sometimes there might be more than one way to interpret {to'e broda}
06:50 < gleki> so that scales are moved to notes
06:51 < gleki> like this:
06:51 < gleki> jb: a'u
06:51 < mensi> a'u = a'u [interjection] — Hmm... I wonder ... (interest), a'u cu'i — Ho-hum (disinterest), a'u nai — Eww! Yuck!
06:51 < mensi> (repulsion)
06:51 < mensi> :a'u ro jbopre cu stati prenu — Interesting, all Lojbanists are smart people.
06:51 < mensi> :a'u ma krinu — Hm, what is the reason?
06:51 < mensi> :a'u cu'i do ne ka'ai lo nanla cu se zdani — It's none of my business that you live with a boy.
06:51 < zipcpi> Ah... so that it isn't defined as "happiness - unhappiness"; yeah I can see how it's confusing
06:51 < mensi> :a'u nai do co'a speni lo fange — You married a stranger, it's none of my business, I'd avoid this topic.
06:51 < mensi> :a'u nai iu nai panci fa lo kalci i ai nai mi citka ti — Yuck, that smells like shit! I'm not going to eat this.
06:51 < mensi> :Related words: lo se cinri
06:52 < tsani> .i la'e lu lo jbobau cu mo li'u cu se tirna be mi xamgu ca lo nu sampla
06:52 < gleki> ua
06:53 < gleki> i fau lo nu do cando vau ko na morji doi la tsani fi la vlasisku
06:53 < gleki> sa
06:53 < gleki> i fau lo nu do cando vau ko na na morji doi la tsani fi la vlasisku
06:53 < tsani> ie sai
06:54 < tsani> .i lo drata noi mi ki ca gunka cu simsa be la vlasisku ku mutce .i ja'e bo ba ca lo nu cadbi'o zo'u mi certu ba'a lo ka jai stika V
06:55 < gleki> xu zo ki co'e zo ke'a
06:55 < gleki> i ma bankle
06:55 < zipcpi> ma vlakra zo mlauca
06:56 < gleki> en: mlauca
06:56 < mensi> mlauca = x1 mentions or alludes to x2 while talking to x3 |>>> Compare tavla, casnu, cusku, smusku, larseku |>>>
06:56 < mensi> ahernai
06:56 < gleki> en: larseku
06:56 < mensi> mlauca = x1 mentions or alludes to x2 while talking to x3
06:56 < gleki> jbo: larseku
06:56 < mensi> larseku = x1 prosa ja pemci ja skina ja draci x2 x3 x4 .i va'i x1 larselsku x3 noi se pi'o vo'a tavla x4 x2 zi'o ku'o x4
06:56 < mensi> |>>> prosa pemci skina draci larselsku |>>> zozeizeizeizeifaho
06:57 < gleki> ua
06:57 < zipcpi> larseku = "creative/artistic literature"?
06:58 < tsani> .i ru'a zo larseku se krasi lu larcu se cusku li'u
06:58 < zipcpi> Well, as far as movies might be described as literature. I don't really have a problem with that but some might :p
06:58 < gleki> no idea but it looks like a generalisation of one really existing semantic class in gimste
06:58 < gleki> which i marked as LISRI
06:59 < gleki> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/larseku
06:59 < zipcpi> Oh, you're working on frames?
06:59 < gleki> oh my no longer "word not found in the db"!
06:59 < ctefaho> zipcpi: but let's test this with your example
06:59 < gleki> zipcpi: this is one of very few frames in gimste that are obvious
07:00 < gleki> i havent worked on frames.it was just glaring
07:00 < zipcpi> Right
07:01 < ctefaho> {coi} {coi .i xu do nelci le draci} {nago'i uinai} {ue .i xunai do nelci lo draci} {go'i} {je'e}
07:02 < ctefaho> seems like we do still lo'e and le'e
07:02 < ctefaho> do still need*
07:02 < zipcpi> ctefaho: I'm not sure it solves the {itca}/{toly'itca} problem. {rexe'e plise} is still among the ... "set" of all apples; it's just that the differences between apples aren't important to me there, while is {le re plise}, I care about exactly which apples I refer to
07:03 < zipcpi> *while in
07:03 < ctefaho> I am thinking of
07:03 < ctefaho> lo'e broda - lo cnano noi broda
07:03 < ctefaho> le'e broda - le cnano poi broda
07:03 < ctefaho> or lo cnano poi broda
07:04 < ctefaho> probably the latter
07:04  * ctefaho to the BPFK-mobile
07:06 < zipcpi> So really {le broda} = {lo broda poi itca lo ro broda}; question is how to define {itca}
07:06 < ctefaho> why are you sticking itca in there
07:06 < ctefaho> shoo shoo
07:06 < zipcpi> Because {me} isn't specific enough
07:07 < ctefaho> menre is fine
07:07 < zipcpi> But it says nothing about specificity/non-speciificity
07:08 < zipcpi> Both "the two apples" and "any two apples" are still {me lo ro plise}
07:08 < ctefaho> le is a referent to a lo
07:08 < zipcpi> Or {menre lo ro plise}
07:08 < ctefaho> that's all we need
07:09 < zipcpi> Nah, I'm beginning to think that is a tautology
07:09 < ctefaho> just let me fix lo'e and le'e too and everyone will be happy
07:10 < zipcpi> re xe'e me ko'a
07:11 < zipcpi> Any two referents of ko'a
07:11 < ctefaho> how do you stick a ko'a in a le?
07:11 < zipcpi> lo me ko'a / le me ko'a
07:11 < zipcpi> Even lo'e me ko'a
07:12 < zipcpi> {me} is like the opposite of a gadri; it turns a sumti back into a selbri
07:13 < zipcpi> Glossed as "among"; says nothing about specificity
07:13 < ctefaho> exactly
07:13 < ctefaho> the specificity comes from choosing lo or le
07:13 < ctefaho> a le can only refer to a lo
07:13 < zipcpi> So lo me lo broda = lo broda; doesn't add any semantic content
07:14 < ctefaho> no that is not how it expands
07:14 < zipcpi> Can only refer to a lo? What does that even mean? {lo} can mean all those four things I listed
07:14 < zipcpi> So how does your {le} solve that problem?
07:15 < ctefaho> {lo me lo broda} {zo'e cu menre zo'e noi broda}
07:15 < zipcpi> Something that's among those that broda; but that is already what {lo} means; says nothing about specificity
07:15 < ctefaho> it means a le has to be bound to something
07:15 < ctefaho> and that zo'e, we get from context
07:16 < ctefaho> looking at something similar that is a lo/cu
07:16 < ctefaho> or just lo
07:16 < ctefaho> no rules yet
07:16 < ctefaho> and wtf, le'e
07:16 < ctefaho> that one's hard
07:17 < zipcpi> Yeah I don't even know how {le'e} is useful here
07:20 < ctefaho> well lo'e and le'e can be anything we define them to be, technically
07:20 < zipcpi> I completely redefined {le'e} in my system
07:20 < zipcpi> {lo'e} as far as I know I'm merely trying to formalize, by having it generate a virtual copy of the generalized set
07:21 < zipcpi> *virtual member of the generalized set
07:21 < zipcpi> And doesn't conflict with the BPFK usage examples
07:22 < zipcpi> Under gadganzu {le'e} is just short for {lo/le bi'unai}
07:22 <@xalbo> I still contend that your {lo'i} is very, very close to CLL {le'e}, and that you made a bad choice in not re-using {le'e} for that meaning.
07:23 < ctefaho> bpfk le'e and lo'e still make some sense, I just can't formalize it damn it
07:23 < zipcpi> xalbo: Interesting point; but I did remove the part about having two legs
07:24 < zipcpi> As far as I know it's now to be used for talking about definitions or essential characteristics
07:24 < zipcpi> Which divorces it from CLL {le'e} as far as I know
07:24 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: BPFK lo'e broda ---> lo lomkai be lo ka broda  (now "lomkai" remains to be exactly defined)
07:24 < Ilmen> (maybe it's just "fadni")
07:25 < ctefaho> you defined lo'e with its rafsi?
07:25 < zipcpi> rafsi are just mnemonics; brivla made with them can have their own definitions
07:25 < Ilmen> ctefaho: yeah, just because a predicate form seems more basic to me
07:25 < ctefaho> ienai
07:25 < zipcpi> Actually I think {lomdza} is better
07:26 < ctefaho> I firmly believe it is something like cnano
07:27 < Ilmen> en: lomkai
07:27 < mensi> lomkai [< lo'e ckaji ≈ The typical feature] = x1 is a typical representative of property x2 |>>>
07:27 < mensi> Ilmen
07:27 < zipcpi> Oh you've already defined it
07:27 < ctefaho> defining it with english "typical representative" doesn't exactly help
07:27 < Ilmen> If anybody has an idea for a lojban-only definition, go ahead
07:27 < ctefaho> I say cnano something
07:28 < ctefaho> {le'e rozgu cu xunre} {lo'e rozgu cu xunre}
07:28 < zipcpi> ctefaho: {lo cnano} still has the problem; is it a specific thing?
07:28 < ctefaho> there is a natlang difference I can't put my finger on
07:28 < ctefaho> lo'e certainly is not ro
07:29 < zipcpi> Ilmen: My current solution for {lo'e} is generating a virtual copy of a typical member of the set of generalization
07:30 <@xalbo> (CLL) I think of {lo'e} as being more objective than {le'e}. That is, {lo'e rozgu cu xunre} is asserting of actual roses in the world that they tend to be red (which, I think, may not actually be true; there may be as many yellow or white ones out there as red).
07:30 <@xalbo> OTOH, {le'e rozgu cu xunre} says that my mental image of "a rose" is red. When I picture roses, I picture them red.
07:31 < zipcpi> OK... then... then neither is suitable for talking about definitions then I suppose
07:31 < ctefaho> xalbo, yeah, sort of
07:32 < ctefaho> le'e does not actually seem to claim all roses?
07:32 < ctefaho> ...
07:32 < ctefaho> does not actually seem to claim roses themselves are red?
07:33 < ctefaho> I think
07:33 < ctefaho> lo'e rozgu
07:33 < ctefaho> lo cnano poi rozgu
07:34 < ctefaho> expansion time!
07:34 <@xalbo> A real-world example is that {le'e lanme cu blabi}, when I picture sheep they're all white. {lo'e lanme cu grusi}: Real sheep out there tend to be gray (or brown, or some white and some all sorts of colors).
07:35 < zipcpi> Hmm... rather tough distinction
07:35 < zipcpi> I mean, I can see it, but seems tough for practical usage
07:35 < ctefaho> {zo'e cu cnano poi rozgu}
07:35 <@xalbo> {le'e djacu} is potable. {lo'e djacu} is in the ocean.
07:36 < ctefaho> sa
07:36 < zipcpi> Thus "my" {lo'e} runs both CLL-le'e and CLL-lo'e together?
07:38 <@xalbo> Sounds like it, yes.
07:39 <@xalbo> (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's a debate to be made that the difference is tangential and unusual, and that it isn't required as part of the gadri system.)
07:39 < zipcpi> Perhaps so
07:47 < ctefaho> lo'e rozgu
07:47 < ctefaho> lo rozgu poi cnano
07:47 < ctefaho> zo'e cu rozgu je cu menre lo rozgu je cu cnano
07:47 < ctefaho> I think that says what we want to
07:48 < ctefaho> or maybe that is what le'e is supposed to be
07:48 < ctefaho> confusing++
07:50 < ctefaho> or: zo'e cu menre lo rozgu je cu cnano
07:52 <@xalbo> I take it you're using some non-standard definition of {cnano}
07:52 < ctefaho> ehm
07:52 < ctefaho> fadni?
07:53 <@xalbo> Yeah, that's probably better.
07:54 <@xalbo> Really, I'm starting to think that finding an expansion for {lo'e rozgu} is just a wrong idea. That, instead, something like {lo'e rozgu cu xunre} is saying something close to {zilfadni lo ka xunre vau lo'i rozgu}
07:54 <@xalbo> (rather, {zi'o fadni lo ka xunre vau lo'i rozgu}
07:55 < ctefaho> fadni sure is the word
07:56 < zipcpi> {lo'i rozgu} here meaning {lu'i lo rozgu}, I assume
07:56 < zipcpi> Wonder if I should define {setmima} or something
07:57 < ctefaho> I should probably start in the direction
07:57 < ctefaho> and work upwards to lo'e/le'e
07:58 <@xalbo> Yes, that's cll-lo'i
07:58 < zipcpi> xalbo: je'e
07:58 <@xalbo> What would {setmima} mean?
07:58 < zipcpi> Mathematical set
07:58 <@xalbo> So selcmi or zilcmi.
07:59 < zipcpi> zilcmi might be better if we really must make another zil-lujvo
07:59 <@xalbo> .u'u mi se jibri co'e bilga co'o
07:59 < zipcpi> co'o
07:59 <@xalbo> zo zilcmi ze'u valsi
07:59 < zipcpi> Ah
08:03 < zipcpi> Not sure it's the best word for mathematical set though
08:03 < zipcpi> And it's funny; because an x2 for its contents is also useful
08:04 < zipcpi> Which then brings us back to {selcmima}; but as I've pointed out that is too general to mean specifically "set"
08:04 < zipcpi>  /{selcmi}
08:06 <@xalbo> Basically, people said "I don't like sets and I don't like that cmima2 is only sets" and then redefined cmima2 to be any groupish thing, and then started to complain that now it's too general and they don't have a way to talk about sets.
08:06 < zipcpi> Meh I think that's fine; gismu should be laic, generally
08:07 < ctefaho> {lo'e rozgu} {zo'e cu fadni je cu menre lo rozgu}
08:07 <@xalbo> {zilcmi} is "x1 is a (mathematical) set". {cmima} is ∈.
08:07 <@xalbo> {selcmi} is ∋.
08:09 < zipcpi> And {lu'i} is more flexible than set-gadri anyway; same can probably be said about masses and {lu'o}, but masses are often shorthanded
08:10 < zipcpi> It's funny though because I'm starting to gain some appreciation for sets now
08:10 < ctefaho> {lo'e rozgu} -> {lo rozgu poi fadni}
08:13 < zipcpi> The technical/laic distinction is also part of what I invented zai'e/zi'ai for, and Curtis invented pe'ai for
08:14 < zipcpi> {setmima} seems really glico though; but the link to {selcmi} is too strong for me to drop it
08:14 <@xalbo> I wonder what other languages use to name the concept of mathematical sets.
08:14 < zipcpi> Chinese: 集合
08:15 < zipcpi> ji2 he2
08:15 < zipcpi> 集 means a collection
08:15 < zipcpi> or assembly
08:16 < zipcpi> Malay just fu'ivla-s from English :p
08:16 < zipcpi> Bahasa Indonesia uses "himpunan" though
08:19 < zipcpi> xalbo: The main problem with {se cmima} is this: {mi cmima la bauspo fazykamni} - is {la bauspo fazykamni} now a set then?
08:20 < zipcpi> That's part of the problem of defining gismu too technically
08:21 <@xalbo> The classic answer is that {do cmima na'i lo bauspo fuzykamni .i do se gunma ri}
08:21 < zipcpi> lol perhaps
08:21 <@xalbo> That's not necessarily the right answer, though.
08:23  * nuzba @recursecenter: At RC, there are chat channels called "ñ" for speaking Spanish, "ão" for speaking Portuguese, and "lojban" for speaking Lojban. [http://bit.ly/1LxrvKD]
08:26 < zipcpi> {cmaci} doesn't even have a short rafsi
08:26 < zipcpi> cmacyzamselcmi
08:27 < ctefaho> xalbo, your stereotypical le'e sheep, do they make any claims about existing sheep at all?
08:28 < ctefaho> I am wondering just how far out le'e should be in its claims
08:31 <@xalbo> I'm suspecting not. {le'e pavyseljirna} is white, beautiful, and easily frightened away by non-virgins. I don't think that's a statement about existing unicorns.
08:32 <@xalbo> But I'm not entirely certain that there isn't a counterargument to be made there.
08:32 < ctefaho> iep
08:32 < zipcpi> By the way I also made unicorns {pavjima}, just because lol
08:33 < ctefaho> I wonder of "fadni" can actually cover that, or if we would need a new "sterotypical" gismu
08:33 <@xalbo> Why the ⟨m⟩? Just resemblence to ⟨rn⟩?
08:33 < zipcpi> xir{ma}
08:34 <@xalbo> je'e
08:35 < ctefaho> and thus, fadnixipa was born
08:35 < ctefaho> fadnixipa "x1 is sterotypical + AS MANY PLACES AS DESIRED*
08:36 < ctefaho> or some tanru
08:36 <@xalbo> fadnixirma: x1 is a stereotypical horse, doing stereotypical horse thing x2 (default: having a single horn, being afraid of non-virgins, making coconut noises when it gallops)
08:37 < zipcpi> u'i
08:37 < ctefaho> or am I just cheating now
08:37 < ctefaho> regardless such a word would be good in the vocab
08:42 < ctefaho> le'e rozgu -> lo rozgu poi fadnixipa
08:42 < durka42> wait what are the other desired places
08:43 < ctefaho> zipcpi will add them I am sure
08:43 < ctefaho> I just want the concept nailed down intoi a word
08:43 < zipcpi> Meh; I'm sticking with {lemkai}
08:43 < ctefaho> "fadni" and "fadnixipa" are really quite different
08:44 < zipcpi> And I'm not too fond of {xipa} actually becoming a zi'evla suffix
08:44 < ctefaho> my god it is just a placeholder until I come up with the gismu!
08:45 < zipcpi> Fine, fine
08:45  * durka42 cu durkaxivore
08:45 < durka42> vlaste: fandi (fapro)
08:45 < vlaste> zo fandi gimkamsmikezypro zo pandi noi catni gismu .i zo fandi gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
08:45 < durka42> .u'i
08:45 < zipcpi> f clashes with p?
08:45 < durka42> yeah
08:46 < durka42> stop vs fricative
08:46 < ctefaho> so, we just need a new gismu and the gadri will be somewhat sanitized
08:47 < ctefaho> we/I/mi
08:48 < ldlework> Just want to say that scoping for indefinite descriptions has never been formalized even outside of lojban so I wouldn't rush into conclusions about them
08:49 < ldlework> There are suggested solutions but nothing everyone agrees upon.
08:49 < ctefaho> well, let's put it like this: try out menre-le/poi-le and see how it feels
08:50 < ctefaho> si works
08:50 < ldlework> le is definite descriptions, so i'm not sure what you're talking about
08:50  * ctefaho blinks
08:50 < ldlework> I'm pretty sure scoping for definite descriptions is fully formalized
08:50 < ctefaho> si sa sa
08:51 < ldlework> I'm referring to lo'e and lo'i
08:51 < ctefaho> ua
08:51  * ctefaho goes back to his cave
08:51 < ldlework> When I read about indefinite descriptions, I never read things like "it takes the sterotypical copy" or whatnot
08:52 < ldlework> In the literature they are not making up referent metaphors because indefinite descriptions are not referring descriptions
08:54 < ldlework> I recommend reading through the standford pages on description theory to read about some of the proposed solutions for indefinite descriptions, of which I think there is about 1 and a half.
08:56 < ldlework> "This analysis, according to Russell, solves the second problem noted above as related to indefinite descriptions. Since the phrase "some dog is annoying" is not a referring expression, according to Russell's theory, it need not refer to a mysterious non-existent entity."
08:57 < durka42> lo mi gerku cu nonseljmi je nalzasti dacti
08:57 < durka42> sa .i ro lo mi gerku cu nonseljmi je nalzasti dacti
08:58 < durka42> ko smadi lo du'u xokau gerku cu se ponse mi
08:59 < ldlework> uat
09:01 < durka42> sei .anci lo dzadza be lo ka gerku jecu se ponse mi cu cmalu sai
09:01 < zipcpi> ldlework: I'm beginning to think there are actually three types of indefinite descriptions. One is generalistic; the other is definitional/essentialistic, and a still other is a non-specific, but concrete, member of a set
09:02 < zipcpi> The third one, I didn't propose a gadri for though
09:02 < ldlework> zipcpi: that's just an 'any' quantification
09:02 < zipcpi> I proposed {xe'e} instead, as a UI
09:05 < ldlework> This is kind of why I wanted to build up a paper on it
09:06 < ldlework> Because it demands going through the available literature to summarize the thinking on indefinite descriptions
09:06 < ldlework> I have even seen very recent whitepapers arguing that indefinite descriptions really are referring descriptions (but not to any cat, like we've been thinking)
09:07 < rutytar> coi ro do
09:08 < ldlework> which was an interesting read I wonder if I can find that one again
09:09 < durka42> referring to Mr. Cat?
09:09 < zipcpi> I'm pretty sure Mr. Cat is a uniquly Lojbanic thing
09:10 < rutytar> this "lojban dictionary with examples" is strange
09:11 < rutytar> "ko smaji ca lo nu mi tavla la Alis fo la Lojban fi lo nu prami — Keep silence when I'm talking to Alice in Lojban about love."
09:11 < rutytar> shouldn't it be "la alis."
09:11 < gleki> rutytar: it's the same
09:11 < gleki> just stylistically different
09:11 < gleki> exp: ko smaji ca lo nu mi tavla la Alis fo la Lojban fi lo nu prami
09:12 < mensi> (ko [CU {smaji <ca (¹lo [nu {mi <CU (²tavla [la alis KU] [fo {la lojban KU}] [fi {lo <nu (³CU [prami VAU]³) KEI> KU}]²) VAU>} KEI] KU¹)> VAU}])
09:12 < gleki> As you can see parsers accept it
09:12 < rutytar> so the capital letter is specifying the syllable to be emphasized?
09:13 < gleki> it's just stylistical capitalization here. Just spelling.
09:13 < ldlework> zipcpi: I'm fairly certain that is true as well
09:14 < durka42> with the pauses put back in {la .alis.}
09:14 < rutytar> has anyone written any programs to convert between styles?
09:14 < ldlework> if I remember correctly
09:14 < gleki> rutytar: not yet because it's too easy to implement
09:14 < ldlework> the whitepaper arguing that indefinites are referring descriptions, was arguing that indefinites actually refer to -speech acts-
09:15 < durka42> ue
09:15 < ldlework> but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I'm not sure if I am remembering correctly
09:15 < rutytar> gleki: wat? you mean bystander effect?
09:15 < zipcpi> I gotta go. See ya
09:15 < zipcpi> co'o
09:15 < ldlework> co'o
09:15 < gleki> rutytar: the two styles are too similar to convert between them
09:16 < rutytar> doesn't that mean they aren't lojbanic?
09:17 < durka42> they are lojbanic in that they are a style of writing lojban?
09:17 < rutytar> what i mean is, you're supposed to be able to understand how to write anything you hear, and understand how to say anything you read
09:18 < rutytar> so if you can't derive {la .alis.} from {la Alis}, doesn't that mean they fail at the law of identity?
09:18 < durka42> well, sure you can
09:18 < durka42> if you say, okay this style is to use capitalization for names, and something else (like accent marks) for accents
09:19 < durka42> it's only a small problem if you can't tell what style the text is written in
09:20 < rutytar> but if i just write {coi la Alison}, how would you know if the emphasis is on the first or second syllable?
09:21 < dutchie> then you are doing a bad job at writing
09:21 < dutchie> cf. text encoding in computers. in principle you have to know what encoding the bytes you have are in
09:21 < dutchie> if you don't know, then whoever gave them to you hasn't told you all you need to know
09:22 < rutytar> is it the speaker's fault when you say "you're right" and people don't know if you're talking about truth or directionality? it seemed like this was precisely the kind of thing lojban was made to avoid
09:23 < rutytar> you could say "(when i say right i mean the direction) you're right", but it's way easier to just use two words for the two kinds of "right"
09:24 < dutchie> you only know where to stress {la .alison.} from (the shared) context (of established lojban orthography)
09:25 < dutchie> if you see the word "carve" on a piece of paper, how do you know whether it's the english verb for chopping something up or the lojban gismu for "pure"?
09:26 < dutchie> there is a fundamental level of context you need to get any meaning from anything
09:26 < ldlework> The bigger observation is that no one is even working on computers that understand lojban.
09:26 < dutchie> lojban requires less than english, but it's not zero
09:26 <@xalbo> Really, the "isomorphism" in audiovisual isomorphism is something of a misnomer. A Lojban orthography is a set of rules that maps from any given character stream to either zero or one sequences of Lojban words, and guarantees that there is at least one character stream that would map to any given sequence of Lojban words.
09:27 <@xalbo> dutchie: You're thinking of {curve}.
09:27 < dutchie> ah, so i am. but the point stands
09:27 < gleki> eh, "audiovisual isomorphism" would probably be better expressed using several words hence we wont have it in JVS
09:28 <@xalbo> The orthography that would capitalize names is incompatible with one that would use capitals for stress marking. But each would represent a valid orthography.
09:28 < rutytar> but without context, how could you distinguish them?
09:30 < rutytar> dutchie: i understand needing an encoding standard at the language level, but it seems like a bad idea to have multiple for the same language. that seems akin to having multiple sounds for the same word
09:30 <@xalbo> Without context, you can't do much of anything. If you see the text ⟨no selbri⟩ you don't know whether that's the English or the Lojban (although they actually mean almost exactly the same thing).
09:31 < gleki> the most common example is "since"/{since}
09:31 < rutytar> but that's outside of lojban's scope
09:32 < rutytar> lojban is supposed to not have homonyms, not the combination of lojban and english
09:32 <@xalbo> Personally, I would argue that the idea of using capitalization for names is a shitty and toljbo idea, and that among its bad properties are the fact that it conflicts with more standard orthographies. But it does represent a self-consistent orthography.
09:33 < rutytar> "right" as in the direction and "right" as in the truth value are both self-consistent, but under the umbrella of english they make ambiguity
09:33 < gleki> in this dictionary btw capitalization of vowels is compatible with the one described in CLL.
09:33 < rutytar> i'm not saying the umbrella of language should be unambiguous, but under the umbrella of lojban it seems like it would defeat the point
09:33 < gleki> so in {Alis} the stress can be put  onto {A}
09:34 < rutytar> ca lo vensa be lo re no no mu moi bei la Australi'as mi pu na zvati lo mi zdani gugde — During Australian winter of year 2005 I wasn't in my home country.
09:34 < rutytar> wouldn't that be {la austraLI'as}?
09:35 < ctefaho> my poor inbox!
09:35  * durka42 pronounces it {.austráli'as.}
09:35 < ctefaho> how much did you tinkerino
09:35 < rutytar> but in the dictionary http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=La_Bangu:_Lojban_Dictionary_with_Examples&redirect=no they don't give a pronunciation guide
09:35 < gleki> it would be {gugde'a'u} or rants will start
09:36 < gleki> rutytar: because it's a part of the crash course
09:36 < durka42> in the style where names are capitalized, I think the stress is still on the second-to-last syllable
09:36 < durka42> unless marked with an accented char
09:36 < gleki> mw.lojban.org/papri/The_Crash_Course_(a_draft)
09:36  * xalbo rants that {sralo} exists, so use it.
09:37 < gleki> sralo is not necessarily about the country
09:37 < dutchie> so sralygu'e
09:38 < dutchie> (oh look! another english/lojban polyglot word)
09:38 <@xalbo> gleki: True, but {sralygu'e} is.
09:38 < gleki> sralygu'e is a new word.
09:38 < rutytar> but doesn't {la Australi'as} make it ambiguous whether the stress should be put on the A or the li?
09:39 < dutchie> {la AUstrali'as} would be less ambiguous
09:39 < gleki> actually i used this style because almost no one these days use syllable capitalization.
09:40 <@xalbo> Yes, but even fewer use your stupid "capitalize names" style, and for good reason.
09:40 <@xalbo> Your orthography is bad and you should feel bad.
09:40 < dutchie> u'i i think we are contributing to the problem by discussing non-standard orthographis
09:40 < ldlework> xalbo: don't get mean
09:40 < dutchie> si orthographies
09:41 < dutchie> we should all just use the quenya one zo'o
09:41 < gleki> okay if so many people complain i will make them low again
09:41 < gleki> it's the first time i get this complaint.
09:42 < rutytar> if i made "lojban B" in which {pritu} and {drani} were switched, and you had to guess which kind of lojban i was using whenever i said something, wouldn't that defeat the entire point of lojban?
09:42  * durka42 has the same concern about cekitaujau
09:43 < gleki> no, let's take another example. if one made a style where {du'u} and {du} switch ...oh wait
09:43 < rutytar> anyway gleki, i didn't know it was your dictionary. i do appreciate that you made it, i'm sorry if this came off as mean
09:43 < rutytar> i've actually been using it for a project i've been working on
09:44 < rutytar> i was about to make a script to change the style back to the one i'm used to
09:44 <@xalbo> gleki: Yes, that would be a horrible idea and anyone who did that shouldn't.
09:44  * xalbo sobs.
09:46 < rutytar> durka42: what is cekitaujau?
09:47 <@xalbo> It's a horrible idea, and anyone who did it shouldn't have.
09:47 < durka42> rutytar: you're not going to like it
09:47 < durka42> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ce_ki_tau_jau
09:47 < durka42> xalbo: but it's so melbi!
09:48 < gleki> i have no idea how it can be melbi
09:49 < durka42> lo ka melbi cu nenri lo kanla be lo viska
09:49  * durka42 malglirai
09:49 < dutchie> u'i
09:54 < ldlework> If we could do a matrix like update to everyone's minds and the data in the world, and we were going to refactor lojban I would totally do things like use short articles like du for du'u and such
09:56 < gleki> ldlework: dont forget about one-syllable gismu
09:56 < ldlework> I don't see a need for that
09:57 < gleki> i dont see a need in du
09:58 < ldlework> Its a core article
09:58 < gleki> ... those are core brivla
09:58 < ldlework> You're just emitting words without caring about their meaning
09:58 < gleki> anyway i provided a one-syllable alternative.
09:59 < durka42> nu?
09:59 < ldlework> gleki: also why are you needlessly aruging with me with something _you_ did
10:00 <@xalbo> ldlework: Yes, I'll agree that in the hypothetical world where we could change the past, those are among the changes we'd want to make.
10:00 < ldlework> xalbo: u'i
10:00 < gleki> ldlework: im  not arguing
10:00 < gleki> with what i did
10:01 < ldlework> gleki: okay you're taking it to the illogical extreme I guess
10:01 < ldlework> I thought you were using the illogical extreme to counter-argue against your own idea
10:01 < gleki> ldlework: it's not illogical. guaspi has one syllable gismu btw
10:01 < ldlework> But you really would like single syllable gismu?
10:01 < ldlework> Right, but lojban uses one syllable words for cmavo space
10:01 < gleki> i like single syllable gismu but in another language.
10:01 < ldlework> Because, articles are used more frequently than individual predicates
10:02 < gleki> ldlework: frequency dictionary disagrees with you
10:02 < ldlework> And there are not enough single syllable words to cover the gismu (I imagine)
10:02 < ldlework> gleki: for any rare cmavo you can point out, I can point out rare gismu
10:02 < ldlework> the point is, gismu are only relevant to utterances involving that propositional content
10:02 < gleki> ldlework: so why not use one-syllable words for most frequenct cmavo and gismu?
10:02 < ldlework> cmavo are applicable *despite* the propositional content
10:03 < ldlework> gleki: its inconsistent?
10:03 < gleki> currently it may look like Zipf inconsistent
10:03 < ldlework> I don't know what that means
10:03 < gleki> Zipf rule. the most frequenct words must be short
10:04 < gleki> s/words/constructs/
10:04 < phenny> gleki meant to say: Zipf rule. the most frequenct constructs must be short
10:05 < rutytar> what is the term in lojban for anything which goes between spaces? would "word" be appropriate?
10:06 < ldlework> ie
10:06 < gleki> mo zei valsi
10:06 < gleki> k:mo zei valsi
10:06 < mensi> (CU [Z_clause:{GOhA:mo <ZEI:zei G:valsi>}] VAU)
10:07 <@xalbo> rutytar: "word" or {valsi} is very close, but (in the standard orthography) it's legal to write multiple words without spaces between them. Some styles frown on that, but most permit it.
10:07 < rutytar> i'm just building a database
10:07 <@xalbo> {ui nai} and {uinai} are equivalent, for instance.
10:08 <@xalbo> Ahh, then "word" or {valsi} would both be fine.
10:22 < ctefaho> kesri sounds so beautiful
10:23 < ctefaho> and no, no tag for this one
10:23 <@xalbo> That definition really feels like it needs more work, or definitions, or something.
10:23 <@xalbo> en: kesri
10:23 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:24 < ctefaho> I just need something that works with le'e
10:25 < ctefaho> feel free to add any places you desire
10:25 < ctefaho> I have a bet about how many it will end up with
10:27 <@xalbo> I'll try to out-{besto} it, but it'll be hard.
10:27 < ctefaho> from Wikipedia's page about stereotypes, "The usual Irish Way of Doing Things" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/TheUsualIrishWayofDoingThings.jpg
10:27 < ctefaho> just wow
10:27 < durka42> what does {kesri} mean? same as {lemkai}?
10:28 < ctefaho> depends on what your lem does
10:28 < ctefaho> I refuse to define a cmavo with its own rafsi
10:28 < durka42> I mean, do you intend {kesri} to replace {lemkai}
10:29 < ctefaho> I dunno what lemkai was used for
10:29 < ctefaho> I use kesri to expand le'e
10:29 < durka42> vlaste: lemkai
10:29 < vlaste> lemkai = x1 is a stereotypical representative of property x2
10:29 < ctefaho> I know what it means I haven't seen it used
10:30 < durka42> okay I get it, you don't way to ever say "yes" to me :)
10:30 < durka42> {lemkai} is/was a proposed way to get a brivla form of {le'e}
10:30 < durka42> I'm trying to ask if that's what you intend to do with {kesri}, or if it't something else (since I haven't seen you define it)
10:31 < ctefaho> No I don't consider le'e to be a macro that is not fully expressable in a bridi
10:31 < ctefaho> No I DO
10:32 < ctefaho> but yes, if that was what lemkai was about, yes
10:32 < durka42> ue
10:32 < durka42> not fully expressible in a bridi!
10:32 < durka42> but what _does_ {kesri} do then
10:32 < ctefaho> lemkai has a property though
10:32 < durka42> indeed
10:32 < ctefaho> well you can't use it exactly like le'e I mean
10:33 < durka42> i.e. {le'e broda} => {lo lemkai be lo ka ce'u broda}
10:33 < ctefaho> le'e broda -> lo broda poi kesri
10:33 < durka42> ah I see
10:33 < ctefaho> whatever kesri does it has to work there, like fadni for lo'e
10:33  * durka42 adds an example to lemkai
10:34 < ctefaho> but now kesri could kind of be thought of as defining lem
10:34 < ctefaho> but lem should do something more than being a kesri rafsi
10:34 < durka42> ra'oi -lem- rafsi zo le'e
10:35 < ctefaho> lem should do something more than just being like a kesri rafsi
10:37 < ctefaho> what's the opposite of sillyness?
10:37 < durka42> seriousness?
10:39 < ctefaho> I think more like "maturity" or "sageness"
10:39 < durka42> tolbebna
10:39 < ctefaho> yeah, and tolbebna in english is?;)
10:41 < ctefaho> sageness?
10:41 < durka42> meh, who needs english :)
10:48 < zipcpi> ctefaho: I just figured out; what you wanted for your NU-rafsi idea, is either {jai}, or a more specific variant of it
10:49 < durka42> which idea is this? ;)
10:49 < ctefaho> zipcpi: what?
10:50 < ctefaho> well assuming jai'V is free... pick n choose!
10:50 < zipcpi> NU wraps the bridi in an abstraction; the choice of NU will specify whether the bridi is describing an event, a proposition, etc., while {jai} raises the subject back out again. Only problem is the way {jai}/{tu'a} is defined; *any* subject may be raised out of the abstraction, to be only made specific by a {fai} place
10:51 < zipcpi> Not just the x1
10:51 < ctefaho> jai raises things between bridi?
10:52  * ctefaho has yet to look at jai's magic
10:52 < durka42> mi jai nu dormijysai
10:52 < durka42> ^ one of my favorite examples :)
10:52 < ctefaho> tu'a creates a new bridi yeah
10:52 < zipcpi> Raises things out of an abstraction. {mi jai fanza do} = {tu'a mi fanza do}
10:52 < ctefaho> but right
10:52 < ctefaho> well this will get interesting
10:53  * durka42 wonders what kind of mischief "nu-rafsi" refers to
10:53 < ctefaho> I think I would stick with my idea anyway
10:53 < ctefaho> type is sticky
10:53 < ctefaho> to bridi
10:54 < ctefaho> as for interactions, dunno. su'u forevah
10:54 < zipcpi> He wanted to redefine NU-rafsi; but it doesn't quite work in my opinion; not only are nun-lujvo too common, lujvo aren't the best way to accomplish what he means to do, in my strong opinion
10:54  * durka42 wishes someone would tell me "what he means to do"
10:54 < zipcpi> He wants NU-rafsi to clarify what NU-type the bridi is
10:55 < ctefaho> that was a bonus idea
10:55 < ctefaho> let's focus on my main ideas first
10:55 < durka42> isn't that what they do...?
10:55 < ctefaho> idea*
10:55 < zipcpi> Not really, nunbroda changes the place structure
10:55 < ctefaho> but zipcpi, I have to look into jai first
10:55 < ctefaho> jai seems like a *very* magic word
10:55 < gleki> i probably should run polls on how people want the dictionary be made. but the problem is not everyone will vote.
10:56 < gleki> most of the time NU rafsi are used in what {bo} is used for tanru.
10:57 < rutytar> how would you say "native script" in lojban? {rarna lerfu}? or {jizni lerfu}?
10:57 < gleki> catni
10:57 < ctefaho> well it was just a bonus idea. my first idea is more important. it is kinda crucial to fix the adverbials
10:57 < zipcpi> I think "script/orthography" is {te vlalerpoi}; I just might simplify {vlalerpoi} to {vlalepo}
10:58 < ctefaho> but first I gotta sort out some hacks in the subordinators
10:58 < ctefaho> now that I know what lo'e and le'e means this shouldn't bee too difficult...
11:00 < zipcpi> I'm just not sure how useful the difference between {lo'e} and {le'e} is. It seems to smell a bit like veridicality all over again. Not *quite* exactly, but the difference as xalbo defined it, seems to make {lo'e} difficult to use, just like how {lo} was difficult to use before
11:00  * durka42 just uses lo'e
11:00 < ctefaho> if you want something more specific then don't use gadri
11:01 < ctefaho> we shouldn't put too much meaning into them
11:01 < ctefaho> pe'i
11:01 < durka42> iesai
11:01 < durka42> but you're talking to the guy who proposed new meanings for 6 or 7 gadri :)
11:01 < zipcpi> durka42: Time for xorlo'e? :p
11:01 < ctefaho> everything turns into zo'e eventually
11:01 < ctefaho> or not
11:01 < ctefaho> poi is really hacky
11:02 < durka42> poi is kinda fundamental to the language
11:02 < durka42> for qualifiers
11:02 < durka42> zipcpi: no change required
11:02 < gleki> i would use le'e anaphorically compared to {lo'e} but that'd be used not very often
11:02 < ctefaho> well in my idea neither is anaphoric
11:03 < ctefaho> errr
11:03 < ctefaho> BOTH are
11:03 < zipcpi> No
11:03 < ctefaho> in a way
11:03 < ctefaho> anaphoric/referential
11:03 < zipcpi> Anaphoric means back-referring
11:03 < ctefaho> probably messed terms up there
11:03 < ctefaho> yeah
11:03 < ctefaho> I mean *referential*
11:03 < ctefaho> meant*
11:04 < gleki> there is no term encompassing ana/exo/cata-phorical
11:04 < zipcpi> co'ephorical lol
11:05 < ctefaho> zo'e-referential
11:06 < zipcpi> Or if I want something that's more likely to be linguistically acceptable, "deictophorical" perhaps
11:06 < gleki> referential is used in many meaning. Take Donnellan's one for instance
11:06 < ctefaho> lo'e and le'e are in my idea based on menre
11:07 < mischief> durka42: !
11:08 < ctefaho> le'e broda | lo broda poi kesri | lo gaje menre lo broda gi fadni | zo'e cu menre lo broda je cu kesri
11:09 < ctefaho> (using menre instead of me cause reasons)
11:11 < zipcpi> kesri?
11:11 < zipcpi> That your new word?
11:11 < ctefaho> yes
11:11 < ctefaho> "stereotypical"
11:12 < zipcpi> {bo'oi} seems based off {xalbo}
11:12 < ctefaho> pe'i we have to have that to define le'e
11:12 < ctefaho> bebna
11:12 < ctefaho> "boob"
11:12 < zipcpi> I know
11:12 < durka42> it's guje for tanru-internal connectives
11:12 < ctefaho> someone said that would work with the new connectives
11:13 < ctefaho> lo gaje menre be lo broda gi fadni ?
11:13 < durka42> camxes: +exp lo gaje broda gi brode
11:13 < camxes> ([lo {<ga je> <CU (¹broda VAU¹)> gi <CU (¹brode VAU¹)> VAU} KU] VAU)
11:13 < ctefaho> perfect
11:13 < durka42> huh
11:13 < zipcpi> Stereotype of what? I think it should be $x_1$ is a stereotype of $x_2$ (abstraction), held by $x_3$
11:13 < durka42> I think that's an extension of the extension of the connective system :)
11:13 < durka42> camxes: +exp lo guje broda gi brode
11:13 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
11:13 < durka42> wat
11:13 < ctefaho> zipcpi: go ahead and add x3 if you like
11:13 < durka42> camxes: +exp guje broda gi brode
11:13 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
11:13 < zipcpi> Actually it's x2 that would be added
11:13 < durka42> er
11:14 < ctefaho> no zipcpi don't touch x2
11:14 < durka42> apparently it's not a full implementation of selpahi's connective system :/
11:14 < ctefaho> ah well I don't want a tanru
11:14 < durka42> don't you?
11:14 < durka42> {lo} wants a selbri
11:14 < zipcpi> ctefaho: I have to, because "stereotype held by x2" doesnt' make much sense of its own; doesn't say it's a stereotype of *what*
11:15 < ctefaho> eh
11:15 < ctefaho> why do I keep mixing things up all the time
11:15 < ctefaho> gaje, guje, whatever works with lo in the new system
11:15 < ctefaho> I don't want a vague tanru*
11:16 < ctefaho> ok guje
11:17 < durka42> well either I'm wrong with my conception of guje, or camxes-exp doesn't have it implemented right
11:17 < ctefaho> le'e broda | lo broda poi kesri | lo guje menre lo broda gi fadni | zo'e cu menre lo broda je cu kesri
11:17 < ctefaho> what does ga create then?
11:18 < durka42> probably don't listen to me, I should read selpahi's article again :)
11:19 < ctefaho> Any afterthought:                  X je Y
11:19 < ctefaho> Any non-tanru forethought:    gaje X gi Y
11:19 < ctefaho> Tanru forethought:                guje X gi Y
11:19 < durka42> right that's what I thought
11:19 < durka42> camxes: +exp mi gu je broda gi brode
11:19 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
11:19 < durka42> doesn't seem to work though
11:19 < ctefaho> gaje just links bridi?
11:19 < durka42> exp: mi gu je broda gi brode
11:19 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
11:19 < durka42> gaje links anything except a tanru
11:19 < ctefaho> right
11:19 < durka42> sumti, bridi, bridi tails, etc
11:19 < ctefaho> zipcpi
11:20 < zipcpi> Huh?
11:21 < ctefaho> mi na gusta
11:22 < zipcpi> You're not a restaurant?
11:22 < ctefaho> li'a
11:22 < zipcpi> lol
11:22 < durka42> .u'i
11:22 < ctefaho> at least not last time I checked
11:22 < ctefaho> I have spent all day figuring out the stupid gadri and subordinators
11:23 < ctefaho> maybe I did binxo something else
11:23  * ctefaho runs to mirror
11:26 < zipcpi> Though maybe {te vlalepo} again suffers from the {zi'o} problem, and not having a good place for the language. Maybe I should also make {vlaleci'e}
11:28  * durka42 doesn't understand why everyone is so afraid to use zi'o
11:29 < zipcpi> I'm not so much afraid of the semantic effect as that they are... somewhat inconvenient to use. Attaching {be zi'o bei zi'o} both looks weird and is difficult to define
11:30 < ctefaho> .i da'i If zil did not exist what could we replace "zilkancu" with?
11:31 < durka42> .ancu
11:32 < ctefaho> ...
11:32 < durka42> do you mean if zi'o had no rafsi or if zi'o wasn't in the language at all?
11:33 < ctefaho> eh we can nvm that for now
11:33 < ctefaho> we/I
11:39 < ctefaho> what zilkancu means is kinda obvious anyway
11:41 < durka42> ideally kancu would be defined in terms of some more basic brivla with no agent place
11:42 < zipcpi> Technically kancu can be defined based on zilkancu, while zilkancu is more primitively defined
11:42 < zipcpi> rafsi are only mnemonics, not definition, after all
11:43 < durka42> jbo:zilkancu
11:43 < mensi> zilkancu [< zi'o kancu ≈ Zi'o kancu] = zi'o x1 kancu x2 boi x3
11:43 < durka42> meh .u'i
11:43 < durka42> jbo:kancu
11:43 < zipcpi> lol
11:43 < mensi> kancu = x1 merli x2 boi x3 lo ka xo kau da me ce'u ma'i x4 .i x1 merli x2 ja'e lo nu x1 djuno ja pajni lo du'u x2 memkai
11:43 < mensi> x3
11:48 < zipcpi> Incidentally we might need a word that means geometric shape; I think right now {tarmi} can refer to any conceptual "shape"
11:49 < ldlework> Agreed, I see tarmi as "ideal manifestation"
11:50 < ldlework> zipcpi: cmutai
11:50 < zipcpi> Nah I think it should be a gismu
11:50 < durka42> cmacytai
11:51 < ldlework> zipcpi: dunno why
11:51 < zipcpi> So that there's a parallel to {skari}
11:51 < durka42> toooo much gismu fetishery
11:52 < ldlework> Why is gismu-ness important?
11:52 < zipcpi> ldlework: Funny, I mean I could make it {armi} if you really wanted (though... that might be a bad idea{
11:54 < zipcpi> Not to mention the place structure of {tarmi} doesn't quite parallel that of {skari}, which is why {tai} is so weirdly defined
11:54 < ldlework> zipcpi: dunno what you're getting at with armi
11:54 < ldlework> I think the small-predicates are strange and needless
11:55 < zipcpi> You told me you don't like VCCV zi'evla; but pe'i I think the concept is basic enough to be either a gismu or a VCCV
11:55 < ldlework> zipcpi: its a subjective valuation
11:56 < ldlework> a seriously unimportant one that has no bearing on anything
11:56 < ldlework> We need to breed more of selpahi's attitude on word creation
11:56 < ldlework> Pick a pretty lujvo, define it however you need, and move on
11:57 < zipcpi> How would you introduce your widget or introductory textbook on shapes then? {tarmi} doesn't quite fit. And any lujvo would have to be {comseltai} at least
11:58 < ldlework> I already suggested a lujvo
11:58 < ldlework> So did durka
11:58 < ldlework> So define either of them with the exact place structure you think would be useful
11:58 < ldlework> And then don't think about it anymore
11:59 < ldlework> I think cmutai is a bit easier to say than cmacytai, but other than that they both seem cromulent
12:00 < durka42> tamtai :p
12:00 < zipcpi> The other problem with lujvo is occasional uncertainty with ke/ke'e grouping. I *usually* just leave the kem/kep out, but sometimes they end up necessary
12:00 < ldlework> I don't know what you're referring to :/
12:00 < ldlework> Or why that would be important in selpahi style lujvo
12:01 < durka42> well you definitely don't need that in a reljvo!
12:01 < zipcpi> I meant if it is used for other lujvo
12:01 < ldlework> where the actual constituent words are just a foundation and don't dictate the eventual structure
12:01 < ldlework> in other lujvo, you just also create whatever place structure is useful
12:01 < ldlework> see, its easy
12:02 < zipcpi> The thing is selpa'i would have us abolish the idea of jvomi'u forms. Which I'm somewhat inclined to agree with, but which hasn't quite gained the popularity it needs to yet
12:02 < ldlework> There's only one route to popularity
12:02 < ldlework> "Stop discussing jvajvo"
12:04 < zipcpi> If jvomi'u is abolished, we could possibly define two different lujvo with the same veljvo differently
12:04  * ldlework gasps.
12:04 < durka42> yeah that would be bad
12:05 < zipcpi> Right now though we can't; so we're stuck with trying to figure out the best way to define reljvo
12:05 < durka42> jvomi'u is needed
12:05 < ldlework> QED
12:05 < durka42> assuming by jvomi'u you mean the unambiguous meaning from lujvo to veljvo
12:05 < durka42> but we do need more words!
12:05 < durka42> jvomi'u doesn't impede defining new words
12:05 < zipcpi> It does mean reljvo are somewhat precious though
12:06 < ldlework> Why is jvomi'u important?
12:06 < durka42> zipcpi: there are like 1300^2 to choose from!
12:07 < ldlework> oh
12:07 < ldlework> I misunderstood what jvomi'u meant
12:07 < ldlework> I would say that jvomi'u isn't affected at all by selpahi lujvo
12:07 < zipcpi> durka42: The problem is that one we define broda zei brode one way, we can't defined broda zei brode anymore, even if it might be useful for another concept
12:07 < ctefaho> ok time to read through that big logic article
12:07 < durka42> well it depends what you mean by "selpahi lujvo"
12:07 < durka42> selpahi said that (1) we need more words, and (2) we should abolish formal rafsi
12:07 < ldlework> durka42: "pick one, define it, and use it that way"
12:07 < durka42> they're sorta independent
12:08 < ldlework> durka42: right, this is the consequence of abolishing formal rafsi
12:08 < zipcpi> If we abolish formal rafsi, jvomi'u is automatically gone
12:08 < zipcpi> Look up jvomi'u
12:08 < durka42> ldlework: sorry, what is?
12:08 < durka42> en: jvomi'u
12:08 < mensi> jvomi'u [< lujvo mintu ≈ Affix compound same] = The lujvo m1=l1 (text) is an equivalent/interchangable lujvo form of
12:08 < mensi> lujvo m2=l1 (text). |>>> This refers to the fact that Lojban's lujvo can have many forms, all of which are considered to
12:08 < mensi> be equal in meaning automatically. See The Lojban Reference Grammar, chapter 4, section 5: https://lojban.github.io/cll/
12:08 < mensi> 4/5/ Not to be confused with “synonymous” (selsmudu'i), which may apply to entirely different words. Cf. lujvo, mintu.
12:08 < mensi> |>>> Wuzzy
12:08 < durka42> ohh I thought you coined it haha
12:08 < ldlework> zipcpi: jvomi'u isn't automatically gone
12:08 < ctefaho> I have even more unpopular ideas relating to rafsi and lujvo
12:08 < ldlework> all rafsi still exist
12:08 < ldlework> and furthermore, the different morphologies allowing rafsi combination still exist
12:08 < durka42> zipcpi: sure, but that's a concern when defining any short word
12:09 < durka42> zipcpi: if we define a CVVC, we can't define it anymore, even if it might be useful for another concept
12:09 < ctefaho> how about abolish brody and only allow broda'y
12:09 < ldlework> So two different equivalent jvomi'u still can mean the same thing
12:09  * ctefaho cu bajra noi sutra
12:09 < ldlework> even if you abolish formal rafsi
12:09 < durka42> ctefaho: what does that change...?
12:09 < ldlework> because the jvomi'u are still constructed -using the same rafsi selections-
12:10 < zipcpi> durka42: But with reljvo we can't change rafsi or do anything to the words to redefine it; except maybe try to construct a zi'evla out of them, or add empty {kem} syllables
12:10 < ctefaho> durka42: a few things, but most importantly makes "'y" work consistently
12:10 < ldlework> Why do you need to redefine it
12:10 < ctefaho> 'y to join any *whole* word
12:10 < durka42> I mean it is a somewhat valid concern
12:10 < zipcpi> Because veljvo are tanru, and thus can have more than one interpretation. Defining lujvo narrows it down to one interpretation
12:11 < zipcpi> But occasionaly another interpretation is found to be useful
12:11 < durka42> if you define rodbo'e to mean what it seems good for today, but tomorrow you realize it would be much better suited for something else
12:11 < ldlework> zipcpi: so you create a new word
12:11 < ldlework> since when are we in the business of redefining words?
12:11 < durka42> ctefaho: sorry I misinterpreted. I thought you were saying something relevant to the current conversation :)
12:11 < zipcpi> But under jvomi'u, you can't just change the rafsi anymore; you have to make a zi'evla, or add empty kem syllables
12:11 < ldlework> Or, just make a different lujvo
12:11 < ldlework> I really don't see the problem, but I am trying
12:13 < zipcpi> Not redefining the existing word; just opening up space for, say, {zabnygau} and {zangasnu} to mean different things
12:13 < ldlework> Yeah I think that's a terrible idea
12:14 < zipcpi> Funny though; if everyone thinks jvomi'u should stay the way it is, we need ways to automatically search for them
12:14 < zipcpi> Right now we don't
12:14 < durka42> mensi does (and vlaste sorta does)
12:14 < zipcpi> vlaste: jvomintu
12:14 < vlaste> jvomi'u (components) = lujvo mintu ≈ affix-compound same
12:14 < durka42> vlaste: jvomi'u
12:14 < vlaste> jvomi'u (components) = lujvo mintu ≈ affix-compound same
12:14 < zipcpi> ...
12:15 < zipcpi> vlaste: spofygau
12:15 < vlaste> spofu = x1 is broken/inoperable/broken down/non-utile/not usable for function x2.
12:15 < zipcpi> Er...
12:15 < durka42> vlaste apparently needs to be updated
12:15 < vlaste> 3 results: ningau, ra'o, go'ira'o
12:15 < durka42> hmm that's a bug
12:15 < zipcpi> vlaste: pofygau
12:15 < vlaste> spofu = x1 is broken/inoperable/broken down/non-utile/not usable for function x2.
12:15 < zipcpi> oi
12:15 < durka42> it's in the notes I think
12:15 < durka42> vlaste: spofu (n)
12:15 < vlaste> spofu (notes) = Agentive break, cause to become inoperable (= {pofygau}, {pofyzu'e}); accidentally break, as a result of an event, non-agentive (= {pofyja'e}, {nutpo'uja'e}).; See also {daspo}, {katna}, {porpi}, {se} {xrani}, {cikre}.
12:15 < zipcpi> Wait pofygau isn't even defined separately
12:16 < durka42> yeah bad example :p
12:16 < durka42> vlaste: pretycusku
12:16 < vlaste> reisku = c1=p3 asks question c2=p1 to c3=p4 via expressive medium c4, about subject p2.
12:16 < durka42> en:pretycusku
12:16 < mensi> reisku [< preti cusku ≈ Question mention] = c1=p3 asks question c2=p1 to c3=p4 via expressive medium c4, about subject
12:16 < mensi> p2.
12:18 < zipcpi> It's just... sigh. I don't even remember whether {skari} is the one that deserved to be flipped
12:19 < ldlework> To me, it just seems like, being able to divine the meaning of a word from its structure is utterly and totally superflous to the more foundational goals of the language.
12:19 < ldlework> Being able to do this doesn't serve any of them
12:19 < ldlework> Its a fancy.
12:19 < ctefaho> skari is clearly a 1 place structure
12:19 < ctefaho> selbri
12:20 < ldlework> I agree, everything but x2 seems superflous
12:22 < ldlework> then you could create a skakai or something to the 'is-colored' verb back
12:22 < zipcpi> lol
12:23 < ldlework> lol
12:23 < durka42> "divine" is the wrong word
12:23 < durka42> "hint" is better
12:25 < ldlework> doesn't matter what sense you'd like to use, it is indeed superflous
12:25 < ctefaho> or blanuska for something to actually put in skari
12:26 < durka42> blanu nuska ?
12:26 < ctefaho> crap that's a zi'evla isn't it
12:26 < ctefaho> or that
12:26 < ctefaho> blanu'yska?
12:26 < ctefaho> blanu'yskari?
12:26 < ctefaho> blanu'yskari li'a
12:26 < durka42> sure you can do that if you like syllables :p
12:27 < ldlework> blaska works
12:27 < ctefaho> yeah it does
12:30 < zipcpi> Well part of my concern about jvomi'u and reljvo is that a zi'evla only locks out one form, while a reljvo locks out several different forms under jvomi'u
12:32 < durka42> well, it locks out one lujvo :)
12:35 < zipcpi> geometry is defined as {caltaicmaci}
12:35 < zipcpi> So I guess {caltai} is fine for now
12:36 < ldlework> I think if we run out of reljvo that will be very very very good news for the language
12:37 < zipcpi> It's not so much running out, it's more like... the birthday problem, sa'enai
12:37 < ldlework> no idea what that is
12:38 < zipcpi> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
12:38 < zipcpi> I'm using it very loosely though
12:39 < zipcpi> Mainly because there are probably tons of reljvo as is that... probably don't have any meanings that might make sense, at least for now
12:39 < ldlework> then we have cibjvo
12:39 < zipcpi> But what would we add to it? {kem}?
12:39 < zipcpi> That's exactly the problem I was talking about
12:39 < ldlework> zipcpi: some other predicate that denotes the variant semantic distinguishing this new word from the other
12:40 < ldlework> If there is none, maybe you don't need a new word since there is no additional semantic or even variant sense
12:41 < ldlework> I think you're being paranoid where the actual emotion should be hopeful that we ever have such problems.
12:41 < zipcpi> Not really. Take {zunsna} for instance, which might "really" should be something like {zunvoksna}
12:41 < ldlework> There is no "should"
12:41 < ldlework> The morphology of a lujvo has no bearing on its definition.
12:41 < zipcpi> That's why I put it in quotes
12:42 < ctefaho> That article I was linked to, is awesome
12:42 < ldlework> Then just stop mentioning that entire problem all together
12:42 < ldlework> And it ceases to be one
12:42 < ldlework> Because it has no practical ramifications whatsoever
12:42 < ldlework> Only those of fetish and fancy
12:42 < zipcpi> It's just that we have it clarified with a more specific semantic, that it becomes difficult to broaden it if it is necessary; adding more predicate words won't help there
12:42 < ctefaho> I think whatever we do with rafsi we should design it to allow cramming in as much meaning as possible in as few syllabes as possible
12:43 < ldlework> ctefaho: which is exactly what selpahi's suggestions result in
12:43 < ldlework> pick the shortest prettiest word you can find
12:43 < ldlework> define it with the precise arbitrary semantic you want
12:43 < ldlework> then use it
12:43 < ctefaho> iirc he wants to ditch the zi'evla/gismu/lujvo distinction
12:43 < ctefaho> I strongly disagree there
12:43 < ldlework> That's not how I would characterize it at all
12:44 < ldlework> What it does is make lujvo _seriously no joke I really mean it_ merely a morphoogical distinction
12:45 < ldlework> zipcpi: in what way would you need to refine or broaden the semantic of zunsna
12:45 < ldlework> Also, adding predicates can allow for a widening semantic because adding a predicate has no bearing on the actual semantic content of the word
12:46 < ldlework> At least no real bearing other than 'having to do with'
12:46 < ldlework> You simply define a definition that has a wider semantic
12:46 < ldlework> Then go on with your translation or novel work.
12:47 < zipcpi> Maybe that same veljvo might be usable to describe any sound, not just a phonetic one; just pulling a random example for now
12:49 < ldlework> Then you'd create another lujvo for "describe any sound not just a phonetic one"
12:49 < zipcpi> But what rafsi would we add to it? {com}? {kem}?
12:49 < ldlework> The result is more words, that people will learn by looking at their definition.
12:50 < ldlework> I don't see how zunsna could ever mean "sound in general" anyway
12:51 < zipcpi> Like I said, just a random example; it is possible for a reljvo to be defined with a specific meaning like {zunsna}, but which we might need for a more general concept
12:51 < ldlework> If you can come up with an example, I will try to address it.
12:54 < zipcpi> Just saying why I tend to be a bit more careful with reljvo; it's not running out I'm so concerned with, but as to what is the most useful concept for the veljvo
12:56 < zipcpi> Because under jvomi'u the veljvo has a one-to-one correspondence with lujvo
12:57 < zipcpi> If we want to define something else by the same veljvo, no go; we have to find another one
12:57 < zipcpi> Or make a zi'evla
12:58 < ldlework> zipcpi: I hear you on all that
12:58 < ldlework> with jvomi'u is certainly something to keep in mind
12:58 < ldlework> Just like gismu should be fundamental as possible, we just culturally enforce the same tendencies
12:59 < ldlework> But I understand your grabbing for gismu earlier
12:59 < ldlework> now
13:09 <@xalbo> {zunsna} could reasonably have been used for an annoying or sudden noise that breaks a train of thought.
13:09 < ldlework> yep but we could represent that otherwise
13:09 < ldlework> .i ku'i ie
13:10 <@xalbo> Of course we could. And we could represent "consonant" otherwise.
13:10 < ldlework> Right, that's my point.
13:10 < ldlework> A word being taken isn't the end of the world.
13:22 < rutytar> is there a rafsi for kibro?
13:23 < zipcpi> -kib-
13:29 < zipcpi> Well one small concern I had with {zunsna} and {karsna} is that it set a pattern; thus I had made plenty of reljvo for phonetic concepts
13:30 < zipcpi> And coopted some which I didn't make myself, such as {mosysna}
13:30 < zipcpi> That one in particular has another "obvious" veljvo definition
13:31 < zipcpi> sound-of-friction
13:33 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ra'isna
13:34 < Ilmen> I'd have preffered {mosysna} for example to be a general word for any friction sound
13:34  * zipcpi nods
13:35 < Ilmen> And adding -vok- for specifically the phonetic meaning
13:35  * zipcpi nods
13:35 < zipcpi> So yeah there's your example, ldlework
13:35 < zipcpi> {mosysna}
13:36 < zipcpi> It's also why I avoided making {pojysna} plosive as well
13:37 < ldlework> fislymosysna
13:37 < durka42> one could argue the problem is -sna is the wrong general suffix for phonetics
13:37 < zipcpi> And coopted {ga'osna} even though the metaphor doesn't quite fit right
13:37 < ldlework> "physical-friction sound"
13:37 < ldlework> and then we move on
13:37 < durka42> on the other hand pojysna isn't defined at al
13:38 < zipcpi> The sound of something exploding
13:39 < durka42> that would be a natural definition yes
13:40 <@xalbo> fisly- ki'a
13:40 < zipcpi> fisli
13:40 < durka42> en:fisli
13:40 < mensi> fisli = x1 is physical/actual/pertains to physics in aspect x2 (ka) of type x3 by standard/in metaphysics x4
13:40 < zipcpi> experimental gismu... not sure how it differs from jikfi
13:40 < durka42> en:jikfi
13:41 < mensi> jikfi = x1 is a physical interaction [colloquially: force] between x2 (interacting participants/objects; symmetric) with
13:41 < mensi> characteristics/of type x3
13:41 < zipcpi> Maybe just place structure
13:41 <@xalbo> {fisli} seems really close to how I use {dacti}.
13:42 < zipcpi> Both by Curtis
13:45 < zipcpi> ldlework: The problem is then we'd have a five-syllable word to describe a more fundamental concept than that of "fricative"
13:46 < ldlework> That isn't a problem
13:46 < ldlework> And "sound emited from physical friction" is pretty specific
13:46 < zipcpi> "He heard a screech"
13:48 < ldlework> so you need to use a predicate describing friction-caused sound to say that?
13:48 < zipcpi> How else would you define "screech" in that sentence?
13:48 < zipcpi> "He heard the screech of brakes"
13:50 < Somelauw> If lo means a and le means the more or less, then how to say "I hate mosquitoes"?
13:50 < Somelauw> It's clearly different from some or the here.
13:50 < zipcpi> lo'e
13:51 < zipcpi> mi xebni lo'e ckuliki
13:52 < Somelauw> oh, missed that one
13:52 < durka42> ba'e mi xebni ro ckuliki
13:52 < durka42> zo'o ru'e
13:53 < durka42> iepei doi la mensi
13:53 < mensi> ei mi tugni
13:53 < Somelauw> so mi is actually sumti position #0 there
13:53 < zipcpi> No, mi is lo xebni
13:53 < durka42> mi is x1
13:53 < zipcpi> mi is x1 of xebni
13:53 < zipcpi> lo'e ckuliki is the x2 of xebni
13:53 < zipcpi> I am the hater
13:53 < zipcpi> Mosquitoes (general) are the hated
13:54 < Somelauw> okay, x1 in 1-based indexing
13:54 < zipcpi> Oh lol
13:55 < zipcpi> Yeah Lojban is 1-based; can't really help that
13:55 < zipcpi> Same thing with {moi} really
13:55 < durka42> (mosriksna} is nice
13:56 < Somelauw> but I remember they say x1 is beautiful to x2, so then x2 is the experiencer, so I would expect they would also put it like x1 is hated by x2.
13:57 < zipcpi> gismu definitions can be inconsistent sometimes... and their chosen structure is often based on the English gloss word. A bit malglixlu I'd admit
13:58 < ldlework> Somelauw: some people will tell you that there is a rhyme or reason to the place structure of the gismu
13:58 < durka42> yeah there are some patterns but you aren't going to find a pattern that applies to every word
13:58 < ldlework> those people are shameless liars
13:58 < durka42> xebni fits some patterns, melbi fits some patterns, but they aren't part of the same pattern
13:58 < durka42> ldlework: oh shut up
13:58 < ldlework> u'i
13:58 < ldlework> true tho
13:59 < durka42> like I said, there are patterns but not universal ones
13:59 < ldlework> Sure, I'm referring to those who say "the exceeding majority of X-kind words are defined with X-like place structures"
13:59 < durka42> sure that's true for some X
14:00 < ldlework> right, some X
14:00 < ldlework> its a bad characterization
14:00 < ldlework> Especially when advertised as a policy rather than a preference.
14:01 < durka42> I dunno what you're talking about really, but my preference is to look for patterns and use them when I find them
14:01 < ldlework> Its far easier to just explain that the ordering of place structure is perfectly arbitrary.
14:01 < durka42> obviously there are inconsistencies in the gimste
14:02 < ldlework> Its more than inconsistencies though. The agentative thing is just rubbish.
14:02 < durka42> well yeah but saying there are *no* patterns makes it sound a bit harder to learn than it is
14:02 < ldlework> I agree with the preference, but disagree with the characterization of the actual gismu we have.
14:02 < durka42> not that I know the whole gimste yet...
14:02 < ldlework> durka42: I can see that, but it is the larger truth, imo
14:03 <@xalbo> The patterns are helpful as mnemonics. They do exist, and they can be handy for helping to learn how things tend to go.
14:03 < ldlework> That as defined, the ordering is arbitrary and has no consequence.
14:03 < Somelauw> Cases would perhaps be more logical
14:03 < ldlework> xalbo: except for when its actually detriment because the 'exceeding majority' isn't anywhere close to an accurate quantification
14:03 < durka42> Somelauw: the BAI tags are kinda like places
14:04 <@xalbo> Somelauw: The problem is that you either end up with really broad cases (and lots of weird things at the edges) or with dozens to hundreds of distinct cases.
14:04 < durka42> I don't know if places would be more or less logical. lojban chose positional arguments back at the beginning of time...
14:04 < Somelauw> durka42: What were BAI tags again?
14:04 < ldlework> durka42: he said 'cases', not sure if that's different
14:05 < durka42> Somelauw: for example {mi tavla fi lo jbobau} and {mi tavla bau lo jbobau} mean the same thing -- {bau} is the tag for "in language"
14:05 < durka42> er, should have been {mi tavla fo lo jbobau}
14:05 < durka42> since tavla4 is also "in language"
14:05 <@xalbo> ldlework: I never said "exceeding majority", but I still argue that, weighted by frequency, more of the places fall into patterns than don't.
14:05 < ldlework> xalbo: I'm sure its over 50%
14:06 <@xalbo> To put it another way, there is an information savings to learning the pattern + exceptions than to learning everything completely on its own.
14:06 < ldlework> I agree, I agree with the preference to use regular structure
14:06 < ldlework> I don't disagree with the convention. I'm only trying to point out its nature as convention.
14:07 < ldlework> I wish there were less exceptions.
14:08 <@xalbo> Ok. "The regular patterns are just a convention with plenty of exceptions" is a lot more reasonable than "some people will tell you that there is a rhyme or reason to the place structure of the gismu / those people are shameless liars"
14:12 < Somelauw> I don't know if cases can be made completely logical, but maybe more intuitive because they can be visualised sort of. Place structure would probably be best when putting the most common sumti as much as possible at the beginning (based on frequency of use in large data sets or something).
14:12 < durka42> by and large the most used sumti are at the beginning
14:13 < durka42> (ldlework is about to call me a shameless liar in 3...2...)
14:14 <@xalbo> Somelauw: That's pretty much the intent. By design, the most used places are toward the front, and in practice it works out quite well.
14:15 <@xalbo> In practice, there are probably a few places that could have been rearranged if we were starting from scratch (vecnu3 seems more common than vecnu1, for instance), but it's mostly rather good.
14:16 < durka42> yeah
14:16 < durka42> hence .erve
--- Log opened Thu Jun 25 20:59:46 2015
20:59 -!- Irssi: #lojban: Total of 154 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 152 normal]
21:02 -!- Irssi: Join to #lojban was synced in 148 secs
21:09 < phma> mi pagre lo foldi be lo .urci
22:21 < rlpowell> tersmus: I don't discuss computer in Lojban, sorry.  What's the problem?
22:21 < tersmus> Morphology error at 2
22:23  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: lojbanとかどうか（語彙があるのか謎） [http://bit.ly/1LIC4rd]
22:25  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: lojbanのロゴがノレータに見える [http://bit.ly/1LICePn]
22:29  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: 問題はgoogle翻訳にlojbanがないっぽい [http://bit.ly/1LICLAS]
22:30 < Autolochus> |_|_|0|_|
22:30 < Autolochus> |0|_|_|0|
22:30 < Autolochus> |0|_|_|0|
22:30 < Autolochus> |_|0|_|_|
22:30 < cliva> mo
22:32 < ldlework> oi do jirgau lo mi jamblo
22:35 < cliva> ternuzba: ia la gleki cu se cuntu li'ai 3000 (to lo samru'e cu mintu lo me la mensi moi toi)
22:39  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: 日本語以外で機械翻訳する前提の文章を書くなら英語で書くよりもlojbanを吐いたほうが正確だな > 人力翻訳の中間言語としてロジバンを使うという発想とその翻訳事業化についての提案 http://gentle-yu.info/2014/05/30/20/00/54 @gentle_yuさんから [http://bit.ly/1LIDC4p]
22:49  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: 英語への逐次訳があるとあるな http://mw.lojban.org/papri/%E5%AD%A6%E7%BF%92 [http://bit.ly/1LIEDJO]
22:53  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: 記事がlojbanで書いてある、読めない（別に英語で書いてあっても読まない）！ [http://bit.ly/1LIFquf]
23:04 < gleki> wth is going on here?
23:12 < rlpowell> Bot spam.
23:13 < rlpowell> Someone needs to teach nuzba not to respond to privmsgs, looks like.
23:13 < gleki> rlpowell: i lost my screen session :)
23:13 < rlpowell> gleki: Oh, yes!  Soryr.  I'm done with rebooting it now.
23:14 < gleki> rlpowell: nuzba is just a post crosspodting here from Twitter
23:14 < rlpowell> Ah.
23:14 < gleki> rlpowell: nuzba is just a bot crossposting here from Twitter
23:14 < rlpowell> So I don't need to kick nuzba?
23:14 < gleki> and tersmus is what you converted from Haskell.
23:15 < rlpowell> Oh.
23:15 < rlpowell> I ment to ping ternuzba :P
23:15 < rlpowell> Sorry.
23:15 < gleki> i dont know what is ternuzba
23:15 < rlpowell> It's a person.  :)
23:15 < gleki> nuzba is our bot
23:15 < rlpowell> ey has been telling me that port 3000 on vrici is down.
23:15 < rlpowell> Bu I don't know what that is.
23:16 < gleki> i see.
23:16 < gleki> it was mine.
23:16 < gleki> i will restore it when i have an opportunity.
23:16 < gleki> in ~ 10 hours
23:16 < rlpowell> 'k!
23:17 < gleki> oh my. someone used "gleki" as their nickname
23:21  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: lojbanの文節と漢字を相互に対応させて対応する漢字をルビで出すだけで中国語並みになんか読めそうな雰囲気が生まれるんじゃないか [http://bit.ly/1LIKdfl]
23:41  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: 適当なところから持ってきた文じゃ結構構文エラーになるなぁ > Lojban-To-English Translation http://www.lojban.org/jboski/index.php [http://bit.ly/1TQN8rN]
23:45  * nuzba @tacticsrealize: みらぐ語エディタを作って解析したやつをlojbanで吐く→lojbanから英語に翻訳するやつがあるからそれで英語にする→英語から各言語にするのはすでにいっぱいある [http://bit.ly/1LINmeU]
--- Day changed Fri Jun 26 2015
00:11 < ldlework> I wonder how many people I've taught lojban in the last 6 months
01:07  * nuzba @nivertech: Instead of inventing a new Artificial Human Languages like Esperanto, Ido, Volapuk, Lojban, etc. [http://bit.ly/1J99Zce]
01:09 < ldlework> Where is selpa'i's Where the Wild Things ARe
01:11 < ldlework> found it
01:13  * nuzba @willingtheweird: .i xu loi mi bridi na drani le gerna    .i xu mi na morji le cutci        (I tried to tell a bad English pun using #lojban.) [http://bit.ly/1J9akvF]
01:14 <@Broca> u'i
01:34  * nuzba @fotono: #lojban .ui lo zantufa tricu cu za'u re'u banro .i zoizoi http://guskant.github.io/gerna_cipra/zantufa_farvi.svg zoi .i ganai da'i da cizra gi ko mi jungau pe'u [http://bit.ly/1KgD1tq]
01:54  * nuzba @uitki: grammar - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/grammar by Guskant - /* Implementations of a Lojban grammar */ +zantufa [http://bit.ly/1KgFVP4]
01:58  * nuzba @uitki: lojban and Computer Science - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/lojban_and_Computer_Science by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1SPtRFR]
02:00  * nuzba @uitki: camxes - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/camxes by Guskant - ciksi galfi [http://bit.ly/1SPu8bR]
02:02 < gleki> exp: ke ko'a ce ko'e ke'ece ko'i
02:02 < gleki> camxes: ke ko'a ce ko'e ke'ece ko'i
02:02 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
02:08  * nuzba @uitki: Lojbanic Software - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojbanic_Software by Guskant - /* Parsers */ +zantufa [http://bit.ly/1KgHLzn]
02:10  * nuzba @uitki: PEG - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/PEG by Guskant - /* Of proposed grammars */ +zantufa [http://bit.ly/1SPv5kq]
02:16  * nuzba @uitki: exploiting the preparser - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/exploiting_the_preparser by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1SPvHX8]
02:16 < gleki> cekitaujaus was proposed long ago http://mw.lojban.org/papri/exploiting_the_preparser
02:26  * nuzba @uitki: 学習 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/%E5%AD%A6%E7%BF%92 by Guskant - /* 新文法案に従う */ +zantufa [http://bit.ly/1KgKeKd]
03:16 < gleki> ua la gejyspa na nelci zo zeldei
03:22  * nuzba @po8crg: @mattyglesias Or, in short, English is not a formal language. Unless we decide to write laws in Lojban, we have to use context. [http://bit.ly/1LJn3VW]
03:45 < ctefaho> coi
03:46 < gleki> coi
03:47 < ctefaho> .i do mo
03:47 < gleki> jarco lo ka se jibri
03:49 < dutchie> mi ji'a go'i
03:50 < dutchie> .i lo mi selsampla cu spofu .uinai
03:50 < gleki> samselpla
03:50 < gleki> i proga to'u
03:51 < dutchie> ki'e .i lo'u be me le'u xagymau
03:51 < dutchie> sa'ai be mi
03:52 < ctefaho> hmm who is Cirko?
03:54 < gleki> a Lojbanist
03:55 < ctefaho> ah well wondered if it was someone on irc, wanted to thank for fixingclearing up my article
03:55 < ctefaho> +/
03:56 < gleki> i guess 'ey will see your message anyway
03:57 < ctefaho> je'e
05:55  * nuzba @oka_iu_tcan: New usage proposal of {me}:    as fi'o SELBRI = tag,    me TAG = SELBRI.        eg. mi me pi'o ti = mi pilno ti        | #lojban [http://bit.ly/1dkR2I6]
09:09 < gleki> en:coi
09:09 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
09:09 < gleki> s/en:/jb:/
09:09 < phenny> gleki meant to say: jb:coi
09:10 < gleki> .dict rather
09:10 < fenki> rather — verb: 1. (nonstandard or dialectal) To prefer; to prefer to — adjective: 1. (obsolete) Prior; earlier; former — adverb: 1. (obsolete) More quickly; sooner, earlier. [9th-19th c.], 2. Used to specify a choice or preference; preferably. (Always with would - normally contracted to '[...]
09:10 < gleki> "fenki" is a new name for jenni bot here
09:11 < durka42> ua
09:11 < durka42> s/ua/ue
09:11 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: ue
09:11 < gleki> as of now fenki repo is almost identical to the original jenni but feel free to translate it to Lojban
09:11 < gleki> https://github.com/lagleki/fenki
09:11 < durka42> je'e
09:12 < gleki> jb: xo'o
09:12 < mensi> xo'o = xo'o [interjection modifier] — insincerely, hypocritically, deceitfully| xo'o nai —
09:12 < mensi> sincerely
09:12 < mensi> :je'u xo'o do ne se mau djuno — Yes, of course, you know better (sarcastically)!
09:12 < mensi> :xo'o nai sai do pu rau va'e gunka — With full sincerity, I can tell you that you worked enough.
09:13 < durka42> en:bo'oi
09:13 < mensi> bo'oi = [UI5] attitudinal: silliness - maturity
09:13 < gleki> i changed to that otherwise {xo'o} would lose parallelism to {zo'o}
09:14 < gleki> Somewhere Waves used to say that UI have to always be sincere since those are our true feelings but that's what zo'o and xo'o are for to break that.
09:14 < gleki> hypocritically <-- again not a precise match but i couldn't find anything more similar in English
09:15 < durka42> what was wrong with "sarcasm"
09:15 < gleki> some thought it was about mocking
09:15 < gleki> but another UI is needed for that but not in UI5
09:16 < gleki> selmaho:ui5
09:16 < mensi> cmavo: be'u, bo'oi, dai, fu'i, ga'i, ji'ei, ju'o, le'o, ra'i'au, ra'i'aucu'i, ra'i'aunai, ri'e, se'a, se'i, vu'e, xo'o,
09:16 < mensi> zai'a, zo'o
09:16 <@xalbo> Then add that to the notes. But there's a big difference between the def'n there and sarcasm.
09:16 < gleki> not sure about exp. cmavo but ui5 are modifiers
09:16 < gleki> if {xo'o} means sarcasm as in mocking then the idea of UI5 is broken
09:17 <@xalbo> {xo'o} is meant as sarcasm, not as mocking but as "don't read this literally; it probably means the exact opposite"
09:17 < gleki> exactly
09:17 < gleki> xalbo: do you have any concise wording of that in English?
09:18 <@xalbo> But insincerity and deceit are the exact opposite of that; they are intended to convey a meaning that the speaker does not believe.
09:18 < gleki> oh hm
09:18 < gleki> then what
09:18 < gleki> .dict sarcastic
09:18 < fenki> sarcastic — adjective: 1. Containing sarcasm, 2. (of a person) Having the personality trait of expressing sarcasm
09:18 < gleki> sarcastic = expressing or expressive of ridicule that wounds
09:19 < durka42> if {xo'o} doesn't fit in UI5 then it should be moved, not that we should change its definition to break usage...
09:19 < durka42> the subselma'o are dumb anyway
09:19 < durka42> put it in UI17
09:19 <@xalbo> That is, if I believe that the food is nasty and I say "Wow, this is *so* good!" and I intend you to actually believe it to be good, I'm being deceitful. If I say that and intend you to believe that the food is nasty, then I'm being sarcastit.
09:19 < gleki> Synonyms: sarcastic, ironic, caustic, satirical, sardonic
09:19 < gleki> These adjectives mean having or marked by a feeling of bitterness and a biting or cutting quality. Sarcastic suggests sharp taunting and ridicule that wounds: “a deserved reputation for sarcastic, acerbic and uninhibited polemics” (Burke Marshall). Ironic implies a subtler form of mockery in which an intended meaning is conveyed obliquely: “a man of eccentric charm, ironic humor, and—above all—prof
09:19 < gleki> ound literary genius” (Jonathan Kirsch). Caustic means corrosive and bitingly trenchant: “The caustic jokes... deal with such diverse matters as political assassination, talk-show hosts, medical ethics” (Frank Rich). Satirical implies exposure, especially of vice or folly, to ridicule: “on the surface a satirical look at commercial radio, but also a study of the misuse of telecommunications” (Richa
09:19 < gleki> rd Harrington). Sardonic is associated with scorn, derision, mockery, and often cynicism: “He was proud, sardonic, harsh to inferiority of every description” (Charlotte Brontë)
09:20 < gleki> xalbo: do u think {xo'o} matches this definition above?
09:20 < gleki> definition of sarcastic
09:21 <@xalbo> No, I don't. And yes, that is one use of sarcasm.
09:21 < gleki> xalbo: okay. are there synonyms of sarcasm2 ?
09:21 < gleki> because this sarcasm2 is absent from dictionaries.
09:22 < gleki> no wonder but i fail to find necessary words
09:22 < gleki> in English
09:22 < durka42> sarcasm2?
09:22 < gleki> sarcasm2 is what xalbo said earlier. not mocking, another sarcasm
09:23 < gleki> which i never saw anywhere explained although i myself know exists
09:24 <@xalbo> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Verbal_irony_and_sarcasm
09:25 <@xalbo> That says that one of the OED definitions of "irony" is "A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt.", and that sounds a lot like my understanding of {xo'o}
09:25 < gleki> so would "ironically" be a better gloss?
09:27 <@xalbo> "Most instances of verbal irony are labeled by research subjects as sarcastic, suggesting that the term sarcasm is more widely used than its technical definition suggests it should be" or, in other words, the language has shifted, and the word "sarcasm" now means things that the dictionaries haven't caught up with.
09:28 < durka42> it's very hazardous to label things "irony" on the internet :p
09:28 < gleki> so I guess english just fails to catch the difference and in toki pona position.
09:28 <@xalbo> "ironically" may or may not be better; it sounds like this meets the definition of "verbal irony", but 1) many people don't know that definition, and 2) many will assume that it means something more like 'counter to expectations".
09:29 < gleki> s/and in/ and is in/
09:29 < fenki> gleki meant to say: so I guess english just fails to catch the difference  and is in toki pona position.
09:29 < gleki> jb: xo'o
09:29 < mensi> xo'o = xo'o [interjection modifier] — ironically, xo'o nai — sincerely
09:29 < mensi> :je'u xo'o do ne se mau djuno — Yes, of course, you know better (sarcastically)!
09:29 < mensi> :xo'o nai sai do pu rau va'e gunka — With full sincerity, I can tell you that you worked enough.
09:29 < mensi> :Comment: For xo'o the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used, in xo'o nai it explicitely
09:29 < mensi> marks the intended meaning as matching the words..
09:30 < gleki> Better?
09:30 <@xalbo> I might even change "ironically" to "verbal irony". It's not as well known, but at least less likely to mislead.
09:31 <@xalbo> (I welcome the opinion of other native speakers of the language here, durka42)
09:31 < gleki> I suppose comments with verbose explanations are unavoidable otherwise translating dictionary wil llead to a relexed English
09:31 < gleki> uncareful translation sa'e
09:32 < gleki> it's a problem but the problem will always persist. {kreivi} is another example.
09:32 < durka42> sure
09:32 < durka42> en:kreivi
09:32 < mensi> kreivi = x1 (entity) sits in a squatting position like or as an animal with all legs touching the
09:32 < mensi> floor
09:32 < gleki> jb: xo'o
09:32 < mensi> xo'o = xo'o [interjection modifier] — verbal irony, xo'o nai — sincerely
09:32 < mensi> :je'u xo'o do ne se mau djuno — Yes, of course, you know better (sarcastically)!
09:32 < mensi> :xo'o nai sai do pu rau va'e gunka — With full sincerity, I can tell you that you worked enough.
09:32 < mensi> :Comment: For xo'o the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used, in xo'o nai it explicitely
09:32 < mensi> marks the intended meaning as matching the words. Sarcasm isn't necessarily implied.
09:33 < durka42> xo'o za'a do xebni zo'oi sarcasm
09:33 < gleki> ju'o Russian doesnt have the required word either.
09:34 < gleki> durka42: sei ckasu do kurji lo naldrani pe'i smuni be zo xo'o
09:34 < durka42> je'e
09:35 < gleki> Some psycholinguistic theorists (e.g., Gibbs, 2000) suggest that sarcasm ("Great idea!", "I hear they do fine work."), hyperbole ("That's the best idea I have heard in years!"), understatement ("Sure, what the hell, it's only cancer..."), rhetorical questions ("What, does your spirit have cancer?"), double entendre ("I'll bet if you do that, you'll be communing with spirits in no time...") and jocularity ("G
09:35 < gleki> et them to fix your bad back while you're at it.") should all be considered forms of verbal irony.
09:36 < gleki> why do we even need {ba'u} scale then...
09:37 <@xalbo> There are overlaps, but that doesn't make {ba'u} useless.
09:37 < gleki> {traji ba'unai} - wth is that?
09:38 < gleki> {mutce ba'u}, {mutce ba'unai} works though. okay i take my words back.
09:39 < gleki> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre <-- Lojban is notoriously known for disproportionally lacking that.
09:40 < durka42> by design
09:41 < gleki> except with some weird cmavo
09:42 < gleki> en: li'ai
09:42 < mensi> li'ai = [LI] unevaluated mekso as name. |>>> Where "la broda brode" is to "la'e lu broda brode" as "li'ai by cy" is to "
09:42 < mensi> la'e me'o by cy". See also li, me'o, la, la'e. |>>> djeikyb
09:42 < gleki> no not that
09:42 < gleki> en: li'oi
09:42 < mensi> li'oi = [UI3a] marks word as being optional, i.e. the bridi would still be both grammatical AND reflect the speakers
09:42 < mensi> opinion/intention would the marked construct be left out |>>> coi fu'e li'oi la fu'o selpa'i would semantically expand
09:42 < mensi> to coi la selpa'i and coi selpa'i meaning that both a person named selpa'i and a beloved one is being greeted (both
09:42 < mensi> being the same person). |>>> selpahi
09:44 < durka42> haven't seen a lot of usage of that one :)
09:45 < gleki> doi fu'e li'oi la fu'o selpa'i ko pilno zo li'oi
09:57 < gleki> en: ji'o'e
09:57 < mensi> ji'o'e = connective: elliptical/generic/vague |>>> Like zo'e or co'e, but for connectives. The connectives referred to
09:57 < mensi> may be logical or non-logical; they take the form proper for the syntax/context (probably is best implemented using
09:57 < mensi> post-original CLL connective system modification such as the MAD proposal or the system developed by selpa'i); in
09:57 < mensi> standard original CLL usage, this would be the inter-tanru after-thought connective. Synonymous with but morphologically
09:57 < mensi> and phonotactically allowed version of .y'i. |>>> krtisfranks
09:58 < durka42> wooo MAD proposals
10:07 <@xalbo> krtisfranks has now reinvented {ju'e}.
10:08 < gleki> ju'e is about {i}
10:09 < gleki> hm but indeed. what is {.iji'o'e}?
10:10 < gleki> impossible. a cmavo without selmaho! That's a true victory! No more selmaho! http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ji'o'e
10:17 < gleki> I have a proposal. All cmavo are moved into selmaho "".
10:18 <@xalbo> Clearly, we need a null cmavo. A cmavo representative of the empty string.
10:18 <@xalbo> {.y} is close, but not quite right.
10:19  * gleki remembers of U
10:20 < durka42> seems like ji'o'e is in JE
10:20 < gleki> ja
10:37 < gleki> someone wants to know the translation of "rather" to Lojban
10:37 < gleki> .dict rather
10:37 < fenki> rather — verb: 1. (nonstandard or dialectal) To prefer; to prefer to — adjective: 1. (obsolete) Prior; earlier; former — adverb: 1. (obsolete) More quickly; sooner, earlier. [9th-19th c.], 2. Used to specify a choice or preference; preferably. (Always with would - normally contracted to '[...]
10:38 < gleki> rather1 = " on the contrary"
10:44 < dutchie> coi
10:52 < ctefaho> coi dutchie
10:56 < dutchie> mi romoi ba'o cliva lo slabu briju
10:58 < dutchie> .i mi baza gunka vi lo zdani be mi pu'o lo nu lo cnano briju cu bredi
10:58 < dutchie> sa
10:59 < dutchie> lo nu lo cnino briju cu bredi
11:01 < ldlework> fi mi pu zi simlu fa zo briju tu'a zo birje u'i
11:02 < dutchie> uinai mi ralte no birje
11:02 <@xalbo> gleki: Hmm, that meaning of "rather" sounds not unlike {ku'i}.
11:02 < niftg> .i'u nai ru'e laldo birje ta'o sai
11:04 <@xalbo> lo briju lo birje cu mleca lo ni mi djica lo nu mi do'e ce'u se jibri gunka
11:17 < gleki> xalbo: sorry, i already found answers myself. depending on meanings its {seba'iku}, {PAva'e}
11:23  * nuzba @jollysonali: There's also a chat channel called QUILTBAG+ for our wonderful queer community! https://twitter.com/recursecenter/status/614091355783077888 [http://bit.ly/1Nk0fg1]
11:44 < rlpowell> durka42: So, I tihnk you know better than I at this point: when i get time, what should I work on in the CLL?
11:45 < gleki> i guess several chapters havent been done yet
11:46 < durka42> I mean most of the community's work so far has been on just fixing the examples, right?
11:47 < durka42> (and crucifying you for your choice of text_width)
11:47 < durka42> have we even decided content questions, like whether xorlo and dotside pamphlets will be included?
11:48 < gleki> you havent fixed examples in some chapters i guess.
11:48 < gleki> i suggest first polishing CLL Legacy Edition
11:48 < gleki> rlpowell: pls link to master pdf file
11:49 < rlpowell> 26-11:47 <     durka42> (and crucifying you for your choice of text_width) -- huhwhat?
11:49 < rlpowell> durka42: Content is CLLv2; this is *only* presentation.
11:49 < durka42> oh just referring to Wuzzy's mriste comments
11:49 < durka42> okay
11:49 < rlpowell> I may have missed said comments; is there an issue there I actually should be working on?
11:50 < durka42> he was saying that the fixed text width in the HTML version is annoying
11:50 < rlpowell> gleki: http://vrici.lojban.org/~rlpowell/media/public/cll_build-2015-06-20/cll_prince.pdf
11:50 < durka42> i.e. it ignores the width of the browser window
11:50 < durka42> I'm not sure it's an issue
11:50 < rlpowell> Oh, OK.
11:50 < rlpowell> Not really worried about HTML just now, but if you want to poke at it, feel free.
11:50 < rlpowell> Anywy, is there a chapter you want me to work on or something?
11:53 < gleki> headers on every page could be done in smaller font, not bold and with margin-bottom increased.
11:53 < gleki> Take page 261
11:53 < gleki> 10.4 Temporal tenses: PU and ZI
11:53 < gleki> ^ is this the header of the title of a chapter?
11:54 < gleki> Page 266. "The following cmavo is discussed in this section:" compare how the next string is indented. not pretty. i think indentation should be removed from "The following cmavo is discussed in this section:" strings.
11:56 < gleki> Page 433. Indentation in "14.22" section should be fixed too. It's strange now. I can't immediately see the tree structure it tried to represent.
11:57 < gleki> Page 434. Is it intentionally left almost blank?
11:57 < gleki> Why the first line of evey paragraph is indented. It causes weird formatting like the first string on page 436.
11:58 < gleki> And take page 435. Examples have lesser indentation than the first string of every paragraph so visually they look like a mess.
11:59 < gleki> I suggest increasing indentation of examples or somehow separate them from the rest of the text.
11:59 < gleki> Or instead descrease the indentation of the first line of every paragraph.
11:59 < durka42> were the cmavo lists at the beginning of sections fixed?
11:59  * durka42 checks
12:00 < gleki> Again page 440. The last string is indented but it starts with "we" which is a continuation of the previous sentence. Most likely such examples are numerous.
12:00 < gleki> Maybe just temporaily set indentation of the first string to 0 ?
12:00 < gleki> globally
12:01 < gleki> Page 441. Same problem of split sentences and first line indentation. Examples split them.
12:02 < gleki> Page 442. Consider not breaking "Affirmations (positive) Negations (negative)" table into two pages.
12:03 < gleki> Page 551. "18.26". Dont justify text. Or is there a <br/> after {mei}? Remove it.
12:04 < gleki> Page 552 is empty. What for? Dont waste paper. I can translate a few short stories for those pages if you want. Or is it a place for advertisements? :D
12:05 < ldlework> gleki: its written in invisible ink
12:05 < ldlework> you need a blacklight to read it
12:05 < gleki> Seems like noone worked on Chapter 20 especially with examples.
12:06 < gleki> rlpowell: ^ i havent checked the whole book bur feel free to check what i found above.
12:06 < gleki> s/bur/but/
12:06 < fenki> gleki meant to say: rlpowell: ^ i havent checked the whole book but feel free to check what i found above.
12:06 < gleki> rlpowell: well, and glossary isnt working. at least in this pdf.
12:07 < rlpowell> gleki: Just so we're clear, a giant list of things in this channel isn't of a lot of help to anyone; please use https://github.com/lojban/cll/issues
12:07 < gleki> oh my
12:07 < gleki> i knew you'd say.
12:08 < rlpowell> I'm working my ass off today; I was asking durka42 for a single "oh, how about X" sort of thing.  I'm definitely not working ont his today.  But I'm going on vacation soon, adn I might then.
12:08 < durka42> sorry not sure that I have general pointers like that
12:08 < durka42> I guess "look at chapter 20"
12:08 < durka42> I'll copy gleki's comments somewhere for when you or I have more time
12:10 < rlpowell> *nod*  Thank you!
12:10 < gleki> https://github.com/lojban/cll/issues/149
13:12 < ctefaho> guys guys I finally fixed the adverbial clauses
13:15  * durka42 co'a besto
13:16 < durka42> ctefaho: do tell
13:16 < dutchie> zo besto u'i
13:16 < ctefaho> well you will all think I am insane
13:17 < ldlework> "will"
13:17 < ctefaho> rrr
13:17 < ctefaho> insaner*
13:17 < ldlework> :)
13:17 < ctefaho> well let's just put it this way
13:18 < ctefaho> the "ke'a" in a xoi/soi clause is not "lo su'u no'a" or "lo no'a" but just "no'a"
13:18 < durka42> elaborate?
13:18 < ctefaho> Like for an adjectival/noi-clause the ke'a is just the sumti it is "focusing" on
13:19 < ctefaho> .i lo broda noi ke'a brode
13:19 < ctefaho> that ke'a doesn't expand to "lo broda", it just refers to it
13:19 < ldlework> o.O
13:19 < durka42> sure
13:19 < durka42> {no'a} is a pro-bridi though
13:19 < durka42> whereas {ke'a} is a pro-sumti
13:20 < durka42> show a {xoi} examples?
13:20 < ctefaho> it is a pro-something that is in sumti form
13:20 < ldlework> :3
13:20 < ctefaho> or we have to do lo no'a
13:20 < durka42> lo no'a is the x1 of the outer bridi
13:20 < ctefaho> which will be really not nice to expand to
13:21 < ctefaho> wops right
13:21 < ctefaho> just no'a
13:21 < ctefaho> ke'a = no'a in a xoi/soi
13:21 < ctefaho> in noi/poi ke'a = ...that which it is attached to
13:21 < durka42> ke'a is a sumti though
13:21 < ctefaho> but xoi/soi is attached to the whoel bridi
13:21 < ctefaho> yeah
13:22 < ctefaho> a sumti representing no'a
13:22 < durka42> representing how
13:22 < ctefaho> it just is ok
13:22 < ldlework> durka42: you can't think of a sumti that encapsulates a bridi? ;)
13:22 < ctefaho> if I have to explain how
13:22 < ctefaho> I will be lynched
13:22 < durka42> as... dare I say... an abstraction? :p
13:22 < ctefaho> I swear
13:22 < ctefaho> just trust me
13:22 < ldlework> durka42: heh ie
13:22 < durka42> ldlework: of course I can, with su'u, but there is apparently another way
13:22 < ldlework> durka42: I know I'm teasing ctefaho on your behalf, sorry
13:23 < ctefaho> ua:p
13:23 < ldlework> (I was thining of su'u as well)
13:23 < ctefaho> Well, that's the short version
13:23 < ctefaho> xoi/soi ke'a == no'a
13:23 < ctefaho> it is bound to the clause
13:23 < durka42> I don't see how you package up a bridi into ke'a without using {lo su'u no'a}
13:23 < ctefaho> like the ke'a is to noi
13:23 < ctefaho> it just *refers* to the outer bridi
13:24 < durka42> yeah sure
13:24 < durka42> that's not new
13:24 < ldlework> ctefaho: that's why its lo su'u no'a
13:24 < durka42> you're just taking away the expansion and replacing it with hand waving! :D
13:24 < ldlework> which is a sumti
13:24 < ldlework> ie u'i
13:24 < ctefaho> the expansion will come later
13:24 < ctefaho> the expansion is wonderful and magic
13:24 < ctefaho> but you will all believe I am insane
13:24 < durka42> still, I'm disappointed that I have exactly the reaction you expected
13:24 < durka42> I wish I had any idea what you mean
13:25 < durka42> just tell us lol
13:25 < durka42> we already think you're insane
13:25 < durka42> or start by revealing what's wrong with the {ke'a}={lo su'u no'a} expansion, at least
13:26 < ctefaho> .i co'e lo nu mi klama xoi ke'a cafne
13:26 < ctefaho> or do I dare just
13:26 < ctefaho> .i nu mi klama xoi ke'a cafne
13:27 < durka42> with you so far
13:27 < ldlework> do you really need the nu at all?
13:28 < ctefaho> if that ke'a would "expand" to "lo su'u no'a" it will either A) refer to a different expression/abstraction than the "nu"  or B) Nest the nu into the su'u (my take on it, cause I think the NU "follows" the no'a)
13:28 < ctefaho> which we don't want, it is not the same expression any more then
13:28 < ctefaho> and as you said {lo no'a} won't work either
13:28 < ctefaho> so it has to be {no'a}
13:28 < durka42> wait wait
13:28 < durka42> vlaste: no'a
13:28 < ctefaho> which it can't expand to
13:28 < vlaste> no'a = pro-bridi: repeats the bridi in which this one is embedded.
13:29 < ctefaho> it doesn't "expand" to no'a, it refers to it
13:29 < durka42> the bridi here are 1(.i nu 2(mi klama xoi 3(ke'a cafne))
13:29 < durka42> )
13:29 < durka42> ke'a (and no'a) refer to bridi #2
13:29 < ldlework> need a kei to get what you want
13:29 < durka42> oh I see what you are saying
13:30 < ctefaho> I say: .i 1(nu mi klama xoi 2(ke'a cafne))
13:30 < durka42> that in {mi klama xoi lo su'u no'a cu cafne} then {no'a} refers to the {cafne} bridi
13:30 < ldlework> ctefaho: nu starts a bridi
13:30 < durka42> ctefaho: no that's wrong
13:30 < durka42> {nu} embeds an entire bridi
13:30 < durka42> but anyway I guess the fix is to say no'axire
13:30 < durka42> mi klama xoi lo su'u no'axire cu cafne
13:30 < durka42> nu mi klama xoi lo su'u no'axire cu cafne
13:30 < ldlework> {<nu {[mi] <klama>} xoi {[ke'a] <cafne>}>}
13:31  * durka42 wonders what {} means
13:31 < ctefaho> well yes technically the nu-encapsulation is a bridi
13:31 < ldlework> bridi
13:31 < ldlework> li'a
13:31 < ctefaho> but its "x1" IS the encapsulated bridi
13:32 < ldlework> I'm not sure why the nu is needed though
13:32 < ctefaho> lo nu mi klama kei
13:32 < ldlework> mi klama xoi ke'a cafne
13:32 < ctefaho> to show why xoi's ke'a has to be that way
13:32 < durka42> ldlework: he uses it to mark the type of statement. just go with it
13:32 < ldlework> je'e
13:33 < ctefaho> btw
13:33 < ldlework> durka42: it makes talking about this more complicated though :P
13:33 < ctefaho> durka42 was it you with that good-day somethng example?
13:33 < durka42> so we just use no'axire and there's no issue, right?
13:33 < durka42> yes that was me
13:33 < ctefaho> and li'i
13:33 < ctefaho> can you show it please
13:33 < durka42> lo xamgu ko li'i cabdei
13:34 < ctefaho> lo xamgu ku  ko    li'i cabdei kei
13:34 < ctefaho> ko kinda works
13:34 < ctefaho> but lo xamgu, nope
13:34 < durka42> eh?
13:34 < ctefaho> li'i-x1 IS the encapsulated bridi
13:34 < ctefaho> lo li'i cabdei kei
13:34 < durka42> vlaste: li'i
13:34 < vlaste> li'i = abstractor: experience abstractor; x1 is x2's experience of [bridi] (participant or observer).
13:34 < ctefaho> cabdei's sumti places doesn't escape
13:34 < durka42> no they do not
13:34 < ctefaho> x1 is the whole li'i-kei
13:34 < durka42> {cabdei} is a whole bridi on its own
13:35 < ctefaho> yeah
13:35 < durka42> that's the beauty of the example, it breaks your assumptions on how we usually use NU, but it works!
13:35 < ldlework> This is a very strange construction
13:35 < ctefaho> but you can't just cu yourself into a li'i x1
13:35 < ldlework> {lo li'i cabdei cu xamgu ko} pe'i
13:35 < durka42> I'm not sure I know what you mean
13:35 < durka42> {li'i cabdei kei} is a perfectly cromulent selbri with two sumti places
13:35 < ctefaho> you are saying that "lo xamgu ku" IS "li'i cabdei kei"
13:36 < ldlework> Its like a reverse proposition
13:36 < durka42> {lo xamgu} is x1 of {li'i cabdei kei}, yep
13:36 < durka42> and ko is x2
13:36 < ctefaho> ko kinda works
13:36 < ctefaho> no durka
13:36 < ctefaho> not in that way
13:36 < ctefaho> how would "lo li'i cabdei ku" work then?
13:36 < durka42> it pulls out the x1 of {li'i cabdei}
13:37 < ctefaho> .i zo'e cu li'i cabdei ku
13:37 < ctefaho> si
13:37 < durka42> misplaced {ku}
13:37 < ctefaho> .i zo'e cu li'i cabdei kei
13:37 < durka42> jo'a
13:37 < ldlework> "Something is my experience of yesterday"
13:37 < durka42> today*
13:37 < ldlework> ie
13:37 < ldlework> lo xamgu cu li'i cabdei
13:37 < ctefaho> "Something *that* is my experience of yesterday"
13:37 < ldlework> "A good thing is my experience of yesterday"
13:37 < ldlework> Nothing breaks.
13:38 < ldlework> No
13:38 < durka42> the gloss of {lo xamgu ko li'i cabdei} is "[command] A good thing is your experience of today"
13:38 < durka42> xu sidju
13:38 < ctefaho> guys, I am working on expanding every single construct
13:38 < ldlework> lo xamgu cu li'i cabdei => da zo'u da xamgu je cu li'i cabdei
13:38 < ctefaho> believe me when I say that is wrong
13:38 < ldlework> there you go!
13:39 < durka42> sorry... don't believe you
13:39 < durka42> please show evidence :)
13:40 < ctefaho> I have to put it together better and expand some tag things
13:40 < ctefaho> but if we can just agree  ke'a == no'a
13:40 < durka42> it's a very old example, I didn't make it up
13:40 < durka42> I think I stole it from xalbo actually
13:40 < durka42> ke'a refers to an abstraction of the outer bridi, as always
13:40 < ctefaho> but no lo or lo su'u
13:40 < ctefaho> that breaks expansion
13:40 < ctefaho> no ke'a can ever expand
13:41 < ctefaho> only the bridi they are in
13:41 < durka42> okay make it a primitive if you want
13:41 < durka42> or use no'axire to fix it like I showed
13:41 < ctefaho> it's a primitive I assure you
13:41 < ctefaho> as for the rest of it, it will come in due time...
13:42 <@xalbo> Yeah, I think I was the one who created {lo xamgu ko li'i cerni} for "good morning" (Although I'm not quite sure which variant it was that was first).
13:42 < ctefaho> xalbo, please
13:42 < ctefaho> li'i-x1
13:42 < ctefaho> what is it?
13:43 <@xalbo> It's a li'i1.
13:43 <@xalbo> :)
13:43  * ctefaho cu morsi xoi vlile
13:43 <@xalbo> It's also lifri2. I mean, what is a du'u1?
13:44 < ctefaho> abstractor: predication/bridi abstractor; x1 is predication [bridi] expressed in sentence x2.
13:44 < ctefaho> just look at the def
13:44 < ldlework> it's also xamgu on this case
13:44 < ctefaho> "x1 is [bridi]"
13:44 <@xalbo> (I'm catching up on backscroll, just noticed my name)
13:44 < ldlework> yes encapsulated as a sumti
13:44 < ctefaho> yes
13:45 < ctefaho> and whatever you put into the du'u-kei, is x1
13:45 <@xalbo> So I guess I'm missing the question/objection.
13:45  * durka42 ji'a
13:45 < ldlework> and what ever you put into the x1
13:45 < ctefaho> and?
13:45 < ctefaho> how is that supposed to work?
13:46 < ldlework> its easy
13:46 < ctefaho> .i mi djuno lo du'u zo'e co'e
13:46 < ldlework> lo xamgu creates a description
13:46 < ldlework> a referring description
13:46 < ldlework> it refers to some Thing
13:46 < ldlework> da
13:46 < ldlework> da zo'u
13:46 < ldlework> da is the topic of our sentence
13:46 < ldlework> da zo'u da xamgu
13:46 < ldlework> da is xamgu by way of the description
13:46 < ctefaho> maybe you mean it in another way than I think you do
13:46 < ldlework> da zo'u da xamgu jecu li'i cabdei
13:46 < ctefaho> lemme check your da-thing again
13:46 < durka42> does it make more sense to switch it around and say {lo li'i cabdei kei be ko cu xamgu}
13:46 < ldlework> da is also x1 of li'i cabdei
13:46 < ldlework> because of the verb
13:46 < ldlework> li'i cabdei
13:47  * durka42 wonders where the quantification came from
13:47 < ldlework> which asserts whatever is x1 is also someone's experience of cabdei
13:47 < ldlework> durka42: what?
13:47 < durka42> I dunno you brought {da} into it
13:47 < durka42> it's just filling the x1 and x2 of li'i
13:47 < ldlework> because all descriptions expand to an existentially defined object
13:47 < durka42> I don't see the issue
13:47 < ldlework> da isn't quantified
13:48 < ldlework> lo broda = da zo'u da broda
13:48 < durka42> er
13:48 < durka42> no
13:48 < durka42> but that's not the issue
13:48 < durka42> I don't want to talk about {su'o} today :)
13:48 < ldlework> sure it is, you can use poi
13:48 < ldlework> but they say the same thing
13:48 <@xalbo> ctefaho: lo li'i cabdei cu xamgu .i lo li'i cabdei ku goi ko'a cu xamgu .i ko'a xamgu .i ko'a li'i cabdei .i lo xamgu ku goi ko'a cu li'i cabdei .i lo xamgu ku cabdei
13:48 < ldlework> they don't "quantify" differently
13:48 <@xalbo> What among those do you find objectionable?
13:49 < ldlework> xalbo: nice
13:49 < durka42> xalbo: coi la selckiku .u'i
13:49 <@xalbo> (sorry, that last should be {lo xamgu ku li'i cabdei}, that was the whole damn point and I screwed it up)
13:49 < ctefaho> xalbo: sorry, now I see what you mean. just a bit confused after hours of expanding stuff
13:49 < ldlework> ...
13:50 <@xalbo> {lo xamgu ku cabdei} is fine, too, just different
13:50 < durka42> it was just that someone who isn't me needed to explain it
13:50 < ctefaho> "There is something that is an experience of a day, that is good"
13:50 < ldlework> ctefaho: if you can understand the existential expansion, you can understand all of those examples
13:50 < ctefaho> today*
13:50 < ctefaho> The experience of something being a good day, is good
13:50 < durka42> {lo broda} != {da poi broda}
13:50 < durka42> let's not go there
13:51 < ctefaho> if that is what you want to say then we are all fine
13:51 < ldlework> durka42: I guess if you say so
13:51 < ldlework> But I disagree
13:51 < durka42> je'e
13:51 < durka42> ctefaho: There is something that is an experience of today, that is good, and I want you to have said experience!"
13:51 < ldlework> There's literally nothing else it could mean except, "There exists something, and it is good."
13:51 < ctefaho> .i zo'e cu xamgu je cu li'i cabdei
13:52 < ldlework> ctefaho: right
13:52 < durka42> zo'e xamgu jecu li'i cabdei kei be ko
13:52 < ldlework> where zo'e is just some expansion of da also
13:52 < durka42> .u'i
13:52 < ctefaho> ok good I had gotten the impression you wanted to mean something else
13:52 < ctefaho> good good, then
13:52 < ldlework> ctefaho: all I ever meant is, there is one referring description in the senetnece and two predicates
13:52 < ldlework> since one predicate is used to refer to the thing
13:53 < ldlework> and one predicate is used to assert a verb about the thing
13:53 < ldlework> both predicates are true about the thing
13:53 < ldlework> so we know three things
13:53 < ldlework> 1. there is something
13:53 < ldlework> 2. it is good
13:53 < ldlework> 3. it is the experience of today
13:53 < ctefaho> I kinda both knew and forgot what lo expanded to...
13:53 < ctefaho> NU-x1 only really makes sense with da or zo'e
13:53 < ctefaho> so in that sense they are not normal selbri
13:53 < Ilmen> ctefaho: lo is more or less a primitive
13:54 < ldlework> ctefaho: that is true of all verbs
13:54 < ldlework> the only thing that ever makes sense in x1 of any verb is some quantified (or not) existential referrent
13:54 < ldlework> IE, da
13:54 < durka42> tersmus: lo xamgu ko li'i cabdei
13:54 < tersmus> xamgu(c0);  li'i[cabdei( )](c0,ko)
13:54 < ldlework> I can say the same sentence
13:54 < ctefaho> I mean you can't do
13:54 < ldlework> but leave out the xamgu assertion
13:54 < ctefaho> mi li'i cabdei
13:54 < Ilmen> {su'oi da poi .olkai lo ka ce'u broda} is a good approximation of {lo broda} IIRC @ctefaho
13:54 < ldlework> da li'i cabdei
13:54 < ldlework> "something is the experience of today"
13:54 < durka42> well no, you're not an experience
13:55 < durka42> but you can do {mi jai li'i cabdei}
13:55 <@xalbo> There's very little difference between, say, {mi djica lo nu citka} and {lo se djica be mi cu nu citka}
13:55 < durka42> or {mi jai nu dormijysai}, my other favorite NU example
13:55 < ldlework> no need
13:55 < ldlework> you can also just use fe
13:55 < ldlework> or se
13:55 < ctefaho> xalbo: yep
13:55 < ctefaho> but again lo expands to zo'e
13:55 < ldlework> or even be
13:55 < ldlework> zo'e poi
13:55 < ctefaho> except Ilmen now brought in da
13:56 < ldlework> zo'e is just a da with a poi clause
13:56 < Ilmen> There is, however, a difference between {lo xunre cu barda} and {lo barda cu xunre}, li'a
13:56 < ldlework> something about not being mentioned by the speaker
13:56 < ctefaho> reminds me i need to read through the logic article again
13:56 < ctefaho> but ok I had misunderstood, no NU-x1 abuse then
13:56 <@xalbo> Yes, !{mi li'i cabdei} is semantically wrong, but so is !{mi citka lo nu sipna} or !{lo narskari je crino sidbo cu vlile sipna}
13:56 < ldlework> Ilmen: there is no difference unless you inject invisible quantifiers
13:57 < ctefaho> yeah xalbo
13:57 < Ilmen> I don't think lo expands to zo'e.
13:57 < ldlework> me either
13:57 < ctefaho> uhm
13:57 < ldlework> just da
13:57 < Ilmen> ldlework: Indeed you can't just replace lo broda" with the expansion I shown earlier
13:57 < Ilmen> because it would introduce scope
13:57 < ctefaho> is the bpfk page phonomentally wrong then?
13:57 < ldlework> Ilmen: but without quantification its fine
13:58 < ctefaho> lo [PA] broda 	zo'e noi ke'a broda [gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda]
13:58 < Ilmen> But if you put it at topmost scope in a zo'u that can work
13:58 < ldlework> right
13:58 < Ilmen> I think
13:58 < ctefaho> where does that da come from
13:58 < ldlework> no it totally works
13:58 < ldlework> lo broda cu brode == lo brode cu broda == da zo'u da broda jecu brode == da zo'u da brode jecu broda
13:58 < ldlework> The only difference between the different predications is focus.
13:59 < Ilmen> su'oi da, not simply da (because lo can be plural, su'o da can't)
13:59 < ldlework> One is being used for designation, one is being used for assertion
13:59 < ldlework> Ilmen: right "only if you inject invisible quantifiers"
13:59 < ldlework> which we're not going to do, because that would be wrong, right?
13:59 <@xalbo> Pre-xorlo, {lo broda} was {su'o da poi broda}. But I'm fairly certain xorlo changed that to something more fundamentally {zo'e} than {da}.
13:59 < ctefaho> how do you get a da from lo without any quantifiers?
13:59 < ctefaho> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri
13:59 < Ilmen> ctefaho: {lo broda = zo'e noi broda} has been long considered a good approximation, but it's not a perfect expansion
13:59 < ctefaho> is what I go by
14:00 < ldlework> there's no reason to use zo'e
14:00 < ldlework> just use da, without any default quantification
14:00 < ctefaho> but I love zo'e
14:00 < ldlework> It doesn't say all broda
14:00 < ldlework> ir doesn't say some broda
14:00 < ldlework> it does say 1 broda
14:00 < ldlework> it doesn't say 0 broda
14:00 <@xalbo> Did you mean "it doesn't say 1 broda"?
14:00 < ldlework> it just says there is some existentially unquantified referent which is broda and brode
14:00 < ldlework> xalbo: yes
14:00 < ctefaho> So zo'e can be da?
14:00 < ldlework> sorry
14:00 < ldlework> zo'e is of course da
14:00  * ctefaho really needs to read that article
14:00 < ldlework> with some unspecified quantification
14:00 < ldlework> like
14:00 < ldlework> da poi mi na cusku
14:00 < ldlework> or some shit
14:01 < durka42> da = su'oda
14:01 <@xalbo> I think we fundamentally disagree on what {da} means without quantification.
14:01 < ldlework> durka42: that's needless
14:01 < Ilmen> zo'e = lo co'e
14:01 < durka42> there is no da without quantification
14:01 < ldlework> That's not what logic demands
14:01 < ldlework> And that's not what lingusitics demands
14:01 < durka42> isn't it?
14:01 <@xalbo> s/without quantification/without explicit quantification/
14:01 < fenki> xalbo meant to say: I think we fundamentally disagree on what {da} means without explicit quantification.
14:01 < ldlework> durka42: no?
14:01 < ldlework> You can say "some thing X exists for which predicate Y is true"
14:01 < ldlework> without saying how many Y's the X represents
14:02 < durka42> isn't that su'o
14:02 < durka42> .u'u uanai
14:02 <@xalbo> ∃da is {su'o da}.
14:02 < ldlework> no, because the referring set can be empty
14:02 < ctefaho> But ok guys. If we can agree for at least a while that  xoi-ke'a == no'a, I will be a happy man
14:02 <@xalbo> If the set is empty, then saying that something exists is false.
14:03 < ldlework> No, because logical formulations are not objective magical statements
14:03 < ldlework> It creates a symbol which can refer to anything
14:03 < ldlework> which is *only* informed by predicates
14:03 <@xalbo> ctefaho: {no'a} is a pro-selbri, and {ke'a} is a pro-sumti. They're just fundamentally different things.
14:03 <@xalbo> {lo su'u no'a}, maybe.
14:04 < ldlework> xalbo: that's the expansion he's been trying to avoid from the start
14:04 < Ilmen> There's something equivalent or very close to Lojban's {lo} in Logic formulae, namely the iota operator "℩", if I'm not mistaken
14:05 < ldlework> propositions which assert on the empty set are called "vacous truths"
14:05 < ldlework> They don't violate the grammar or calculus of logic
14:05 < dutchie> er
14:05 < ctefaho> xalbo: disagree
14:05 < ldlework> They have semantic consequences
14:05 < ldlework> But not logical ones
14:05 < durka42> sure
14:05 < ctefaho> ke'a is a clause-focus marker
14:05 < dutchie> for all propositions are always true about the empty set
14:05 < ctefaho> or whatever you want to call it
14:05 < dutchie> there exists are never true
14:05 < ctefaho> ke'a is a primitive
14:05 < durka42> but if you say {da broda} and the truth is {no da broda}, then what you said wasn't true
14:06 < ldlework> durka42: it doesn't mean no da broda
14:06 < ldlework> you're conflating semantic interpretation with logical construction
14:06 < ldlework> da=(/) broda is a vacous truth
14:06 < ldlework> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
14:06 < durka42> no, read what I said
14:07 < ldlework> oh sure, I agree
14:07 < durka42> if you say some things broda, but actually none of the things broda, then what you said wasn't true
14:07 < ldlework> durka42: stop injecting a default quantifier
14:07 < ldlework> da by itself doesn't actually provide whether the set is empty or not
14:07 < durka42> that's where we disagree
14:07 < ldlework> you can define lo to inject su'o by default
14:07 < ldlework> because that's more useful for language
14:07 < ldlework> but raw logical formulation doesn't require it
14:07 < durka42> I didn't say lo injects su'o
14:08 < durka42> because it doesn't
14:08 < durka42> but da does
14:08 < ldlework> well lo must expand to some da formulation since it is an existential claim
14:08  * ctefaho co'o for a bit
14:08 < dutchie> logic formulation doesn't ascribe truth to a formula with free variables
14:08 < ldlework> so if the minimum da in lojban is "su'o da" then fine
14:08 < ldlework> But that's dumb
14:08 < ldlework> It should just be unquantified for real
14:09 < durka42> I also missed the part where {lo} makes an existential claim
14:09 < ldlework> Its a referring description
14:09 < ldlework> this is its speech function
14:09 < ldlework> thus, if all the writings and formalization of referring descriptions has anything to say
14:09 < ldlework> it makes an existential claim
14:10 < ldlework> even if you are being non-veridical
14:10 < Ilmen> IIRC, {lo broda cu brode} implies {su'oi broda cu brode}
14:10 < ldlework> in that you don't really think that da xamgu is true
14:10 < ldlework> of lo xamgu
14:10 < durka42> possibly it makes an existential claim about what I am referring to
14:10 < ldlework> you are still asserting something exists
14:10 < ldlework> ...that's the only thing that can be meant!
14:10 < ldlework> when I say
14:10 < ldlework> lo broda xu brode
14:10 < ldlework> there is only one referring descriptions
14:10 < ldlework> and two assertions on the referent
14:10 < durka42> Ilmen: I don't think so (unless I don't understand {su'oi}, which I don't), because it should be possible to say a vacuous statement
14:11 < ldlework> whether it is zasti or dacti is totally irrelevant to what is meant by 'existential'
14:11 <@xalbo> ldlework: You're going back and forth between {da} must not have a default quantifier and {lo} is defined in terms of {da}. I'm claiming that neither is true.
14:11 < ldlework> xalbo: that's great, so demonstrate
14:11 < ldlework> I'm freely flowing with lingusitic and logical justifications for my position
14:11 < ldlework> Defeat them, or make even more compelling ones
14:11 <@xalbo> {da} has a default quantifier, and it is {su'o}. {lo broda} is (very nearly) {zo'e noi broda}.
14:11 < ldlework> I understand you disagree
14:12 < ldlework> right, so you've reasserted your position
14:12 < ldlework> Justify why da must have a default quantifier
14:12 < ldlework> Does logic demand it?
14:12 < ldlework> Does language?
14:12 < dutchie> i would say so
14:12 < ldlework> I already admitted su'o is probably a useful default quantifier
14:12 <@xalbo> No, it doesn't demand it. But it doesn't prohibit it, either.
14:12 < ldlework> Because it is useful for language
14:12 < dutchie> well, practicality might demand it
14:12 < Ilmen> ldlework: Do you want {su'o no da}?
14:12 < ldlework> It basically only prevents accidential vacious truths
14:13 < ldlework> which I'd be totally fine with
14:13 < ldlework> But it means that da can't mean ro by default
14:13 < ldlework> ambiguously at least
14:13 < ldlework> in an unspecified place
14:13 < ldlework> not 'by default'
14:13 < ldlework> IE, if there is no default
14:13 <@xalbo> Who the fuck says that da means ro by default?
14:13 < dutchie> surely {su'o no da} would always lead to vacuous truths
14:13 < dutchie> i can't see how that would ever be useful
14:13 < ldlework> xalbo: I'm talking about logical formulation
14:14 < ldlework> for which is the base foundation of lojban's formalism
14:14 <@xalbo> What is a statement that you feel is true with {da} that would be false with {su'o da}?
14:14 < ldlework> We're exploring the difference
14:14 < ldlework> By what is provided by logical calculus
14:14 < ldlework> And what is useful for language
14:14 < ldlework> xalbo: any vacuous truth
14:15 < ldlework> Which I already admitted is not all that useful
14:15 < dutchie> i'm fairly sure you need some quantification for a vacuous truth
14:15 <@xalbo> If we can make a concrete example, maybe we can find common ground, or find our actual differences.
14:15 < ldlework> dutchie: yes, the empty set
14:15 < ldlework> you need to quantify for the empty set
14:15 < ldlework> without *ANY* quantification, the quantification is ambiguous
14:15 < dutchie> you need a *for all* quantifying over the empty set
14:15 < ldlework> which means it could be empty, some or none
14:15 < ldlework> that's literally what I just said
14:16 < ldlework> xalbo: we don't have a difference
14:16 < ldlework> I'm talking widely about what exists in logic
14:16 < ldlework> what is useful in language
14:16 < dutchie> there is a difference between quantifying over the empty set and no quantification at all
14:16 < ldlework> and you're just repeating your model of lojban
14:16 < ldlework> I agree with your model for lojban
14:16 <@xalbo> I claim that {da} means {su'o da} (in the absence of any other explicit quantifier). Do we have a difference?
14:16 < ldlework> so you're just waving your hands around complaining that we're not merely just saying over and over how lojban is defined
14:16 < dutchie> unless i've completely forgotten the four years of maths undergrad degree i studied
14:17 < ldlework> dutchie: I'm not saying anything you're not
14:17 < ldlework> Ex has no quantification
14:17 < dutchie> yes it does
14:17 < ldlework> it doesn't assert e(/)
14:17 < ldlework> dutchie: only that something exists
14:17 < durka42> co'o
14:17 < dutchie> Ex asserts ~A~x
14:17 < ldlework> which could be an empty set, or the full set, or the partial set
14:17 <@xalbo> ldlework: I asked you for an example, stop saying "vacuous truth" and "what is useful for language" and "what exists in logic" and actually come up with an example, if such a thing exists.
14:18 < dutchie> if you don't specify the set, you mean the universe of discourse, which you infer from context
14:18 < durka42> doi mi lo xamgu ko li'i nicte
14:18 < ldlework> xalbo: da broda, without su'o, is a vacuous truth
14:18 < dutchie> no it isn't!
14:18 < ldlework> it really is
14:18 < ldlework> because if you're saying it isn't
14:18 < Ilmen> doi ko zanfri senva doi la .durkas.
14:18 < ldlework> you've already injected su'o
14:18 <@xalbo> Do you mean that for all {broda}, {da broda} is a true statement‽
14:18 < ldlework> xalbo: no that would be a quantified da
14:18 <@xalbo> (Even if vacuously?)
14:19 < dutchie> it's neither true nor false
14:19 < dutchie> it depends on the value of da
14:19 < ldlework> right
14:19 < ldlework> that's what I'm saying
14:19 < ldlework> if you strip da of all quantification
14:19 < dutchie> no, you're saying it's vacuously true
14:20 <@xalbo> "da broda, without su'o, is a vacuous truth" -- does that only work for some broda, or for any possible value of broda?
14:20 < ldlework> xalbo: its potentially a vacuous truth
14:20 <@xalbo> I think we disagree about what "vacuous truth" means, also.
14:20 < ldlework> if you assume the empty set
14:20 < ldlework> since there is no quantifier, we don't know
14:20 < dutchie> to return to pure logic, and P is some predicate, P(x) is not a vacuous truth
14:20 < ldlework> dutchie: only if x refers to the empty set
14:21 < ldlework> which would have to be quantified as such explicitly
14:21 < dutchie> x is not referring to a set, x is an element of some set
14:21 < dutchie> (well, unless you're in some hierarchical set theory where everything's a set, but that's beside the point)
14:21 <@xalbo> More to the point, if P is some predicate, P(x) has x as a free variable (or a constant, or what have you)
14:21 < ldlework> dutchie: no, that's precsiely the context I'm using
14:22 < dutchie> it has a free variable as xalbo said
14:22 < ldlework> without quantification, we don't know whether x is the empty set, the partial set or the full set
14:22 < dutchie> quantification doesn't come into it, you can't talk about the truth value of some formula which has free variables
14:22 <@xalbo> x isn't a set. x is an element in a set.
14:22 < ldlework> xalbo: everything is a set
14:23 < dutchie> this keyboard isn't a set
14:23 < ldlework> yes it is
14:23 < dutchie> nothing is a set, except for some hazy constructs mathematicians made up to reason about
14:23 < ldlework> uh no
14:23 < dutchie> who even knows if they exist
14:23 < ldlework> okay this has left the realm of pragmatic discourse
14:23 < dutchie> i think that was a while ago
14:23 < dutchie> xkcd.com/386
14:23 < ldlework> dutchie: that's what I always say when I want to diminish my interlocutors I disagree with
14:24 < dutchie> i'm not denying that i am equally at fault
14:24 < dutchie> i am agreeing that neither of us is likely to change the other's position
14:24 < dutchie> or perhaps even to fully grasp what that position is
14:24 < ldlework> Are there ways to write out a quantification that involves the empty set?
14:24 < ldlework> There are.
14:25 < ldlework> Are there ways to write out a quantification, similiar to su'o, there are. And ro? There are.
14:25 < ldlework> They all exist as independent desginations
14:25 < ldlework> Without them, you have none of them by default
14:25 < ldlework> There is no default quantification
14:25 < dutchie> we agree on that. what we disagree on is the semantics of a formula with free variables
14:26 < ldlework> No we don't disagree
14:26 < ldlework> Because I don't think you can prove the truth value of such statements either
14:26 < ldlework> And never said you could
14:26 < dutchie> then what have we been arguing about for 20 minutes u'i
14:26 < ldlework> I only ever said that logic doesn't require a default quantification on the variables used in its calculus
14:26 < ldlework> To distinguish this from the case in ojban
14:27 <@xalbo> If I understand correctly, you're saying that {da broda} is a statement with a free variable, and therefore has no truth value?
14:27 < ldlework> where the desire to insert a default quantifier into the fundamental particle representing existentialism
14:27 < ldlework> xalbo: no, I WANT su'o!
14:27 < ldlework> I WANT su'o to be the default
14:27 < dutchie> in that case, we are in violent agreement
14:27 < ldlework> I'm merely OBSERVING differences
14:27  * xalbo gibbers.
14:27 < ldlework> u'i
14:27 < ldlework> I want it because, for language, it is useful.
14:27 < dutchie> iele'o
14:27 < ldlework> Not because logical calculus demands it.
14:27 < dutchie> ?
14:27 <@xalbo> We've been explaining why {su'o} is the default for the last ze'usai. You've been telling us it isn't.
14:28 < ldlework> No I'm saying, there is literally nothing demanding it to be that way.
14:28 < ldlework> That's all I've *ever* said.
14:28 < dutchie> haha
14:28 < dutchie> we all agree
14:28 < ldlework> You like to take my observations as prescriptions.
14:28 < dutchie> what fun the internet is
14:28 < ldlework> dutchie: I think we do.
14:29 <@xalbo> Then when we said "this is the way it works", why didn't you say "oh good, that's what I wanted" instead of..you know what, fuck it.
14:29 < ldlework> Because you joined a conversation *I* was having
14:29 < ldlework> And started making assertions that completely buried the actual line of discourse
14:30 <@xalbo> Find the first line you said that indicated you wanted a bare {da} to be treated like {su'o da}, and not as a free variable.
14:30 <@xalbo> or I'm going to call bullshit.
14:31 < ldlework> I made plenty of assertions of the form "da isn't quantified by default"
14:31 < ldlework> In the context of me already talking about what is nessecetated
14:31 < ldlework> durka and I were having a conversation distinguishing between two possibilities
14:31 < ldlework> when I say "da isn't quantified by default!"
14:31 < ldlework> I'm not talking about the zero-context referring lojban as we use it
14:32 < ldlework> I'm talking about how it exists in the nonce distinguished case in a comparative analysis
14:34 < ldlework> 14:01:20  durka42 | there is no da without quantification
14:34 < ldlework> 14:01:29 ldlework | That's not what logic demands
14:34 < ldlework> 14:01:34 ldlework | And that's not what lingusitics deman
14:34 < ldlework> 14:01:37  durka42 | isn't it?
14:34 <@xalbo> So basically, you said things like "da isn't quantified by default", not as a statement about Lojban, but as a statement about a new language you made up on the spot, and expected us to understand that difference without ever mentioning it.
14:35 < ldlework> xalbo: yes that's the asshole way to characterize normal conversation people have about possibilities and the characteristics of a system and their consequences
14:35 < ldlework> One who always has to diminish
14:36 < ldlework> So basically, this is the reaction when you jump into a conversation without reading any of the context primed with a default agent to protect your own precious notions and demean those you generally don't get along with
14:36 < ldlework> ?
14:36 <@xalbo> I honestly thought you were asserting that {da broda} and {su'o da broda} should mean different things in actual lojban.
14:36 < ldlework> I bet you did
14:36 <@xalbo> It now seems like that's not at all what you were talking about.
14:36 < ldlework> The original question was whether lo makes an existential claim at all
14:37 < ldlework> Once we started expanding it, the conversation about needing su'o came up
14:37 < ldlework> and I declared su'o isn't really required as far as logical expansions go
14:37 < ldlework> That it is only nessecitated using the language in a practical way
14:38 < ldlework> But there is *no fundamental reason* why we can't have unquantified da
14:38 < ldlework> Where unquantified da simply has an _unspecified quantifier_
14:38 < ldlework> rather than _zero quantifier_ making it a free variable
14:39 < ldlework> That's all I was trying to say
14:41 <@xalbo> I don't think the idea of an unspecified quantifier makes any sense. Like, when is it ever preferable to have an unspecified quantifier over having {su'o} as a default quantifier?
14:41  * ctefaho cu cilce tolcanci
14:41 < ctefaho> xo'e as default quantifier?
14:41  * ctefaho cu cilce canci
14:41 < ldlework> xalbo: when is it ever a good idea to leave out anything in language
14:41 < ldlework> when context is obvious?
14:42 < ldlework> why does it matter whether I mean "some" or "all" is context is strong enough
14:42 < ldlework> unspecified quantification is on equal grounds with all other ambiguity
14:42 < ldlework> It isn't special
14:42 < dutchie> except possibly more confusing
14:42 <@xalbo> durka42: Discussion hasn't ended, but it's boiling down. ldlework claims that when he said {da} doesn't need a quantifier, he means that in some hypothetical possible-world other language, and it has nothing to do with lojban.
14:43 < ldlework> dutchie: are you suggesting we always provide all information regardless of the strenght of context?
14:43 <@xalbo> Did you get that meaning from the conversation?
14:43 < ldlework> Why is quantification special?
14:43 < ldlework> I never even explicitly denoted "some hypothetical possible-world other langauge"
14:43 < ldlework> Because you don't need to do that anytime you're talking about mechanics
14:43 < dutchie> not at all. i was hypothesising that quantification might be more important to leave in than other things
14:43 < ldlework> No one requires that of you
14:43 < ldlework> Or anyone else
14:43 < ldlework> You're only doing that now, here
14:43 < dutchie> though i have no basis for that claim
14:44 < ldlework> dutchie: sure, that's basically all I'm saying
14:44 < ldlework> There's nothing inherent to it, as a feature of the language that *demands* a default quantifier
14:44 < ldlework> In terms of mechanical function
14:44 < ldlework> But certainly su'o is the most useful
14:44 <@xalbo> When you are in a channel named "#lojban", and you make claims about a word {da} which strongly resembles the lojban word {da}, then yes, you sort of do need to denote that you're not actually talking about Lojban if you're not.
14:45 < ldlework> In fact, I'm still talking about lojban
14:45 < ldlework> There's nothing about lojban, in form or function
14:45 < ldlework> that requires it to have a default da quantification
14:45 < ldlework> So I'm not really talking about some other language
14:45 < ldlework> I'm making an observation about the one we have
14:45 < ldlework> You just need to make sure everyone knows that I'm an insane person who they shouldn't agree with
14:45 < ldlework> By framing anything I say in a bizare confusion
14:45 < ldlework> Its really old.
14:46 < ldlework> And I wish you could just move on from the fact that sometimes we don't agree
14:46 < ldlework> and sometimes you are overbearing in conversations that you just jumped into
14:46 < ldlework> and can't for any doubt to
14:46 < ldlework> afford*
14:47 < ldlework> Its like trying to operate with a wet blanket drapped over me at all times.
14:47 < ldlework> I can make people disagree with me on my own, thanks.
14:48 <@xalbo> I am saying that what you said lead me to a complete misunderstanding of what you were talking about. And I strongly suspect that it likewise misled everyone else in the conversation.
14:48 < ldlework> Except when dutchie stopped to consider the actual aim of what I'm saying he decied that we actually agree.
14:48 < ldlework> Wonderous how that works.
14:48 <@xalbo> If someone wants to step up now and say that they understood you completely the whole time, I welcome it now.
14:49 < ldlework> xalbo: funny, they already did
14:49 < ldlework> selective backscroll
14:49 < ldlework> It isn't my job to never confuse you
14:49 <@xalbo> dutchie: Did you understand the whole time that ldlework wasn't talking about how {da} worked in Lojban, but about the limits of how it could be redefined?
14:49 < ldlework> Its your job to not be a dick when you're confused
14:50 < dutchie> i don't particularly want to be drawn onto one side or other of your personal feud
14:50 < ldlework> As someone in a channel constantly typing text, I obviously have a stake in being understood
14:50 < ldlework> So maybe you could afford me the same bias you afford everyone else
14:50 <@xalbo> dutchie: Very good answer. I apologize for the question.
14:50 < ldlework> In that maybe I'm not trying to offend you by using obsfucated speech?
14:51 < ldlework> Maybe you simply entered a conversation and pre-empted a disagreement without context and carried yourself in an overbearing manner?
14:51 < ldlework> No never.
14:51 <@xalbo> It took me most of the conversation to understand that we were actually talking about different things.
14:51 < ldlework> xalbo: that isn't somethign you get to be a dick about
14:51 < ldlework> it really isn't
14:51 <@xalbo> I'm curious when *you* understood what we were talking about different things.
14:52 < ldlework> I observed several times
14:52 < ldlework> That we were likely in agreeemnt
14:52 < ldlework> And that you were just repeating the same shit over about actual lojban
14:52 < ldlework> I even mentioned several times, in choronological disjoint, that su'o is a useful default
14:52 < ldlework> I couched my statements over and over
14:52 <@xalbo> And you didn't say "I'm not talking about actual lojban"
14:52 < ldlework> But I am talking about actual lojban
14:53 < ldlework> I'm observing that nothing about it really requires a default quantifier
14:53 < ldlework> the topic of the discussion as established before you got here
14:53 < ldlework> Its your problem not mine.
14:53 < ldlework> And regardless of communication problems
14:54 < ldlework> you really ought to stop being a dick to me
14:54 < ldlework> and calling others to your rally to be a dick
14:55 <@xalbo> I apologize for being a dick to you. I will attempt, in the future, to hold my temper with you.
14:55 < ldlework> xalbo: I'm not going to deny my effects on you or that I am perfectly an angel or anything like that. I know the texture that creates friction between us
14:56 < ldlework> And I certainly don't mind teasing or frenemieness but I don't like you underminding my capability to pariticpate all together
14:56 < ldlework> Anyway, sorry my method of delivery caused you grief.
14:56 < ldlework> I always enjoy many times more when we're in natural agreement
14:57 <@xalbo> I do think that you should examine your methods, because I'm not the only person you antagonize. I've been in this channel...wow, maybe 15 years? And I can count on one hand the number of people I've had bad interactions with.
14:57 < ldlework> xalbo: but I don't get into these personal disputes with other people
14:58 < ldlework> sometimes its a harshness
14:58 < ldlework> But I don't find myself having third-party disparagging where my interlocutor tries to reach out to the wider audience to confirm my complete inoperability
14:58 < ldlework> That's just trashy dude.
14:58 <@xalbo> I think you antagonize more people than you know. Mabye you do it without realizing it, but you do.
14:59 < ldlework> xalbo: So the best thing to do, is just grossly personally attack me
14:59 < ldlework> I see your point
14:59 <@xalbo> I was reaching out and asking "Am I off base here, or was anyone else confused?"
14:59 < ldlework> I'm aware that I don't placate to people's whimsical emotional state, but I don't disparage individuals
14:59 < ldlework> xalbo: you make lots of references to the mental and emotional state of others
14:59 < ldlework> without them ever expressing anything
15:00 < ldlework> that one sure, supposes others are confused too
15:00 < ldlework> But you will *characterize* my speech directly as surely being confusing to others
15:00 < ldlework> is if inherently
15:00 < ldlework> you always disregard your own emotional state
15:00 < ldlework> But the fact remains
15:00 < ldlework> I disparage arguments and course of thinking
15:00 < ldlework> I don't disparage others directly
15:00 < ldlework> You should try that out
15:01 < ldlework> I realize people don't like their arguments disparaged
15:01 < ldlework> I don't really feel beholden to care-bare arguments people make
15:01 <@xalbo> You have called me a dick and an asshole about a dozen times in this conversation. If that isn't disparaging others, then we have vastly different meanings for the term.
15:02 <@xalbo> I have not, to my memory, called you anything disparaging this whole conversation.
15:03 <@xalbo> You offend people by the manner in which you communicate with them. You may not think that matters, because they shouldn't be offended by that. But they are, and learning to communicate in a manner that doesn't piss people off would make your life better. I recommend it.
15:04 <@xalbo> But I have to go very soon.
15:04 < dutchie> well, you seem to have made some progress towards mutual reconciliation
15:05 < dutchie> compared to earlier at least
15:05 <@xalbo> I do apologize for losing my temper earlier. I will try harder to stay civil and polite to you in the future. I do not expect you to change anything. It would be nice, but I'm losing hope.
15:07  * nuzba @uitki: lambda calculus - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/lambda_calculus by Mudri [http://bit.ly/1REtlrF]
15:13 < ldlework> Yeah, someone starting belittling and disparaging you, and you call them an asshole, then you're the asshole.
15:13 < ldlework> That makes perfect sense.
15:13 < ldlework> In no way is it related to the first transgression, its totally an isolate event.
15:14 < ldlework> I can see how you could percieve it that way when you don't consider the consequences of your own actions and disposition.
15:15 < ldlework> "I'm sorry being a dick. Its too bad you're permanently a dick."
15:15 < ldlework> Seriously, you are the most thin wet-paper version of social morality ever.
15:15 <@xalbo> "Yeah, someone starting belittling and disparaging you, and you call them an asshole, then you're the asshole." -- Actually, without sarcasm or irony I do agree with that. At least, I think saying "you're an asshole" is more on the asshole scale than saying, for instance, "I think that's belittling and disparaging".
15:15 < ldlework> that is a personal attack and how I really feel, so don't be confused.
15:16 < ldlework> xalbo: it doesn't excuse you from your own behavior
15:16 < ldlework> xalbo: except, well to you
15:16 < ldlework> because in your mind it does, clearly
15:16 <@xalbo> I'm not trying to make excuses for my behavior. I'm apologizing for my behavior. I should not have acted as I did, nor should I have said what I did.
15:17 < ldlework> xalbo: make sure to end it with a disparaging remark
15:17 < ldlework> to show just how sorry you are
15:17 < ldlework> paper-mache virtue, seriously
15:18 <@xalbo> The fact that I misbehaved does not excuse *your* behavior. We each acted poorly. I will try to change. What you do is up to you.
15:18 < ldlework> xalbo: don't you mean "you don't expect me to change"
15:19 < ldlework> xalbo: since you've appologied this way multiple times in the past and promised to change your temper in the future
15:19 < ldlework> does the mean I should also make a disparaging remark about the futility of you treating me like everyone else?
15:19 < dutchie> pe'i neither of you want to leave the other with the last word
15:19 < ldlework> Or is your main goal just to save face
15:19 < ldlework> dutchie: I just can't state his fake virtue
15:20 < ldlework> Grand-standing when he's as bad as what he protests
15:20 < ldlework> That's even more gross than undermining someone
15:21 <@xalbo> You've had the last word. I'm off now. Talk to you later.
15:36  * ctefaho cu cilce tolcanci
15:36 < dutchie> coi ctefaho
15:37 < ctefaho> what did I miss
15:37 < ldlework> xu lo me'oi pokeball cu pluka zdani
15:37 < ctefaho> iep
15:37 < ldlework> ko nenri pe'u
15:37 < ctefaho> as for quantifiers
15:37 < ctefaho> it seems to me the most sensical thing for lo
15:37 < ctefaho> is to have no such thing as a "default outer quantifier"
15:38 < ctefaho> but xo'e as default inner quantifier
15:38 < ctefaho> the way the language is built
15:38 < ldlework> ctefaho: there's no reason why not, other than its been su'o for a long time and people are apparently extremely passionate about this detail
15:38 < ctefaho> well, xo'e can be su'o?
15:38 < ldlework> and ro, and no
15:39 < ldlework> and any other one
15:39 < ctefaho> yeah
15:39 < ctefaho> but if xo'e is default lo always expands the same
15:39 < ldlework> so, techincally there's no reason to interpret it as xo'e
15:39 < ldlework> to not *
15:39 < ldlework> except history and people's fancies
15:39 < ctefaho> I think it is the same case for le. context decides
15:39 < ldlework> ctefaho: even for le
15:40 < ctefaho> if you need something else than xo'e, say so
15:40 < ldlework> there's no reason to have a quantifier outside of the existential one
15:40 < ctefaho> lo su'o mlatu
15:40 < ctefaho> "oh my god I had to add one and a half syllable to say what I wanted"
15:40 < ldlework> you don't even need that
15:40 < ctefaho> zo'o bo'oi
15:40 < ldlework> su'o mlatu is fine
15:40 < ldlework> and the listener must pick a quantifier anyway
15:40 < ldlework> even if it is xo'e
15:41 < ldlework> they must determine which one to use to intepret what you're saying
15:41 < ctefaho> well but then we get a da
15:41 < ldlework> so people will just assume su'o like they do today
15:41 < ldlework> sorry?
15:41 < ctefaho> wait
15:41 < ctefaho> sorry I keep forgetting it expands differently for su'o and ro
15:41 < ldlework> not really
15:42 < ctefaho> ehm
15:42 < ctefaho> poi + su'o da | su'o da poi broda cu brode | su'o da zo'u gaje da broda gi da cu brode
15:42 < ldlework> There's no difference between ro and su'o
15:42 < ctefaho> poi + ro da | ro da poi broda cu brode | ro da zo'u gajanai da broda gi da cu brode   ?
15:43 < ctefaho> sorry those are mine
15:43 < ctefaho> poi + ro da 	ro da poi broda cu brode 	ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode
15:43 < ctefaho> poi + su'o da 	su'o da poi broda cu brode 	su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode
15:43 < ctefaho> ^BPFK
15:43 < ldlework> Sure, they have consequences for entailment
15:44 < ctefaho> but as for xo'e
15:45 < ctefaho> xo'e lo mlatu, and lo xo'e mlatu, should as I understand it be at least somewhat different
15:45 < ldlework> Someone might be able to define a difference but I don't see one
15:46 < ldlework> If you have both inner and outer quantifiers there is a difference
15:46 < ldlework> su'o lo ro mlatu : some of all cats, ro lo su'o mlatu, all of some cats
15:47 < ctefaho> well it will expand to da with xo'e lo
15:47 < ctefaho> otherwise to zo'e
15:47 < ldlework> they all expand to da
15:47 < ctefaho> maybe in your defs
15:47 < ldlework> anyone who says something expands to zo'e is waiving their hands
15:47 < ctefaho> well I don't really understand what da is supposed to be about
15:47 < ldlework> it represents the referent
15:47 < ldlework> its the "man behind the curtains"
15:47 < ctefaho> opinions seem to differ
15:47 < ldlework> We refer to it with descripiton nouns
15:48 < ldlework> and we assert upon it with propositions
15:48 < ldlework> well that's nice
15:48 < ldlework> This is all language philosophy gives us to describe language, period, in any language
15:48 < ctefaho> as for me, no idea
15:48 < ldlework> So if someone has some other interpretation, they are just making shit up within their model of lojban semantics
15:48 < ctefaho> need to read through that article when I am in the energy si mood
15:48 < ctefaho> do you agree with my menre-le, btw?
15:49 < ldlework> no idea
15:49 < ldlework> inner quantification is existential quantification, IE, how many things are in context
15:49 < ctefaho> le broda -- zo'e poi ke'a broda
15:50 < ldlework> outer quantification is descriptive quantification, IE, how many things of the things in context, do we wish to refer
15:50 < ldlework> no that's not how I interpret le whatsoever
15:50 < ctefaho> full: le broda - zo'e poi broda - zo'e cu broda je cu me (menre be) zo'e
15:51 < ldlework> no, all LO descriptions refer to things which are referents of the description
15:51 < ldlework> that's a tautology
15:51 < ldlework> le does exactly what lo does
15:51 < ldlework> except it denotes to the listener that the referent is identifiable
15:51 < ldlework> No in, personally identifiable
15:51 < ldlework> but qualitatively identifiable
15:52 < ldlework> Even if the listener has no idea what the speaker is talking about
15:52 < ldlework> the speaker is still talking about concrete referents
15:52 < ldlework> Consider
15:52 < ldlework> The King of English has grey hair.
15:52 < ldlework> vs
15:52 < ldlework> The King of England has a lot of responsibilities.
15:52 < ldlework> The former must be definite.
15:52 < ldlework> The second may be definite or indefinite depending.
15:52 < ctefaho> that le is supposed to refer to something in a lo
15:53 < ldlework> There is a sense in which a particular king has a lot of responsibilities
15:53 < ldlework> But there is also a sense in that
15:53 < ctefaho> to kinda match natlang, but wel ldefined
15:53 < ldlework> Regardless of who is king, the position entails having a lot of responsibilties
15:53 < ldlework> le refers to the first kind of description
15:53 < ldlework> lo'e refers to the second kind of description
15:53 < ldlework> lo is unspecified and lets the listener determine which is meant via context
15:53 < ctefaho> lo nolraitru - "A" King   le nolraitru - "The" King
15:54 < ldlework> ctefaho: ^ this is the most accurate portrayal of language philosophy
15:54 < ldlework> (what I said, not your example)
15:54 < ldlework> no, lo has no semantic of its own
15:54 < ctefaho> thought I got a compliment for once:(
15:54 < ldlework> lo is the xo'e of existential quantification
15:54 < ctefaho> that le has a specific referent of something
15:55 < ldlework> its not about le having specific referents
15:55 < ctefaho> le refers to something in a lo
15:55 < ldlework> you just keep repeating yourself
15:55 < ldlework> I have absorbed your model
15:55 < ctefaho> if you don't want your le to do that, dunno
15:55 < ldlework> le in my model, does refer to things that broda
15:56 < ldlework> concrete things
15:56 < ctefaho> Let me put it like this: expand your le broda
15:56 < ldlework> This is a problem
15:56 < ldlework> Do you want a logical expansion?
15:56 < ldlework> Or a semantic expansion?
15:56 < ctefaho> I want a jbo expansion
15:56 < ctefaho> like I did with mine
15:56 < ldlework> Jbopre incorrectly call their semantic expansions "logical expansions"
15:56 < ldlework> so I don't know what you mean by jboexpansion
15:56 < ctefaho> full: le broda - zo'e poi broda - zo'e cu broda je cu me (menre be) zo'e
15:57 < ctefaho> that
15:57 < ctefaho> the general expansion of the le-ku macro
15:57 < ldlework> lo broda : su'o da poi broda
15:57 < ldlework> le broda : su'o da poi broda
15:57 < ctefaho> wat
15:57 < ldlework> lo'e broda : su'o da poi broda
15:57 < ldlework> They are all logically expaned the same way
15:57 < ldlework> the difference in the gadri is _speech acts_
15:57 < ldlework> not propositional relations
15:57 < ctefaho> but but
15:58 < ctefaho> you have to expand it to include that "semantic" indicator
15:58 < ldlework> Sure, then you're asking for a semantic expansion which I can give
15:58 < ctefaho> yes please!
15:58 < ldlework> lo broda : su'o da poi broda
15:59 < ctefaho> I didn't understand you meant that a logical expansion would be different from a semantic one xo'onai
15:59 < ldlework> le broda : su'o da poi broda ku'o poi ke'a cmesanji
15:59 < ldlework> lo'e broda : su'o da poi broda ku'o poi ke'a nai cmesanji
15:59 < ldlework> where cmesanji could probably be replaced with a more lingusitic predicate
15:59 < ctefaho> menre?
16:00 < ctefaho> :)
16:00 < ldlework> meaning "qualitatively identifiable"
16:00 < ldlework> ctefaho: even "qualitatively unidentifiable" referents are still already referents
16:00 < ldlework> its still a tautology, even for indefinite descriptions like lo'e
16:00 < ldlework> all noun-phrases create "referring descriptions"
16:00 < ctefaho> how is cmesanji different from menre?
16:01 < ldlework> ctefaho: "Men are mortal"
16:01 < ctefaho> or why is it better
16:01 < ctefaho> that's my lo'e
16:01 < ctefaho> or le'e
16:01 < ctefaho> depending on what you mean
16:01 < ldlework> Please pin this pin on the men referred to by "Men"
16:01 < ldlework> IE, the referents
16:01 < ctefaho> lo'e broda -> lo broda poi fadni ---> zo'e cu
16:01 < ctefaho> le'e broda -> lo broda poi kesri		[kesri - fa is a stereotype/stereotypical held by fe]
16:02  * ldlework sighs
16:02 < ldlework> you ask me what I mean
16:02 < ldlework> then I say something to reveal it
16:02 < ldlework> then you revert to your own model
16:02 < ctefaho> so I guess {lo'e nanmu}
16:02 < ctefaho> "Please pin this pin on the men"
16:02 < ldlework> right
16:02 < ctefaho> sorry I thought that was a "ko"
16:02 < ldlework> please pinch those men
16:02 < ldlework> that the description "Men" in "Men are mortal" refers to
16:03 < ldlework> ALL descriptions are referring
16:03 < ldlework> They ALL have "referents"
16:03 < ldlework> definite descriptions and indefinite descriptions deal with different types of referents
16:03 < ldlework> definite descriptions deal with qualitatively identifiable referents
16:03 < ldlework> indefinite descriptions deal with qualitatively unidentifiable referents
16:03 < ctefaho> Do you mean "all men" as in ro?
16:03 < ldlework> they ALL are referring descriptions
16:03 < ldlework> No
16:04 < ldlework> If I meant ro
16:04 < ldlework> then pinching them would be easy
16:04 < ctefaho> "Roses are red"?
16:04 < ldlework> just walk up to every actual man
16:04 < ldlework> and pinch them
16:04 < ldlework> Sure "Roses are red" is an indefinite description but NOT because the statement is a generalization
16:04 < ldlework> generalizing speech is a _consequence_ of the kinds of referrents of indefinite descriptions
16:05 < ctefaho> I wonder is it in the same sense as your "Men are mortal"?
16:05 < ldlework> a description doesn't become indefinite because it is a platitude
16:05 < ldlework> IT is
16:05 < ldlework> But my description phrase "Men" is not indefinite
16:05 < ldlework> Because I'm speaking a generalization
16:05 < ldlework> I'm speaking a generalization
16:05 < ctefaho> yeah it is lo-like
16:05 < ldlework> Because my description phrase is indefinite
16:05 < ldlework> again, lo has no semantic
16:05 < ldlework> an utterance of lo can be meant as le
16:06 < ldlework> just like an utterance of xo'e can be interpretated as no, or su'o or ro
16:06 < ldlework> lo is the "unspecified noun determiner"
16:06 < ldlework> there is only le and lo'e
16:06 < ctefaho> let me ask you, what do you mean semantically with "Men are mortal"?
16:06 < ctefaho> What is it you want to say?
16:07 < ldlework> I mean that, I wish to create an indefinite description to Men, and ascribe that referent the property of mortality
16:07 < ldlework> In this case, no actual man is referred.
16:07 < ldlework> This is what an indefinite description implies.
16:08 < ldlework> That we get referents of a kind, other than actual persons.
16:08 < ldlework> We get a lingusitic referent.
16:08 < ctefaho> so what is this man? the typical man? the stereotypical man? the idea of a man?
16:08 < ldlework> Imagine there is a blanket that lays ontop of every man
16:08 < ldlework> You can identify actual real men, by seeing whether the blanket lays upon their head
16:09 < ldlework> When I say "Men are mortal"
16:09 < ldlework> I am not referring to any man
16:09 < ldlework> But the blanket that lays ontop of them
16:09 < ctefaho> Then you are referring to a stereotype of a man?
16:09 < ldlework> I am characterizing man-ness
16:09 < ldlework> No
16:09 < e`ogan> like "the man is free" kind of thing, where "man" is any huma and all the humans colloquially ldlework ?
16:09 < ldlework> I am not describing the ideal man
16:09 < ctefaho> did I say "ideal"?
16:09 < ldlework> That's what you mean by stero-type
16:10 < ldlework> if I say
16:10 < ctefaho> ideal in what sense?
16:10 < ldlework> ctefaho: in that is is the image aroused in your mind when I say "Man"
16:10 < ldlework> I'm not talking about that image.
16:10 < ldlework> I'm not asserting about that image.
16:10 < ldlework> For example
16:10 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'e mlatu
16:10 < ctefaho> I call kesri on that
16:11 < ldlework> Certainly when you think of the sterotypical cat
16:11 < ctefaho> that's what a stereotype is to me
16:11 < ldlework> You do not imagine characteristics such as being liked by me
16:11 < ldlework> do you?
16:11 < ctefaho> a referent to a stereotype
16:11 < ldlework> ctefaho: so in your world view
16:11 < ldlework> the typical cat is liked by me?
16:11 < ctefaho> no?
16:11 < ldlework> Exactly
16:11 < ldlework> so
16:11 < ldlework> mi nelci lo'e mlatu
16:12 < ldlework> can't mean
16:12 < ldlework> I like the stero-typical cat.
16:12 < ldlework> You would instantly disagree with me
16:12 < ctefaho> ehm that's my le'e not lo'e
16:12 < ldlework> But its not a statement that you can disagree with
16:12 < ctefaho> I said stereotypical not typical
16:13 < ldlework> Except that I just showed it can't be your le'e, because you would disagree
16:13 < ldlework> if I use your le'e
16:13 < ldlework> and state
16:13 < ldlework> mi nelci le'e mlatu
16:13 < ldlework> you would disagree
16:13 < ctefaho> no?
16:13 < ldlework> because the sterotypical cat doesn't have the property of being liked by me
16:13 < ldlework> ctefaho: I asked you above
16:13 < ctefaho> it just sounds a bit weird
16:13 < ctefaho> I have no idea if you like cats or not!
16:13 < ldlework> Is the sterotypical cat characterized by being liked by me?
16:13 < ctefaho> it is your stereotype of a cat not mine
16:14 < ldlework> That makes the designation of sterotype entirely useless
16:14 < ldlework> What you want
16:14 < ldlework> is the semantic I'm trying to reveal to you
16:14 < ldlework> that is like stero-typicalness
16:14 < ldlework> But something else
16:14 < ctefaho> I disagree entirely, sorry
16:14 < ldlework> okay, well I'm well overworked in this conversation so I'm just going to bow out
16:14 < ctefaho> I was going to say the same
16:15 < ctefaho> you don't seem to read one word of what I say
16:15 < ctefaho> so co'o
16:15 < ldlework> I reply instantly to everything you say
16:15 < ldlework> It seems you just want me to understand your model
16:15 < ldlework> When I thought you were asking about mine
16:15 < ldlework> So that seems maliciously unfair
16:15 < ldlework> but co'o anyway
16:17  * nuzba @uitki: names of Computer Languages - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/names_of_Computer_Languages by Mudri - /* Procedural */ [http://bit.ly/1LLxY1n]
16:36 < ctefaho> ldlework: Maybe you should ask yourself if you are hard for others to understand
16:37 < ctefaho> I want your opinion about my model and when you say you don't approve I ask why
16:37 < ctefaho> but if you can't tolerate being questioned, well, no point in discussing it with you
16:38 < ctefaho> and I said I don't understand da and quantifiers fully and your opinion just confuses me
16:38 < ctefaho> xalbo: If you are around, what is your opinion of menre-le?
16:38 < ctefaho> or e`ogan
16:38  * ctefaho pokes e`ogan
16:39 < ldlework> Why would I "not tolerate" being question?
16:39 < ldlework> I answered many of your questions. I don't know why you're accusing me of that.
16:39 < ldlework> You not knowing about things isn't my character flaw in being hard to understand.
16:40 < ldlework> That's a pretty shitty way to go about saying "I don't get it, sorry"
16:40 < e`ogan> mi ju'odji
16:41 < ldlework> ctefaho: if your intention was to actually empart any advice you have a strange way of doing it. If you're trying to make yourself feel better at my expense I hope it worked. That you used the same attack xalbo was attacking me with, and then called his name out, indicates to me you're just being shitty to me.
16:41 < ctefaho> calm down man
16:42 < ldlework> ctefaho: Don't disparage people you want to be calm.
16:42 < latro`a> sorry to poke my head in, but you guys are dancing around an age-old problem with lo'e and le'e
16:42 < ctefaho> I didn't intend to disparage you and I am right now trying to plow through guskant's article to better understand all this
16:42 < e`ogan> Not really sure about the context, it's too late to think straight and I lost some blood not so long ago which makes me perpetually tired to even strain my brain, so pardon me, I am not the one to ask right now
16:42 < ldlework> ctefaho: you accused your inability ot understand on my character
16:42 < ldlework> that's disparaging
16:43 < ctefaho> right
16:43 < ctefaho> sorry
16:43 < ldlework> And accused me of not tolerating questions
16:43 < ldlework> Okay :)
16:43 < ldlework> no problem then, sorry I couldn't help you out
16:44 < ctefaho> I think I overintepreted your "okay, well I'm well overworked in this conversation so I'm just going to bow out" then
16:44 < e`ogan> ldlework, your explanation wasn't easy to understand for me too, and instead of describing it from another angle you just repeated yourself
16:44 < ldlework> I'm not taking this anymore.
16:45 < latro`a> ldlework, I think we can agree that you've had a lot of communication trouble around these parts. I wouldn't say that others have dealt with it in the best way possible, but still, when you get in as many spats as you have (several of them with me, but also with every other active IRC lojbanist I can think of), you might want to consider that a piece of it might be your own behavior
16:45 < ldlework> ctefaho: I just meant, it was too costly because of things on this side of the monitor needing more and more of my attention.
16:45 < ldlework> latro`a: did you read anything?
16:45 < ldlework> Are you making an intimate valuation judgement?
16:46 < ctefaho> ldlework: je'e, it sounded to me like a "you suck bye";)
16:46 < latro`a> a little bit, but I'm not really talking about this particular conversation
16:46 < ldlework> Or could it be that xalbo, who admitted to bleowing up set the tone for the day?
16:46 < ldlework> Or ctefaho who just appologized?
16:46 < ldlework> latro`a: what is the point in repeating the attack?
16:46 < latro`a> I'm getting the same vibe as I've gotten quite a few times before, and assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that it has similar origins
16:46 < latro`a> maybe it doesn't
16:46 < ldlework> latro`a: be concrete
16:46 < ldlework> stop generalizing my identity
16:47 < ldlework> And if you're unsure
16:47 < ldlework> Maybe that's not enough to come out and actually bare the attack on me
16:47 < ldlework> for the 50th time today
16:47 < ldlework> I haven't done anything wrong but attempt to talk about lojban
16:47 < latro`a> again, it may not be relevant on this particular occasion
16:47  * ctefaho bows out now to focus entirely on guskant
16:47 < ldlework> People attack me because they don't understand?
16:47 < ldlework> How is that a problem I can address?
16:48 < latro`a> in my experience, people attack you because they feel like you're attacking them
16:48 < ldlework> How is it a problem others address by attacking my character?
16:48 < latro`a> that feeling might not be your intent, but intent matters much much less than outcome
16:48 < ldlework> latro`a: and now you're generalizing everyone else
16:48 < ldlework> I love how everyone here
16:48 < ldlework> knows how everyone feels
16:48 < ldlework> across all instances
16:48 < ldlework> and that's enough for platitude advices
16:48 < latro`a> eh, I'm actually mostly thinking of my own feelings and the occasions when others (xalbo, mainly) have made their emotions quite explicit in words
16:49 < ldlework> The instance with xalbo above? I was having my own conversation.
16:49 < ldlework> He interjected randomly to start telling me I was wrong about my own ideas.
16:49 < ldlework> Drew out a whole conversation about *his* confusion
16:49 < latro`a> and I'm also mostly *not* thinking about today
16:49 < ldlework> A confusion the conversation doesn't depend on
16:49 < ldlework> So am I at fault?
16:49 < ldlework> For expressing my ideas in a way that people who are not involved in the conversation don't understand?
16:50 < ldlework> Maybe instead of trying to optimize our environment, we should adjust ourselves.
16:50 < latro`a> today? I have no idea. In general? I'd say more than half but less than 3/4, yes
16:50 < ldlework> If your emotional state breaks down, merely from not understanding someone else, then you have your own problems
16:50 < ldlework> That you need to address privately
16:50 < ldlework> Not by attacking the source of your confusion, personally and disparaging them
16:50 < ldlework> If the lojban community can't divoce being critical of assertions and suppositions in an argument
16:50 < latro`a> which is primarily because you get in bitter arguments with so many different folks around these parts. if it were only me, and it were easy for you with everyone else, then I would suspect myself instead.
16:50 < ldlework> With attacking people personall
16:51 < ldlework> Then I'm not the one to worry.
16:51 < ldlework> I don't care about arguments
16:51 < ldlework> That's the problem
16:51 < latro`a> it doesn't come across as just assertions
16:51 < ldlework> Don't care about your opinion or mine, if you're not willing to partkae in the argument
16:51 < latro`a> when you've told me I'm wrong, I've felt personally put down
16:51 < latro`a> many times
16:51 < ldlework> You realize that it isn't justified right?
16:52 < ldlework> It doesn't matter what your preference of my tone is
16:52 < ldlework> If I'm not attacking you, you don't get to just ascribe everything I say as a personal attack
16:52 < latro`a> no, because it is; your style of telling people they are wrong doesn't come across as impersonal/intellectual
16:52 < ldlework> That's ridiculous
16:52 < ldlework> latro`a: that doesn't seem to be the complaint anyone has made today
16:53 < ldlework> So I see that you are taking the opprotunity of someone making a specific complaint
16:53 < ldlework> To just make your own general complaints about my character
16:53 < latro`a> people don't voice this complaint because by the time it comes to mind they're already mad
16:53 < latro`a> and I'm not judging your character
16:53 < ldlework> But you are
16:53 < latro`a> maybe you communicate better and other people just read between the lines too much
16:53 < latro`a> that's possible
16:53 < ldlework> latro`a: actually you arnt
16:53 < latro`a> but there are so many relevant individuals that that doesn't seem likely to me
16:53 < ldlework> but see how stupid of it is for me to assume you are?
16:54 < ldlework> But actually you are, because you're not addressing arguments I make, but the character of my speech.
16:54 < ldlework> Its very easy distinction to make.
16:54 < ldlework> That argument is obviously false.
16:54 < ldlework> You characteristically make obviously false arguments.
16:54 < ldlework> It isn't hard.
16:55 < latro`a> I'm not trying to dispiute points about lojban here. I'm trying to talk about how you make people feel, and in particular about how you've made me feel
16:55 < ldlework> Yeah but as a thinking intellectual
16:55 < ldlework> I wont hear "I hear you disparage me personally when you attack my arguments"
16:55 < ldlework> And if that's what you're saying, oh well
16:56 < ldlework> I'm not here to care for your emotional state in an argument. I'm not attacking you personally, so if you take it personally to have you opinions challenged there's nothing inherently manifest in my responsibilities.
16:57 < ldlework> You can say my debate technique is hard, but its absurd to extend that to personal disparagement
16:57 < ldlework> If that's what you're doing, you would be less offended more often if you simply didn't do that.
16:57 < latro`a> I don't take it personally to just have my opinions challenged, but I do start to take it personally when phrased the way that you tend to phrase your counterarguments
16:57 < ldlework> Okay, so don't do that.
16:57 < latro`a> it's not that simple
16:58 < latro`a> for one thing, you put out too many lines
16:58 < ldlework> Or point out a quote where my being critical of your argument has a subtext of personal disparagement
16:58 < ldlework> Otherwise just grow up
16:58 < latro`a> so you start to drown out what the other person is saying with what feels like an endless torrent of ideas and fighting
16:58 < latro`a> like this:
16:59 < ldlework> Typing fast isn't something I'm going to worry about.
16:59 < ldlework> If that's your concern, practice.
16:59 < ldlework> Or hit enter more, I don't know, you're your own person.
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> no, all LO descriptions refer to things which are referents of the description
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> that's a tautology
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> le does exactly what lo does
16:59 < latro`a> * bigcentaur (~bigcentau@104.254.90.235) has joined #lojban
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> except it denotes to the listener that the referent is identifiable
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> No in, personally identifiable
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> but qualitatively identifiable
16:59 < latro`a> * custos-mundi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> Even if the listener has no idea what the speaker is talking about
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> the speaker is still talking about concrete referents
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> Consider
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> The King of English has grey hair.
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> vs
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> The King of England has a lot of responsibilities.
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> The former must be definite.
16:59 < latro`a> <ldlework> The second may be definite or indefinite depending.
16:59 < latro`a> that's way too much content for 2 minutes with no interruptions
16:59 < latro`a> you do this constantly
16:59 < ldlework> Yeah I literally don't care about that at all
17:00 < ldlework> If me typing fast, makes you a piece of shit to me
17:00 < ldlework> That you are a piece of shit
17:00 < ldlework> The royal you
17:00 < latro`a> it's not typing fast, it's not leaving room for response
17:00 < ldlework> Hit enter
17:00 < latro`a> when there are actual openings to leave for responses
17:00 < ldlework> It appears
17:00 < ldlework> Trust me
17:00 < ldlework> I'm not kidding
17:00 < ldlework> If you type some stuff
17:00 < ldlework> At any point you can hit enter
17:00 < latro`a> look back at these logs; you'll see that you have block after block where you have 6 full lines and ctefaho has one
17:00 < ldlework> And it will appear on my screen
17:00 < ldlework> Interrupting me
17:00 < ldlework> magic
17:01 < ldlework> this might has some undertones of personal disparagement
17:01 < latro`a> *shrug* I tried again; I've tried this before, as has xalbo
17:01 < latro`a> but it isn't sinking in (or I'm just wrong about it, but again, with so many relevant individuals, I doubt that)
17:01 < latro`a> so I give up for now
17:01 < ldlework> xalbo is a horrible person to ever give critical advice
17:01 < ldlework> he literally is as bad as he protests
17:02 < ldlework> he can't convince at all, by being hyprocritical in the very act of trying to convince
17:02 < ldlework> its mind bending
17:02 < ldlework> latro`a: and no, I utterly disagree with your assesment
17:02 < ldlework> so it will be futile in the future
17:02 < ldlework> having your arguments dismissed isn't a personal attack
17:02 < ldlework> and neither is typing fast
17:03 < ldlework> personal attacks are personal attacks
17:03 < ldlework> jbopre should introspect whether personal attacks are the best way to deal with their emotions in the face of having their opinions critically attacked, or not being able to type fast enough
17:04 < ldlework> You will always be sad if your method of happiness is to optimize your environment rather than yourself.
17:35  * ctefaho cu bazi sipna .i co'o
17:45 < ldlework> That's a tautology dressed up as a distinction
19:35 < niftg> .uo mo'u tcidu fi lo la'oi the-new-yorker prosa be lo itku'ilybau jo'u la djan.kixadas. no'u lo finti be le mi'u bangu .i za'a barda semau lo se meckanpe be mi
19:36 < niftg> le bi'unai prosa cu ja'a cinri mi
19:37 < niftg> s/ja'a/ja'a jai
19:37 < fenki> niftg meant to say: le bi'unai prosa cu ja'a jai cinri mi
19:37 < niftg> .ue la'oi phenny la fenki ba'o za'a binxo
19:40 < niftg> go'a bi'u nai sepi'o la instapapr
19:43 < niftg> zo go'o ma poi dunli zo ri lo ka purci sumka'i cu dunli lo ka balvi brika'i ja sumka'i
21:10 < durka42> jinsa
21:35 < gleki> oi di'u
22:15 < gleki> The grammar needs to be written in JSGF format (http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/wiki/tutoriallm). This haven't been started yet (which needs help!).
22:15 < gleki> oh my
22:43 < gleki> I wish i knew which English frames are absent in Japanese FrameNet and vice versa which Japanese-specific frames are present.
--- Day changed Sat Jun 27 2015
00:23  * nuzba @actpu3j: What Is Lojban?: .i la lojban. mo    値上しました    価格:1311円→1338円    (1%OFF)    6/27 0:27    http://apr.blauberg.net/pricelist?asin=0966028317 [http://bit.ly/1JbSB6E]
00:24 < ctefaho> coi
00:33 < gleki> coi
00:35 < gleki> exp: mi ce bo do
00:35 < mensi> ([mi {ce bo do}] VAU)
00:35 < gleki> exp: mi fau bo do
00:35 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
00:35 < gleki> exp: mi fau bo bo do
00:35 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
00:35 < gleki> exp: mi fau bo do cu mo
00:35 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
00:35 < gleki> let's try it/
00:35 < gleki> ?
00:40 < gleki> alta: mi fau bo do
00:40 < mensi> ([FA {mi <fau bo do>}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
00:40 < gleki> alta: mi do'e bo do
00:40 < mensi> ([FA {mi <do'e bo do>}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
00:41 < gleki> alta: mi je do'e bo do
00:41 < mensi> ([FA {mi <je do'e bo do>}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
00:48 < gleki> exp: pa re ui mi
00:48 < mensi> ([{<pa (¹re ui¹)> BOI} mi] VAU)
00:48 < gleki> exp: pa re sei mo mi
00:48 < mensi> ([{<pa re> BOI <sei mo SEhU>} mi] VAU)
00:48 < gleki> very cinri
00:48 < gleki> exp: pa re sei mo ci mi
00:48 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [uU] or [yY] but "i" found.
00:48 < gleki> exp: pa re sei mo se'u ci mi
00:48 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [uU] or [yY] but "i" found.
00:48 < gleki> amazing
00:49 < gleki> exp: pa re ui ci mi
00:49 < mensi> ([{<pa (¹re ui¹) ci> BOI} mi] VAU)
00:50 < gleki> exp: pa re xoi mo ci mi
00:50 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [uU] or [yY] but "i" found.
00:51 < cliva> exp: lo broda be xoi brode
00:51 < mensi> ([lo {broda <be (¹xoi [CU {brode VAU}] SEhU¹) BEhO>} KU] VAU)
00:52 < gleki> i want {sei mo} parse exactly as UI within numbers.
00:52 < gleki> an old issues of merging them
00:52 < gleki> an old issue of merging them
00:52 < gleki> and i want another {xoi} with the grammar of {sei}
00:53 < cliva> ko zerle'a zo xei sisisisi
00:54 < gleki> zo si i'e
00:55 < gleki> i zo cliva oi ru'e i ki'u ma ca'a na cliva
00:57 < cliva> kosmu si se kosmu lo ka ca lo nu lo pilno be lo .ambigu me zo doi cu viska ce'u cu bilga lo ka pilno zo la
00:57 < gleki> jee i prije
01:00 < gleki> does{lo} no longer expand into {zo'e noi}? wth. then what is it? {zo'e ja da noi}?
01:01 < gleki> {zo'e voi} probably ...
01:01 < gleki> :P
01:02 < cliva> lo'u zo'e ja da vu'o noi le'u zo'u pe'i na tai mabla
01:03 < gleki> di'u ie ie
01:03 < cliva> (to li'a lo zo da jimca zo'u ka'e se pilno va'o po'o lo sko'opu be su'o da zei sumti toi)
01:04 < gleki> i ku'i mi djica tu'a lo'u zo'e noi le'u i ei mi pilno ma
01:04 < gleki> i ko na stidi tua lou zoe noi leu
01:04 < cliva> flsjd
01:04 < cliva> sa
01:04 < cliva> (to li'a lo zo da jimca zo'u se pilno va'o po'o lo sko'opu be su'o da zei sumti ka'e toi)
01:05 < cliva> .i si'a cumki falonu zo le je nai zo lo ka'e co'e zo da
01:05 < gleki> y
01:06 < cliva> "su'o broda zo'u lo broda cu brode" -> konstanta
01:06 < cliva> "su'o broda zo'u le broda cu brode" -> dzadza
01:09 < cliva> "lo broda zo'u blabla blabla blabla .i je le broda cu brode" -> va'o konstanta zu'u nai fa tu'a zo le
01:09 < gleki> en: blabla
01:09 < mensi> [< blanu blanu ≈ Blue blue] banbulupu = x1 is the language with ISO 639-3 code ''blp'' (Blablanga).
01:09 < cliva> u'i
01:10 < gleki> blanu blanga
01:10 < gleki> rafsi:blabi
01:10 < mensi> zo'oi lab .e zo'oi blab rafsi zo blabi
01:10 < gleki> ba'anairu'e
01:10 < gleki> en: pink
01:10 < mensi> 14 da se tolcri: pinka, pinkipai, xunblabi, banbubusu, bacru, blabi, ciska, cusku, jinvi, lanli, ricrdalbergia, rozgu,
01:10 < mensi> velski, zgana
01:11 < gleki> cliva: uanai i zo le co'e lo konstanta ji lo dzadza
01:11 < gleki> to zo konstanta se fanva fu zo stodi toi
01:12 < cliva> sei la .guskant. ca da stidi se'u da'i tu'a zo zo'e ge stodi gi dzada vau ka'e
01:12 < gleki> ua
01:12 < gleki> i xm
01:12 < gleki> ni'o
01:13 < gleki> xu zo mi dzadza co'e
01:14 < gleki> mi klama ije mi citka => da poi du mi zo'u da klama ije da citka
01:14 < gleki> iji
01:14 < cliva> la'a stodi (to mi na ganse su'o nu frati tu'a lo sko'opu toi)
01:15 < gleki> mi klama ije mi citka => ko'a goi mi zo'u ko'a klama ije ko'a citka
01:20 < gleki> One who brushes their teeth is healthy => lo lumci be lo denci fau ro da kanro / fau ro da lo lumci be lo denci cu kanro
01:21 < gleki> He who brushes his teeth is healthy = de poi lumci lo denci cu fau ro da kanro
01:22 < gleki> fau ro da de poi lumci lo denci cu kanro = In all cases, whoever brushes their teeth is healthy => lo lumci be lo denci fau ro da kanro ???
01:22 < gleki> i va'i zo de poi se kuspe lo sko'opu cu smuni dunli zo'ei zo lo
01:23 < gleki> i la'a mi srera to mi ca tatpi toi i ku'i ma jai se srera
01:24 < cliva> pe'i .ei lo re moi co me zo da ku ki'a se ku'antora li ro
01:24 < cliva> su
01:24 < cliva> .i .oi
01:24 < cliva> .i rinka lo nu dunli noi li'a na se djica
01:24 < gleki> xu do tugni mi le nu dunli
01:25 < gleki> y
01:25 < gleki> i xu do tugni mi le nu dunli zo'ei zo lo
01:25 < cliva> pe'i ru'e lo me zo lo moi cu nalsatci ja cu .ambigu
01:26 < gleki> i va'i xu do tugni fi lo nu zo da poi se kuspe ka'e smuni dunli zo zo'e
01:27 < cliva> ka'e je nai bi'ai
01:28 < gleki> sa'u mi se cinri lo nu makau poi me lo remei cu zmadu ke smuni jibni zo do'ei
01:28 < cliva> ua
01:29 < cliva> .i mi na birti .i da'i mi pilno zo ka noi ku'i la'a nu mipri lo kalsa
01:29 < cliva> s/noi/xoi/
01:29 < fenki> cliva meant to say: .i mi na birti .i da'i mi pilno zo ka xoi ku'i la'a nu mipri lo kalsa
01:31 < gleki> zo lo cenba lo ka se smuni i ja'o ca ba'e ti makau jibni zo do'ei
01:31 < cliva> ie
01:31 < gleki> sa sa i zo lo cenba lo ka se smuni i ja'o ca ba'e ti ma jibni zo do'ei
01:33 < cliva> nandu
01:33 < gleki> i mi pu sruma tu'a zo lo i mi ca sruma fe ji'a tu'a zo da poi se kuspe
01:35 < cliva> xm .i mo da'i lu "ro lo'e prenu (to ja mo kau toi)" li'u poi ba'e kuspe
01:35 < cliva> s/ja/ri ja/
01:35 < fenki> cliva meant to say: xm .i mo da'i lu "ro lo'e prenu (to ri ja mo kau toi)" li'u poi ba'e kuspe
01:36 < gleki> do stidi lo cimoi
01:37 < cliva> pe'i lu "ro lo'e co'e" li'u frica lu "ro da" li'u
01:38 < gleki> pe'i zo lo'e co'e
01:38 < gleki> ge'e
01:38 < cliva> .i ta'e ku lo se sinxa be zo lo'e cu pa mei (to xu nai toi)
01:38 < gleki> lou ro loe leu jai cinri
03:27  * ctefaho just gave jai-TAG formal scope and expansion^^
03:28 < gleki> i hope they will return you after they play
03:31 < ctefaho> hey jai-TAG is *hard*
03:33 < ctefaho> It took me a whole half hour!
03:44 < Ilmen> jai bai broda = kai'u bai ce'u broda ... kei
03:45 < gleki> not sure about focusing of broda there
03:45 < gleki> broda seems to be asserted. wtihin kai'u it's not
03:46 < gleki> s/wtihin/within/
03:46 < fenki> gleki meant to say: broda seems to be asserted. within kai'u it's not
03:46 < Ilmen> when kai'u is asserted, its content is as well
03:46 < gleki> a strange cmavo then
03:46 < Ilmen> at any rate this kai'u doesn't hand fai, though
03:46 < gleki> and it looks to me that both bai and broda are asserted
03:47 < gleki> although im still not sure if there is any difference from just {bai ko'a broda}
03:50 < gleki> ni'o what are your thoughts on STAG BO instead of connectives?
03:50 < gleki> alta: mi ka'aibo do klama
03:50 < mensi> ([FA {mi <ka'ai bo do>}] [CU {klama SF} VAU])
03:50 < Ilmen> x1 jai TAG broda fai xF [fe x2...] = TAG x1 broda fa xF [fe x2...]
03:50 < Ilmen> ctefaho ^
03:51 < ctefaho> xF?
03:51 < Ilmen> x_fai
03:52 < ctefaho> What is TAG x1 broda?
03:52 < ctefaho> are you making a sumtcita out of the selbri?
03:52 < Ilmen> fai moves the x1 of a selbri into the fai slot, and then add the argument of a tag TAG to the x1 place of the selbri
03:53 < Ilmen> er, jai moves*
03:53 < Ilmen> mi jai gau sipna fai do = gau mi sipna fa do
03:54 < ctefaho> hmm that seems like another way to do it, gotta check
03:55 < gleki> dont waves explain that?
03:56 < ctefaho> well show me how to fully expand "gau mi sipna fa do" while I go and compare
04:00 < Ilmen> gau mi sipna fa do --> xoi mi gasnu ke'a cu sipna fa do ---> (with maybe a change in focus / information presentation) --> mi gasnu lo nu do sipna // do sipna .i je mi gasnu lo nu go'i (?)
04:00 < gleki> mi gasnu i fe bo do sipna :P
04:00 < Ilmen> mi gasnu lo nundumu be lo du'u do sipna
04:02 < ctefaho> the "gau mi" seems completely equivalent
04:02 < ctefaho> just two different ways to say it
04:02 < ctefaho> but you made me realize something I had missed, ki'e
04:03 < Ilmen> ctefaho: I think {jai} was created for making easier things like {lo jai gau sipna} or {... gi'e jai gau sipna}
04:03 < ctefaho> jai is awesome
04:03 < ctefaho> I love jai
04:03 < ctefaho> I was just a bit confused as to how it should expand in jai-TAG
04:04 < ctefaho> but the expansions are totally equivalent in meaning and logic
04:04 < Ilmen> Because LE and GIhA make it hard to access any desired sumti slot (including tag ones) in the following incomplete bridi
04:04 < ctefaho> like "1+2=3" is "2+1=3"
04:06 < ctefaho> and no type loss
04:06 < ctefaho> yay
04:07  * ctefaho co'oru'e
04:45 < ctefaho> hmm seems like we do have type loss there uinai
04:46 < gleki> where and how
04:47 < ctefaho> one has to believe in bridi types to consider it a problem
04:47 < ctefaho> let's just say jai-gau lets you add a little more semantics than bare gau
04:47 < gleki> what are bridi types
04:48 < ctefaho> heresy
04:48 < gleki> describe them
04:48 < gleki> because up til now i knew only about te sumti types
04:49 < ctefaho> well it is an idea i have to make formal expansion work
04:49 < ctefaho> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/srfsts
04:49 < gusyvli> coi
04:49 < gleki> coi do i do du la danre ji la guskant
04:49 < ctefaho> basically I consider all "main" bridi, including any bridi trails, to have a bridi type of type NU
04:50 < ctefaho> defaulting to su'u
04:50 < ctefaho> problem is to make it consistent because people swing their wands and *poof*, types merge
04:50 < gleki> weird formatting.
04:51 < ctefaho> sorry I not good at wiki
04:51 < gleki> if you mean sumti  with abstractions then outer verbs dictate type of abstraction
04:52 < ctefaho> I mean I consider {.i su'u broda kei} and {.i broda} to be pretty much the same
04:52 < gleki> no
04:52 < gusyvli> doi la gleki mi cmene la'oi gusvli
04:52 < ctefaho> Well I do
04:52 < ctefaho> and it makes things awesome
04:53 < gleki> gusyvli: zo'oi gusvli cmene do i va'i do se cmene zo'oi gusvli
04:53 < gleki> ctefaho: no, the two sentences have different meanings
04:53 < ctefaho> not to me
04:53 < gusyvli> oi e'enai li'a
04:53 < ctefaho> one is just explicitly encapsulated in its type
04:54 < gleki> ctefaho: do you understand how those sentences differ officially?
04:54 < ctefaho> blah blah claim blah
04:55 < ctefaho> but do enlighten me
04:55 < gleki> compare {i dansu} and {i ti su'u dansu}
04:56 < ctefaho> yes?
04:56 < ctefaho> you obviously want the ti inside the su'u
04:56 < gusyvli> mi si'a na jimpe lodu'u drata zo'e makau
04:57 < ctefaho> {.i su'u ti dansu kei}
04:57 < ctefaho> fixed
04:58 < gusyvli> I think one problem is that su'u has an x2 which is not always clear
04:58 < ctefaho> burn the x2
04:58 < ctefaho> but
04:58 < gleki> ctefaho: no, when you put something into su'u you lose assertion. 
04:58 < gusyvli> x2 is why su'u exists. Otherwise we'd just use the other NU
04:58 < ctefaho> {.i su'u ti ja'a dansu kei} ?
04:58 < ctefaho> fixed
04:59 < gleki> no, not fixed.
04:59 < gusyvli> gleki, would you not say that {nu broda} implies broda?
04:59 < gleki> and i wanted {i ti su'u dansu} which has a different meaning from {i su'u ti dansu} and even from {i ti dansu}
04:59 < ctefaho> gusyvli: I consider su'u all-inclusive, and any non-su'u all-exclusive
04:59 < gusyvli> ctefaho: Excluding what?
04:59 < gleki> gusyvli: all non-main bridi are not asserted. in order to fix it's said that {ju'a} might work.
04:59 < ctefaho> gusyvli: To me {.i nu broda kei} implies an event of something being broda
05:00 < ctefaho> gusyvli: the other nu
05:00 < ctefaho> su'u can be nu and du'u
05:00 < ctefaho> nu can only be nu
05:00 < ctefaho> du'u only du'u
05:00 < gleki> ctefaho: yes, it implies but it's not asserted.
05:00 < ctefaho> etc
05:00 < ctefaho> Well I disagree
05:00 < gleki> you need {i su'u ju'a bbroda}
05:00 < ctefaho> I think assertion/negation is bound to NA and NA only
05:00 < gleki> ctefaho: but that's how it always worked.
05:00 < gusyvli> gleki: How is it possible to assert {nu broda} without asserting {broda}?
05:01 < ctefaho> gusyvli: precisely
05:01 < mindszenty> Talking about imaginary/possible/future events, for example.
05:01 < gleki> ctefaho: even in { mi na djuno lo du'u ja'a broda} broda and {ja'a broda} are not asserted.
05:01 < ctefaho> that's what da'i is for!
05:01 < gusyvli> mindszenty: Yes, but one can equally well speak about imaginary etc events with just broda
05:01 < ctefaho> true
05:02 < ctefaho> no default dau'i
05:02 < ctefaho> si da'i
05:02 < gleki> ctefaho: do you understand the difference between {i ti su'u broda} and {i su'u ti broda} ?
05:02 < ctefaho> the second one, "Expression: this is broda"
05:02 < ctefaho> first one "this here is an expression of something broda"
05:03 < gusyvli> ctefaho: If du'u can be non-assertive and su'u encompasses du'u, we can't be sure that su'u is assetive, right=
05:03 < ctefaho> to me there is always a ja'a if neither na or ja'a is explicit
05:04 < gleki> ctefaho: {i su'u broda} = It is dancing (of someone). {i broda} = [Someone] dances. So the difference is pretty clear.
05:04 < ctefaho> and my ja'a/na don't just negate by magic
05:04 < ctefaho> I made them into adverbials
05:04 < ctefaho> gleki: uat
05:04 < gleki> that's how it always worked.
05:05 < ctefaho> you mean you focus on su'u-x1?
05:05 < ctefaho> .i zo'e su'u lo broda cu brode kei
05:05 < ctefaho> zo'e *is* the whole su'u-kei
05:05 < ctefaho> not anything in it
05:05 < ctefaho> the whole thing
05:05 < gleki> yes
05:06 < ctefaho> I still say assertion is bound to ja'a
05:06 < ctefaho> If you mean ja'a and je'u do not imply the same thing...
05:07 < gleki> okay, then use the term "focus". English is mabla here.
05:07 < gleki> and it's neither ja'a, nor je'a, nor je'u.
05:07 < gleki> nor da'inai
05:07 < gleki> nor ca'a
05:08 < ctefaho> I think there is always an implicit ja'a (that means something makes it je'u) to every bridi and it always does the same whether you put it in an explicit NU-kei or not
05:09 < ctefaho> if that is anathema to you, well, no point in going furhter
05:10 < mindszenty> It makes cumbersome to talk about possible events.
05:10 < ctefaho> da'i?
05:10 < ctefaho> or any other UI you want to get your flavour
05:10 < gleki> yes, ja'a is implicit by design of Lojban. But we arent talking about this second topic, are we
05:11 < ctefaho> but to me it makes no sense whatsoever that {.i mi klama} is supposed to hang in a "assertion vacuum"
05:11 < mindszenty> If NU have implicit ja'a (and not implicit ju'acu'i), it must be overridden every time.
05:12 < ctefaho> Whyyy?
05:13 < mindszenty> Consider difference between English: "I am going to date tomorrow. I am thinking about it now." and "I am now thinking about be going to date tomorrow".
05:13 < gleki> so ctefa'os proposal is basically saying that main level bridi have ju'acu'i implied and inner selbri have again ju'acu'i implied unless overriden.
05:13 < ctefaho> "ja'a" just means "something makes this true"
05:13 < ctefaho> zo'e tolna'e zo'e
05:13 < ctefaho> not zo'e jetnu
05:13 < mindszenty> In the first example, the truth of me going to date is asserted. In the second one, it doesn't.
05:13 < ctefaho> that depends on what is in either of the natfe/tolna'e zo'e
05:14 < gleki> okay, since la ramcinfo has understanding i can rest.
05:14  * gleki de'a jundi
05:14 < ctefaho> mindszenty: What does "to assert" mean to you?
05:15 < mindszenty> Declaration of truth, I guess. What {ju'a} does - statement of predication being true.
05:15 < ctefaho> "This is absolute truth" or "Something makes this true"?
05:15 < ctefaho> Do you really want to claim *absolute truth* for everything you say`
05:15 < ctefaho> ?
05:15 < ctefaho> Ilmen plz help
05:16 < mindszenty> I want to claim, well, pragmatic truth, let's call it so.
05:16 < ctefaho> yes!
05:16 < Ilmen> re'i la ctefaho
05:17 < ctefaho> Ilmen: trying to point out how weird the lojban semantics are with what people consider to be abstractions
05:17 < ctefaho> mindszenty; yes!
05:17 < ctefaho> and what is pragmatic truth?
05:18 < Ilmen> People can probably only claim their beliefs and opinions of what is true, because no one can know what the absolute truth is :p
05:18 < ctefaho> thanks Ilmen
05:18 < ctefaho> you mah hero
05:18  * ctefaho hugs Ilmen
05:18 < Ilmen> .u'i
05:19 < ctefaho> and even "jetnu" isn't absolute truth
05:19 < mindszenty> So what's difference between {pe'i} and {ju'a}?
05:19 < ctefaho> it has an x2/ma'i
05:19 < ctefaho> (jetnu that is)
05:20 < ctefaho> to me ju'a is stronger
05:20 < Ilmen> ju'a is probably just the vague evidential, unspecific as to whether it's pe'i/ru'a/ti'e/za'a/ba'a...
05:20 < ctefaho> "I state" vs. "I opine"
05:20 < ctefaho> hmm
05:20 < ctefaho> ah state in that way
05:20 < ctefaho> right. it is just "I say this"
05:21 < mindszenty> I guess statement is more objective than opinion. It is not absolute, but it is implied what truth is hold for the purposes of current discourse.
05:21 < ctefaho> but as for pragmatic truth, I think "this is true because something makes it true" is the bestwe can get. iepei?
05:21 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
05:21 < mindszenty> Almost anything could be made true by _something_. Something is almighty.
05:22 < mindszenty> Say, we play make-believe game, and for purposes of our game _this_ is true.
05:22 < ctefaho> but you still claim the bridi is true because of something, right?
05:22 < mindszenty> Yes, but for me, it seems pointless.
05:22 < Ilmen> ta'o there's a Lojban vocal chat on Mumble planned to begin in about 7 minutes
05:23 < mindszenty> I'd prefer "it is true because of/in our discourse"
05:23 < ctefaho> Right. but do you want to have to say that every time you make a claim?;)
05:24 < ctefaho> or is the fact that you do claim it enough?
05:24 < mindszenty> No, but _that_ is what I feel is default statement basis in lojban )
05:24  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
05:24 < mindszenty> But only for main bridi.
05:25 < ctefaho> can I show you my ja'a/na implementation/formalization?
05:26 < mindszenty> Yes, of course.
05:26 < ctefaho> just to show what I mean
05:26 < ctefaho> na:
05:26 < ctefaho> {na broda} -> {na zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a}
05:26 < ctefaho> ja'a {ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e tolna'e ke'a}
05:27 < ctefaho> do you know natfe/tolna'e?
05:28 < mindszenty> Yes
05:28 < ctefaho> je'e
05:29 < ctefaho> (using it for ja'a/na is not my idea btw I just stole si got it from selpa'i)
05:30 < ctefaho> So basically, natfe-na says "broda is negated by zo'e", tolna'e-ja'a says "broda is asserted by zo'e"
05:30 < ctefaho> and of course you can put things into that zo'e
05:30 < ctefaho> but to me any pragmatic truth is "X is true because Y"
05:30  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa niftyg fa
05:31 < ctefaho> and with this you can easily specify what affirms or negates broda, and know what you mean by it
05:32 < ctefaho> to me absolute truth as the "base truth"  is useless in a human language (you can still of course claim this if you really think something is absolutely true, but that's a strong statement)
05:33  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa Ilmen2 fa
05:33  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa Ilmen2 fa
05:33  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
05:34  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa gunro fa
05:34 < ctefaho> that's it, basically
05:36 < mindszenty> But without that specification (and by default it is not specified), this seems pointless.
05:37 < ctefaho> that default is something that makes it true
05:37 < ctefaho> it is simple and beautiful
05:37 < mindszenty> Because, as I said before, there is always Y that could be used as a basis for truth of given X.
05:37 < ctefaho> but you also claim that this Y makes X true
05:37 < ctefaho> you don't just claim X is true you claim Y makes it so
05:38 < mindszenty> Yes, but I am not saying what Y is.
05:38 < mindszenty> So with this definition, I can say {na broda} or {ja'a broda} about anything.
05:38 < ctefaho> you can just put anything in the na-tag or ja'a-tag
05:38 < ctefaho> try it!
05:38 < mindszenty> And it only become useful if I elaborate and explain what makes it true or false.
05:39 < ctefaho> do you need to do that?
05:39 < ctefaho> because you then have to explain why that is true too
05:39 < ctefaho> and so on to infinity
05:39 < ctefaho> thas what non-absolute truth is
05:39 < ctefaho> relative truth
05:40 < mindszenty> Well, my foundation seems easier
05:40  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa akti fa
05:40 < ctefaho> what exactly is your foundation then?
05:40 < mindszenty> This is true for purposes of our discourse, and our discourse is true because it happens right now :)
05:40 < ctefaho> that kinda fits into zo'e
05:41 < mindszenty> Well, why not make it into default?
05:41 < ctefaho> yeah why not?
05:41 < ctefaho> it is called convention;)
05:41 < ctefaho> if you claim something extraordinary in a discourse you better specify why it is so, pe'i
05:42 < mindszenty> Yeah, I just prefer some conventions being codified into definitions
05:43 < ctefaho> I don't think one needs to really
05:44 < gleki> i dont understand. has the issue with {i su'u broda] been finally explained?
05:44 < ctefaho> we are still on ja'a gleki
05:45 < gleki> oh my, ju'a, ja'a, je'u, je'a. all are different and useful words.
05:45 < ctefaho> mindszenty: So what do you prefer, ill-defined absolute truth or well-defined pragmatic, relative truth as a basis?
05:47 < mindszenty> I guess I answered that already. It was I who introduced term 'pragmatic truth' in this discussion .u'i
05:48 < gleki> I dont understand the problem. Absolute truth exists. It's real. If you arent faimilar with what it is then i can repeat.
05:48 < ctefaho> mindszenty: yeah;)
05:49 < ctefaho> gleki: yes but it is unfit as a basis for a language
05:50 < ctefaho> now co'o
05:50 < gleki> ctefaho: 42
05:57 < Zearen> .i coi
06:06 < gleki> coi
06:26  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa mukti fa
06:26 < Zearen> ma nuzba
06:36 < gleki> y mu'a
06:36 < gleki> exp: mi ka'ai bo do klama
06:36 < gleki> oi
06:36 < gleki> i lo selfu skami cu masno
06:37 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "k" found.
06:37 < _mukti_> ua
06:37 < gleki> alta: mi ka'ai bo do klama
06:37 < _mukti_> .i coi la gleki
06:37 < mensi> ([FA {mi <ka'ai bo do>}] [CU {klama SF} VAU])
06:37 < gleki> coi coi
06:38 < gleki> _mukti_: e'o do lanli lo nabmi pe la jukni
06:38 < _mukti_> vi'o
06:38 < _mukti_> ue
06:38 < gleki> i xm
06:38 < _mukti_> mutce lo ka masno
06:38 < gleki> i lo ralju kibro stuzi ca akti
06:38 < gleki> sa
06:38 < gleki> i lo ralju kibro bo stuzi ca akti
06:39 < _mukti_> ma ralju kibro bo stuzi
06:39 < gleki> ju'oi me.lojban.org
06:39 < gleki> si si
06:39 < _mukti_> ui na la jukni na frati
06:39 < gleki> ju'oi mw.lojban.org
06:40 < _mukti_> mi fliba lo nu jorne la jukni
06:40 < gleki> je'e
06:40 < gleki> i e'o do jungau CGM
06:40 < gleki> i ma ka'e nabmi
06:41 < gleki> sei ei na'e bo mi se cinri
06:41 < ctefaho> gleki: je'u
06:41 < _mukti_> .i ku'i mi snada lo nu jorne la vrici
06:41  * ctefaho runs to add 42 to his NA tags
06:42 < _mukti_> ie nandu nabmi
06:43 < _mukti_> .i ji'a mi na kakne lo ka jorne la jukni te ka'a la vrici
06:45 < _mukti_> xu la akti cu se cmene lo drata poi lojbo
06:45 < Ilmen> zo gleki
06:45 < _mukti_> ua
06:45 < Ilmen> doi la _mukti_
06:46 < Ilmen> mi zo'u zo menli cu co'e li'a
06:46 < _mukti_> la gleki cu ctuca
06:59 < _mukti_> .i ta'o mi mo'u jungau la .camgusmis. tu'a lo selfu skami nabmi
07:00 < gleki> pe'i xlali
07:01 < gleki> fa le nabmi
07:01 < gleki> xlali la lojban
07:01 < gleki> sisisi
07:01 < gleki> i xlali la lojban
07:01  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa mukti fa
07:02  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa mukti fa
07:07  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa akti fa
07:11 < ctefaho> gleki: it is just that I think that natfe is what makes most sense as the default negation/affirmation for bridi
07:11 < ctefaho> pe'i and it doesn't really change anything besides giving it proper scope
07:18 < ctefaho> and ki'e for the help
07:19  * ctefaho cu cilce canci
07:19  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
07:20 < _mukti_> xu la gunro cu me la danmo rozgu
07:44 < Ilmen> pe'i me la cirko doi la _mukti_
07:44 < _mukti_> ua
07:45 < _mukti_> .i za'a lo jbopre cu ta'e se cmene so'i da
07:45 < _mukti_> .i do mupli doi la menli .u'i
07:47 < Ilmen> ku'i mi zo'u so'u re da cmene
07:48 < Ilmen> :p
07:48 < LauriJ> hello there
07:49 < Ilmen> Hello
07:50 < LauriJ> so, this is a channel for Lojban, yes?
07:50 < LauriJ> fantastic language I must say
07:51 < Ilmen> Yes, it's the main Lojban channel
07:51 < LauriJ> :P
07:51 < Ilmen> (there are a couple of other ones, such as #ckule for beginners, and #jbosnu for Lojban-only discussions)
07:51 < LauriJ> hmh
07:52 < Ilmen> This one is a general-purpose channel
07:52 < Ilmen> Welcome here :)
07:53 < LauriJ> I have been wondering about what it would be like if Earth joins a wider galactic community and Lojban in turn would be it's sole representative language...
07:53 < la_kristan> coi rodo
07:53 < Ilmen> coi
07:54 < la_kristan> .i.ui jbedetnunsla
07:54 < Ilmen> .ui dai
07:54 < Ilmen> .a'o zanfri
07:54 < LauriJ> so, lemme guess
07:54 < LauriJ> dots always begins sentences in lojban?
07:54 < LauriJ> that's something I guess...
07:55 < gleki> dots are parts of words
07:55 < la_kristan> .i begins sentences.
07:55 < LauriJ> i see
07:55 < Ilmen> LauriJ: The dot is a Lojban letter, and not a punctuation mark
07:55 < gleki> like all words starting with a vowel actually start with a pause for which {.} is used.
07:55 < gleki> {.i} is a word separating sentences.
07:56 < LauriJ> curious...
07:56 < Ilmen> LauriJ: One of Lojban's feature is that Lojban doesn't rely on prosody (voice tone / intonation) for anything
07:56 < LauriJ> indeed.
07:56 < Ilmen> so questions and sentence ends are marked with words
07:56 < Ilmen> and not tone
07:56 < LauriJ> Still, we are all renma
07:57 < LauriJ> and that's something we shall be proud about
07:57 < gleki> remna
07:57 < gleki> although from galatic perspectives we are persons, {lo prenu}
07:57 < la_kristan> .i mi salci fi lenu mi citka loi cakla titnanba ku joi loi bisyladru .e loi jipci cidjrnencilada
07:57 < LauriJ> yeah
07:57 < gleki> since other aliens may learn lojban
07:57 < gleki> i ue i kukte
07:58 < ctefaho> plot twist: aliens amazed by lojban and uses it for themselves
07:58 < Ilmen> I must be taking my leave. co'o
07:58 < la_kristan> I thought all aliens spoke Esperanto...
07:59 < Ilmen> .u'i
07:59 < LauriJ> well, aliens would of course whatever tongues they may have
07:59 < LauriJ> but as a members and associates of the Systems Union, they in a way would have to adopt Lojban in order to communicate.
08:00 < LauriJ> at least that's the milieu I am aiming for
08:00 < la_kristan> of course.
08:00 < LauriJ> also, nove Lojban words adapted from alien tongues would be introduced
08:00 < LauriJ> *novel
08:00 < LauriJ> in the process.
08:01 < LauriJ> so, the people of earth are remna, people of an another planet would be gadiso and so on
08:01 < la_kristan> I trust I got the grouping in my previous Lojban sentence correct...
08:02 < gleki> you may check
08:02 < LauriJ> still, how would you translate Systems Union to Lojban?
08:02 < LauriJ> just wondering...
08:02 < gleki> depends on what "Systems" mean.
08:02 < la_kristan> the chocolate cake with the ice cream, but not mixed; and the chicken enchiladas separate...
08:03 < LauriJ> Systems as in the group of planets orbiting a singular star
08:03 < cliva> yacc: .i mi salci fi lenu mi citka loi cakla titnanba ku joi loi bisyladru .e loi jipci cidjrnencilada
08:03 < mensi> (i {mi <salci [(fi {le <nu [mi (citka {<[(loi {cakla titnanba} ku) joi ( loi bisyladru KU)] e [loi (jipci cidjrnencilada) KU]> VAU})] KEI> KU}) VAU ]>})
08:03 < la_kristan> as opposed to a plural one...
08:04 < gleki> LauriJ: i would say {lo ciste gunma}~= system union. Or {la ciste gunma} = System Union (as a name). Although it's better to ask them.
08:05 < la_kristan> oh, cool. looks like I got it right...
08:05 < LauriJ> las ciste gunma
08:05 < LauriJ> sounds cool
08:05 < gleki> la ciste gunma
08:05 < LauriJ> yeah of course
08:05 < gleki> sounds like "lah sheesteh goonmah"
08:06 < LauriJ> la ciste gunma
08:06 < gleki> although im bad at English respelling
08:07 < gleki> im pretty sure they will invent new words for "planetary system" or even invent a new concept e.g. since they found that it's not "planetary"
08:07 < gleki> e.g. asteroids, comets are also parts of it
08:07 < LauriJ> that might be true
08:08 < LauriJ> and then there would be acronyms and such to designate different planet types
08:08 < LauriJ> eg. whether or not it's inhabited and what type of purpose it is used for
08:08 < la_kristan> who knows? until we find the Lojban-speaking aliens, I guess we don't...
08:09 < LauriJ> that's up to me to figure out.
08:09 < LauriJ> Ok, it might be translated to english for convenience but in the 'real' setting everything would be lojbanized
08:10 < la_kristan> and I'm still not sure whether "lojbanized" should be spelled with a z or an s.
08:11 < LauriJ> haha, well
08:11 < LauriJ> different flavors I guess...
08:12 < la_kristan> I have that trouble with all words ending with an "ize" sound.
08:12 < la_kristan> well, not /all/...
08:13 < la_kristan> not "french fries"
08:13 < la_kristan> but that's not one word.
08:13 < LauriJ> indeed
08:15 < gleki> "lojbanized" <-- depends on English dialect whether s or z
08:16 < la_kristan> One's probably a British spelling.
08:17 < la_kristan> But I read so much British and Australian stuff that I can't keep it straight.
08:17 < LauriJ> that's true
08:18 < gleki> -ize is at least Canadian as i was once told. hence british most likely.
08:19 < la_kristan> Even though I'm American, I always write "Saviour" instead of "Savior"; KJV influence, I guess.
08:19 < LauriJ> Still, if you were a part of the 'la ciste gunma', what would you do there?
08:20 < la_kristan> tu'a le mi bruna cu fanza mi
08:20 < gleki> idling on the sofa
08:20 < la_kristan> .u'i
08:21 < la_kristan> hanging out on #lojban ...
08:21 < LauriJ> haha, ok
08:23 < la_kristan> but video games about killing aliens might not be politically correct, lol
08:26 < la_kristan> so, the other day my dad asks me what I want for my birthday, and I'm like, "uh, I dunno, green chicken enchiladas, I guess."
08:27 < la_kristan> And my dad says, "okay, green chicken enchiladas are good"
08:28 < la_kristan> and then my oldest brother dryly declares that "they're even better when you leave out the green chicken."
08:29 < la_kristan> like, he's always like that.
08:30 < la_kristan> twice as pedantic as Ranjeet in "Lojban for Beginners"
08:31 < la_kristan> but not a Lojbanist.
08:32 < LauriJ> well, this actually will be a book
08:32 < LauriJ> or at least will start as a book
08:32 < la_kristan> what will?
08:32 < la_kristan> the ciste gunma?
08:32 < LauriJ> you know, this setting with Systems Union and all?
08:32 < LauriJ> yeah, I have a great idea
08:33 < LauriJ> and I hope to turn this great idea to a book
08:33 < la_kristan> sorry, I was sidetracked with thinking about my brother.
08:33 < LauriJ> it's ok
08:33 < LauriJ> still man
08:34 < LauriJ> it
08:34 < LauriJ> is very beautiful outside
08:34 < la_kristan> I sometimes think about writing a book
08:34 < la_kristan> but I can't come up with a decent storyline
08:35 < la_kristan> to save my life
08:36 < la_kristan>  .i mi na nanmu (I'm not a man)...
08:37 < la_kristan> gleki : are you a member of cemetech.net ?
08:38 < gleki> no
08:38 < gleki> oh hm i think i am
08:39 < la_kristan> oh, there's someone there with that username; must be somebody else.
08:39 < gleki> no it was me
08:39 < la_kristan> oh?
08:39 < gleki> one time
08:39 < gleki> but it seems my account is no longer active
08:40 < la_kristan> my brother is a member there, but he says he's not active anymore.
08:40 < la_kristan> he couldn't get along with the Kerminator.
08:41 < la_kristan> his username is CalebHansberry
08:42  * LauriJ wants to play
08:42 < la_kristan> I just wondered, because when I did a Google search for "lojban forum"
08:43 < la_kristan> I found the thread about Lojban on Cemetech.
08:43 < LauriJ> My name is Carlos Ramirez
08:43 < LauriJ> how's that in Lojban?
08:43 < la_kristan> la .karlos.ramirez. , probably
08:43 < gleki> maybe just {la karlos ramires}?
08:44 < gleki> -z is usually like -s in Spanish.
08:44 < LauriJ> i see
08:45 < la_kristan> and I saw that one of the commenters on that thread had the username gleki
08:45 < la_kristan> so I wondered if it was the same person.
08:45 < gleki> i clean forgot about registering there
08:45 < gleki> i only did that to comment
08:46 < la_kristan> I understand; I have that urge a lot.
08:47 < la_kristan> Kerm expressed some interest; I wonder if anything came of it?
08:47 < la_kristan> probably not.
08:48 < la_kristan> LauriJ ; names are generally supposed to end in consonants, so yours is easy.
08:50 < LauriJ> i see
08:50 < la_kristan> not like mine (Christa), where I had to change the first letter and also add a consonant to the end.
08:50 < LauriJ> sounds rather difficult if you want to well, preserve the names as they are.
08:51 < zipcpi> xu lu'i ro setmima cu se cmima le nei
08:51 < zipcpi> sa'ei .bum.
08:52 < la_kristan> well, I think you can call someone "la'o zoi gy. Christa Hansberry .gy"; a friend of mine likes to do that.
08:52 < gleki> some aliens may not even possess the same articulatory organs as we do
08:52 < LauriJ> that is true
08:52 < zipcpi> lo setmima be ro setmima
08:53 < la_kristan> but I find it more trouble than it's worth, generally.
08:53 < LauriJ> but then again, they don't necessary want to abide by Lojban's rules either
08:53 < LauriJ> as far as the names are concerned
08:54 < ctefaho> new nunmu: http://djemynai.bandcamp.com/releases
08:54 < zipcpi> la_kristan: I think it's sometimes useful to not Lojbanize the names when they're first introduced in text though; you can assign a Lojban-name or pronoun to them using {goi}
08:54 < ctefaho> jbobau music
08:54 < la_kristan> vlaste: setmima
08:54 < vlaste> no results. http://vlasisku.alexburka.com/setmima
08:54 < zipcpi> la kristan: Mathematical set
08:54 < ctefaho> (all free all fresh all awesome)
08:55 < zipcpi> So, "Does the set of all sets contain itself?"
08:55 < zipcpi> Classic mathematical paradox
08:55 < zipcpi> Oh wai
08:55 < la_kristan> zipcpi : yeah, that could be useful.
08:56 < zipcpi> I got it by ramming "set" and {se cmima} together
08:56 < la_kristan> about names, not mathematical paradoxes.
08:56 < zipcpi> Ah
08:57 < la_kristan> I'm not much good at math, anyway.
08:58 < zipcpi> :p
08:58 < la_kristan> or logic, or programming...
08:58 < LauriJ> still, lemme think of a good alien phrase...
08:58 < zipcpi> xu lu'i ro setmima poi na se cmima ke'a cu se cmima le nei
08:59  * ctefaho pokes zipcpi
08:59 < zipcpi> What?
08:59 < ctefaho> pm
08:59 < la_kristan> am
08:59 < la_kristan> fm
08:59 < ctefaho> xm
08:59 < la_kristan> mi nasa mute...
09:00 < la_kristan> pardon my lapsing into toki pona.
09:00 < LauriJ> :P
09:00 < LauriJ> toki pona, huh?
09:00 < la_kristan> yeah.
09:00 < LauriJ> i guess you're a aficiniado ten
09:01 < LauriJ> *then
09:01 < LauriJ> when it comes to conlangs
09:01 < la_kristan> I speak toki pona and Esperanto pretty fluently.
09:01 < la_kristan> so I guess so.
09:02  * la_kristan shrugs.
09:03  * nuzba @uitki: 更新されたページ: Nuzba:xu do djuno - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Nuzba:xu_do_djuno by Guskant [http://bit.ly/1SSEwQb]
09:05 < LauriJ> :)
09:05 < LauriJ> anyways, I guess I shall go now
09:06 < LauriJ> see you later I hope
09:06 < la_kristan> LauriJ: what lessons are you learning Lojban with? I'm using "Lojban for Beginners" (L4B, for short)
09:06 < LauriJ> well, to be honest, I am  not that into it
09:06 < LauriJ> just bits and pieces in order to make my works shine,
09:06 < LauriJ> basically, it's just there and that's all,
09:07  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa gunro fa
09:07 < LauriJ> anyways, bye
09:07 < la_kristan> well, okay, but you still must be getting it from somewhere
09:07 < la_kristan> mumble : ki'a
09:09 < gleki> la_kristan: instead of vlaste you may use "en:" prefix. if still doesnt work say "mensi: ko cnino"
09:09 < gleki> en: setmima
09:09 < mensi> setmima = x1 is a mathematical set, containing members x2 |>>> To be only used for sets in the mathematically defined
09:09 < mensi> sense. See cmima. |>>> spheniscine
09:10 < gleki> _mukti_: xu do pu'i benji SMS fi CGM
09:10 < la_kristan> oh, okay.
09:11 < la_kristan> ki'e
09:11 < _mukti_> gleki: mi nu'o go'i .i
09:11 < gleki> mi puzisai benji
09:12 < gleki> _mukti_: e'u bazaku do tavla CGM lo nu xokauroi akti fa le selfu skami i pe'i di'i mabla tcini i ei cnegau da
09:14 < la_kristan> Lojban is cooler than Esperanto because it has an independent root word for "left (side or direction)" and nobody will chew you out for using it.
09:14 < _mukti_> mi jungau cy fo lo simsa
09:14 < _mukti_> ba jungau
09:14 < gleki> _mukti_: xu lo cnino ke selfu skami bi'ai kargu sei mi kucli
09:15 < _mukti_> zo'oi maldekstra .u'i
09:15 < _mukti_> On the other hand, authorized lojban only has "tolci'o"
09:16 < gleki> indeed, "nobody will chew" is an exagerration for other words.
09:16 < _mukti_> gleki: mi na djuno
09:16 < la_kristan> In fact, of all the languages I'm familiar with, Lojban is the closest to being free of dextrocentric bias.
09:16 < gleki> la_kristan: is "lefta" a new word for "left" together with "liva"?
09:18 < la_kristan> I haven't seen it.
09:18 < rlpowell> Just rebooted jukni.
09:18 < _mukti_> nice
09:18 < rlpowell> _mukti_: THe only thing you might need to do once it comes backup is "sudo service php-fpm restart" and same with httpd, but probably not.
09:18 < rlpowell> AFK.
09:19 < _mukti_> rlpowell: Ok, I'll check it out.
09:19 < _mukti_> Any clue why sshd stopped responding?
09:19 < _mukti_> (should you return to the keys)
09:20 < gleki> _mukti_: would it be possible to install one more service that would do such operations automatically once the website is down?
09:20 < _mukti_> gleki: possible, but the devil are in the details
09:20 < la_kristan> but I don't know how to express handedness in Lojban.
09:20 < gleki> lo mabla cevni cu xabju lo tcila
09:20 < _mukti_> .u'i
09:21 < gleki> en: zulxanpre
09:21 < mensi> zulxanpre [< zunle xance prenu ≈ Left hand people] = p1 is a left-hander. |>>> See also: prityxanpre, zulxa'e. |>>>
09:21 < mensi> Wuzzy
09:21 < gleki> en: prityxanpre
09:21 < mensi> prityxanpre [< pritu xance prenu ≈ Right hand people] = p1 is a right-hander. |>>> See also: zulxanpre, prityxa'e. |>>>
09:21 < mensi> Wuzzy
09:21 < la_kristan> what about ambies?
09:22 < la_kristan> ambidexters, ambidextrous individuals
09:22 < gleki> needless to say these lujvo are no different from esperantic compound verbs, i.e. one cannot predict what they mean. we call them naljvajvo.
09:22 < gleki> s/verbs/words/
09:22 < fenki> gleki meant to say: needless to say these lujvo are no different from esperantic compound words, i.e. one cannot predict what they mean. we call them naljvajvo.
09:23 < gleki> something like relxanpre...
09:23 < gleki> or dunxanpre
09:24 < la_kristan> we're always such a wrench in the works :-D
09:27 < la_kristan> I like "dunxanpre"; it's cool.
09:29 < la_kristan> "Connect your charger"?!
09:29 < la_kristan> .uinaisai
09:30  * la_kristan connects charger
09:30  * la_kristan is now stuck in one place.
09:31  * gleki in Lojbanistan zo'oru'e
09:32 < rlpowell> WHoops, forgot bout the iptables BS.
09:32 < rlpowell> _mukti_ / Tene / banseljaj : For some reason I've never figured out, all my hosts seem to need this to serve web and stuff after each restart: sudo service iptables restart
09:32 < rlpowell> Feel free to try to figure out why.  :P
09:32 < rlpowell> AFK, lojban.o.rg is up.
09:33 < _mukti_> Hmm. Maybe it's loading a more restrictive ruleset first?
09:33 < _mukti_> .i mi snada lo nu jorne la jukni ki'e la .camgusmis.
09:34 < gleki> _mukti_: can we create a simple static website AND (which is the most important) redirect lojban.org to it when the wiki is down?
09:34 < _mukti_> gleki: That would require either a proxy in front of the web server or a process that monitored availability and twiddled DNS
09:35 < _mukti_> Which is to say, a more complex setup than we've got now
09:35 < gleki> _mukti_: but that would be useful anyway, right? people wont complain aboutlojban.org notbeing available.
09:37 < _mukti_> xu la danmo rozgu cu jundi
09:37 < gleki> nowthe wiki says there is some database error
09:37 < Ilmen> doi la mukti ze'u ku la danmo na .irci
09:37 < gleki> when editing pages
09:38 < _mukti_> gleki: It would be useful, but I think we need to consider the tradeoff in complexity. We've got limited sysadmin resources.
09:38 < _mukti_> xu co'u irci
09:38 < _mukti_> gi'i de'a irci
09:38 < Ilmen> ca so'o da di'a .irci ze'a .i ca so'o drata cu ze'u na .irci
09:39 < _mukti_> ua
09:39 < Ilmen> .i lo barda cu temci lo prula'i nu la danmo cu .irci ku ti
09:39 < gleki> https://www.reddit.com/r/tokipona/comments/3aq7jc/zao_by_djemynai_includes_one_toki_pona_rap_song/
09:39 < gleki> submitted 4 days ago by danmorozgu
09:39 < Ilmen> wa
09:40 < gleki> _mukti_: if you can fix the database error
09:40 < _mukti_> gleki: Which error is that?
09:40 < Ilmen> .i'e na mulno lo ka na jundi lo jbogu'e
09:40 < gleki> mysql error definitely. when saving any page in lmw it says "A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.
09:40 < gleki> "
09:41 < gleki> maybe mysql got broken, idk. cleaning indices might do the trick idk
09:41 < gleki> $ maintenance/rebuildall.php
09:41 < _mukti_> Ah.
09:41 < gleki> but most likely no. something wrong with mysql process itself  probably
09:41 < _mukti_> I'll take a peek at the log
09:47 < la_kristan> gleki: I'm listening to that song you linked...
09:47 < _mukti_> I've started to annotate "lo jbobau cu mo"
09:47 < _mukti_> http://genius.com/Selpahi-lo-jbobau-cu-mo-lyrics/
09:48 < la_kristan> but it's apparently related to "Ca Pa Djedi"
09:48 < gleki> oh that's a website for geniuses only
09:49 < la_kristan> not identical, but very similar...
09:51 < la_kristan> oh, that's a different song, it's just the one that played when I went to the Bandcamp site.
09:54 < la_kristan> I don't understand toki pona very well when it's spoken that fast...
09:56 < gleki> _mukti_: in case you give up pls bug robin about that
09:58 < la_kristan> janl lawa li pakala li pona ala
09:59 < la_kristan> *janl/jan
09:59 < la_kristan> got that right, for sure...
09:59 < la_kristan> he did, that is...
10:00 < la_kristan> afk
10:05 < bigcentaur> .i coi ro do
10:06  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa mukti fa
10:07  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
10:14 < zipcpi> If {canlu} is "at least three dimensional", what is the two-dimensional equivalent?
10:14 < zipcpi> And we probably need something for "space", regardless of dimensionality
10:15 < la_kristan> I made a few toki pona rap lyrics once...
10:16 < la_kristan> but they didn't make any sense, and I can't rap
10:16 < zipcpi> ... wow I really can't find a gismu for two dimensional area
10:16 < zipcpi> This is really weird
10:17 < la_kristan> so the idea (I couldn't really call it a project) never got anywhere.
10:17 < la_kristan> zipcpi: that is weird.
10:17 < gleki> u just used {kramu}
10:17 < gleki> i just used {kramu}
10:18 < _mukti_> gleki: No conspicuous errors in logs, so I'm running the script you indicated
10:18 < la_kristan> I still think pizza deserves its own gismu
10:18 < la_kristan> zo'o
10:18 < zipcpi> gleki: {kramu} is a unit
10:18 < zipcpi> Like {minli}
10:20 < zipcpi> Like "acre" or something, but unlike the strong association of {minli} with miles, I'm not sure what a bare {kramu} should refer to
10:20 < _mukti_> gleki: Didn't fix the problem. Trying now to turn on extended logging.
10:20 < gleki> {canlu} covers both 2D for 2D objects.
10:20 < gleki> imo
10:20 < zipcpi> And maybe it should
10:20 < gleki> _mukti_: that php script should be running for at least one hour.
10:20 < gleki> if it's not then db is broken
10:21 < zipcpi> That would require changing its definition though, and new brivla to specifically refer to dimensionality
10:21 < _mukti_> Oh. Yes it exited fairly quickly. Will try it again with extended logging.
10:22 < gleki> oh hm
10:22 < _mukti_> Aha
10:22 < _mukti_> "Uncommitted DB writes"
10:22 < _mukti_> That's looking suspicious
10:24 < gleki> _mukti_: you may enable debugging by uncommenting "# Debug LMW:" section in LocalSettings.php
10:25 < _mukti_> Looks like the "jobs queue" isn't getting processed
10:25 < _mukti_> Running it manually now
10:25 < _mukti_> It may be that there is a problem which is preventing it from being normally processed, which first slowed the site down and then stopped writes from being allowed altogether
10:26 < _mukti_> There were 10,146 jobs queued
10:27 < gleki> that's not normal
10:27 < _mukti_> No, I can't imagine it is
10:28 < gleki> besides, before it all happened i saw that the search wasnt working fine. i assumed it was due to search indices broken in the db
10:28 < gleki> _mukti_: if this happnes again you can change to "$wgJobRunRate = 0.01;
10:28 < gleki> "
10:29 < _mukti_> I saw that. We may not want that value exactly, but it's worth seeing if we need to change that variable.
10:30 < zipcpi> Heck though, {minli} = "miles" might be about as sketchy as {tirxu} = "tiger"
10:30 < _mukti_> It may be that we need to tweak SELINUX ... I would not be surprised if its disallowing php-fpm to spawn a queue worker
10:31 < zipcpi> Probably better to just make zi'evla for all necessary non-metric units
10:31 < gleki> i repurposed {minli} to just any sbjective long distance
10:32 < zipcpi> zmaile (I've no problem basing it on English pronunciation at this point since it is an English unit...)
10:33 < zipcpi> inci
10:33 < zipcpi> akre
10:33 < zipcpi> etc
10:36 < zipcpi> "pound" is funny though, due to weight-mass ambiguity
10:38 < bigcentaur> weight-mass-money-verb-place-that-dogs-go ambiguity
10:38 < zipcpi> lol
10:40 < bigcentaur> that's a very overtaxed word in english, really
10:41 < bigcentaur> oh god unintentional pun
10:41 < _mukti_> coi la bardykentauru
10:41 < bigcentaur> .i coi
10:48  * zipcpi checks if there is already a zi'evla for "centaur"
10:48 < zipcpi> Yep
10:50 < durka42> coi
10:50  * bigcentaur kucli lo du'u makau zi'evla zo'oi centaur
10:50 < zipcpi> kentauru
10:50 < zipcpi> zo kentauru
10:50 < bigcentaur> ki'e
10:55 < _mukti_> coi la durkavore
10:57 < gleki> _mukti_: aipei mi ce do ca casnu lo nu jbonunsla
10:58 < _mukti_> .a'u mi'o casnu
11:00 < gleki> xu do pu'i tcidu lo mi romoi ke mriste se benji
11:00 < _mukti_> ie mo'u ru'e tcidu
11:01 < _mukti_> Do both "na gi'a" and "gi'a nai" negate the following term?
11:02 < Latro__> no; na gi'a negates on the left, gi'a nai on the right
11:03 < zipcpi> Hmm... makes it have funny interaction with that proposal about the scope of {na}
11:03 < durka42> nah it doesn't affect that
11:04 < durka42> {nagi'a} is just considered a connective
11:04 < latro`a> indeed
11:04 < _mukti_> Latro__: ki'e
11:04 < durka42> <term> nagi'a <term> == ga naku <term> gi <term>
11:04 < latro`a> similarly naku is its own construct
11:04 < latro`a> which just happens to be build out of two words for no particularly important reason
11:05 < zipcpi> Does {naku} negate only to the right of it, or the entire bridi?
11:05 < gleki> _mukti_: i do jinvi ma pe lo nu jbonunsla i xu naku lo nu xaksu lo jdini tezu'e lo nu vecnu CLL cu zmadu xamgu
11:05 < ctefaho> I was just told it negates all to the right
11:05 < latro`a> connectives aside, it's all to the right
11:06 < latro`a> but multi-bridi sentences as well as multi-bridi-tail sentences complicate matters
11:06 < zipcpi> I think scope of embedded bridi only stay in the bridi, right?
11:06 < latro`a> note that because we use constant terms so frequently, "negates to the right" means less in lojban than it does in english
11:07 < latro`a> with no outer quantifier (note that da always has one, even if we don't write it), a term commutes with naku
11:07 < latro`a> er, except for a tag-term
11:08  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
11:09 < latro`a> (maybe not? I forget what was agreed upon wrt tags and naku)
11:09 < gleki> .dict yard
11:09 < fenki> yard — noun: 1. A small, usually uncultivated area adjoining or (now especially) within the precincts of a house or other building (Wikipedia), 2. An enclosed area designated for a specific purpose, e.g. on farms, railways etc — verb: 1. (trans.) To confine to a yard
11:09 < latro`a> (I just stopped using it myself)
11:09 < latro`a> er, stopped using them together
11:09 < _mukti_> gleki: pe'i vajmau fa cylyly .i ku'i ma'a na bilga lo nu sarji cylyly po'o .i pe'i na xaksu fa lo nu sarji lo jbonunsla
11:09 < gleki> cylyly boi po'o
11:09 < gleki> exp: cylyly  po'o
11:09 < mensi> ([{cy ly <ly po'o>} BOI] VAU)
11:10 < zipcpi> ma smuni u'i
11:10 < gleki> Complete Lojban (Language Only)
11:10 < latro`a> exp: cy ly ly boi po'o
11:10 < mensi> ([{cy ly ly} {boi po'o}] VAU)
11:10 < latro`a> *sigh*
11:10 < _mukti_> ua
11:10 < latro`a> that lack of vu'o for UI...
11:11 < gleki> zipcpi: since when "yard" is a US unit?
11:11 < gleki> _mukti_: uanai i ma na xaksu i xu lo jbonunsla na xaksu lo jdini pe LLG
11:11 < latro`a> exp: fu'e cy ly ly fu'o po'o
11:11 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
11:12 < latro`a> why doesn't that one work?
11:12 < latro`a> (I'm rusty)
11:12 < zipcpi> gleki: Since they coopted and standardized it. Those units are hardly used in Britain anymore :p
11:12 < gleki> exp: fu'e po'o cy ly ly fu'o
11:12 < mensi> ([fu'e po'o] [{cy ly <ly fu'o>} BOI] VAU)
11:12 < gleki> let's see
11:12 < latro`a> I see
11:13 < latro`a> except why does fu'o attach by word?
11:13 < zipcpi> It originated from Britain, but they don't use it anymore, nor did they standardize it
11:13 < latro`a> exp: fu'e po'o cy ly ly boi fu'o
11:13 < mensi> ([fu'e po'o] [{cy ly ly} {boi fu'o}] VAU)
11:13 < latro`a> that's weird
11:13 < latro`a> fu'e should create a paren in the parse tree
11:13 < _mukti_> .i pe'i lo jbonunusla cu zabna je cmalu po'o ke xaksu
11:14 < _mukti_> .i vajni fa lo nu lo jbopre cu penmi simxu
11:14 < zipcpi> After all there are differences between the US ounce and the British ounce (or something like that?) but I'd argue that the US one is more relevant to the modern world, since the US is one of the only few countries that still officially use those units :p
11:14 < _mukti_> .i mi zanru lo nu la lojbangirzu cu sarji lo nu go'i
11:15 < gleki> indicators = expr:(FUhE_clause? indicator+) {return _node("indicators", expr); }
11:16 < gleki> so indicator must be present
11:16 < gleki> and indeed, if not then why use fu'e?
11:16 < latro`a> that part's fair, I just put the indicator at the wrong end
11:16 < gleki> because
11:16 < gleki> indicator =  expr:((UI_clause / CAI_clause) NAI_clause? / NAI_clause / DAhO_clause / FUhO_clause) !BU_clause {return _node("indicator", expr); }
11:17 < gleki> so fu'e ... fu'o actually doesnt exist in PEG
11:17 < latro`a> that's actually kinda lame
11:17 < gleki> there arent any brackets there
11:17 < latro`a> you see why this would be desirable, if only for po'o
11:17 < latro`a> yes?
11:18 < gleki> another issue: https://github.com/Ilmen-vodhr/ilmentufa/issues/116
11:18 < gleki> in short: bracketing doesnt work for any lojban parsers. it's all handwaving.
11:18 < latro`a> :(
11:18 < latro`a> but it doesn't exist in the tree, either
11:19 < latro`a> apparently
11:19 < latro`a> if it's impossible to linearly display the parse tree, that's fine
11:19 < latro`a> language is hard
11:19 < latro`a> but the "bracket" should be in the tree in some sense
11:19 < zipcpi> ma smuni lu <cy ly ly po'o> li'u .i xu simsa lu <cy ly ly jenai cy ly xy jenai cy ly joibu> li'u
11:20 < latro`a> I'd say it's garbage really; how can you try to uniquely quantify over a symbol used for an identifier
11:20 < zipcpi> Exactly
11:20 < latro`a> there is plenty of such garbage
11:20 < gleki> i can only suggest postprocessor for now
11:20 < zipcpi> ma'oi ui uinai
11:21 < gleki> the same for scope. a postprocessor for it.
11:21 < zipcpi> ma'oi ui plixau jeku'icu sko'opu mabla
11:22 < gleki> i have no clue how to process fu'e ... fu'o brackets in PEG. It would require putting any fragment of Lojban text in between.
11:23 < latro`a> that's fair
11:23 < latro`a> honestly we very rarely want that except wiith po'o
11:26 < gleki> so the current UI-like solution is the only thing we can have.
11:27 < gleki> a postprocessor would just create a separate layer showing the scope of fu'e ... fu'o
11:28 < gleki> hm, seems like no two fu'e ... fu'o scopes can intersect
11:28 < zipcpi> Yes, which might be a problem
11:28 < gleki> e.g. {fu'e ... fu'e ... fu'o} stop! Which one have we just terminated?
11:29 < latro`a> er
11:29 < latro`a> why would that be a problem?
11:29 < latro`a> that's not a problem for abstractors
11:29 < latro`a> you go back to the nearest one
11:29  * gleki de'a
11:29 < zipcpi> Because fu'e/fu'o is supposed to be able to create arbitrary scope for UI
11:30 < zipcpi> But now it can't be arbitrary when intersecting with other fu'e/fu'o
11:30 < latro`a> I don't understand, why can't the fu'o just look back to the previous fu'e (at least if you're willing to use a postprocessor)
11:31 < zipcpi> Ok... take {fu'e ... fu'e ... fu'o ... fu'o}
11:31 < latro`a> then you get (fu'e (fu'e fu'o) fu'o)
11:31 < zipcpi> Currently it's {<fu'e ... [fu'e ... fu'o] ... fu'o>}
11:31 < latro`a> it's actually not
11:31 < latro`a> not in the parser
11:31 < latro`a> that's the whole complaint I was voicing
11:31 < zipcpi> What if you want {<fu'e ... [fu'e ... fu'o> ... fu'o]}
11:32 < latro`a> that's purely in a semantic layer
11:32 < zipcpi> True
11:32 < latro`a> why would you want that anyway?
11:32 < zipcpi> I don't know lol
11:32 < latro`a> you somehow have something that applies to a block, and something that applies to a subblock of that block and also some more unrelated stuff
11:33 < latro`a> I see your concern but I don't think that's actually a problem
11:33 < ctefaho> gleki: how do I delete this wiki page http://mw.lojban.org/papri/srfsts
11:34 < zipcpi> What's even more mabla is how UI scope over one another. I have some ideas, as well as {toi'e} and {koi'e}, but I'm still not sure how UI1 and UI2 are supposed to interact
11:35 < zipcpi> Also subscripts; {xi} might need a famyma'o, either that or its interaction with {boi} changed
11:37  * la_kristan returns from correcting exercises at lernu.net
11:38  * la_kristan think Esperanto looks more annoyingly ambiguous than it did before.
11:42 < zipcpi> doi latro'a: Yeah I surrender on that for now; I only brought it up because Gleki brought it up. If I ever do come across some crazy case that requires overllapping fu'e-s I'll let you know :p
11:54  * nuzba @uitki: new-fi'o - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o by Ctefaho [http://bit.ly/1LuRIIU]
12:07  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
12:14 < zipcpi> By the way has the defininition of {ju'onai} changed? Is it just {ju'o naku}?
12:14 < zipcpi> It'd be great if {ju'onai} can replace {nai'o}
12:15  * zipcpi checks BPFK
12:23  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
12:27 < la_kristan> The toki pona Google group has been inactive since 2013
12:27 < la_kristan> .uinai
12:29 < la_kristan> and the group "lojhbanistoj" has one thread, which was last updated in 2011
12:30 < la_kristan> "consists of one thread" might be more accurate...
12:33 < zipcpi> cu'u BPFK: Attitudinal modifier. Used to express impossibility {MORE DETAILS}. This word comprises a scale, along with "OTHER1" and "OTHER2". See also OTHER1, OTHER2, the preface.
12:33 < zipcpi> Sure that clears things up xo'ozo'o :p
12:34 < Ilmen> zipcpi: The BPFK definitions are almost all complete, but there are a few one (at least a few attitudinal modifiers like {ro'u}) that still are stubs
12:34 < Ilmen> like this one
12:34 < Ilmen> coi
12:35 < zipcpi> coi
12:36 < zipcpi> My adding glosses to {ju'ocu'i} was one of my first zbusufukai actions way back when lol
12:40 < gleki> ctefaho: in the upper toolbar press "..." button and see a menu
12:40 < gleki> as for fu'e ... fu'o yes, it's a semantic layer and i want hyperPEG to mark it.
12:41 < gleki> well, it's also a syntactic layer in some way since we consider scoping a syntactic thing.
12:41 < zipcpi> Or maybe {ju'oi} is better; avoids the "implicit negative" of {nai'o}, even though it'd take one more syllable to say "I don't know the answer to that question"
12:41 < zipcpi> {ju'oinai}
12:42 < Ilmen> en: ju'onai
12:42 < mensi> ju'onai = [UI*5] attitudinal modifier: certainty - uncertainty - impossibility. |>>>
12:42 < mensi> officialdata
12:42 < Ilmen> ua
12:42 < zipcpi> Yeah ju'o/ju'onai runs along a different continuum to the one I want
12:43 < Ilmen> I've been using for a while ju'onai for {sei to'e birti}
12:43 < Ilmen> as proposed by selpahi
12:43 < zipcpi> Didn't know selpa'i proposed that
12:44 < zipcpi> Yeah seems ma'oste - ju'onai is better expressed as {ju'o naku}
12:44 < zipcpi> I'm sure this is false
12:44 < zipcpi> "I'm sure this is false"
12:44 < Ilmen> je'e .u'i
12:45 < Ilmen> The absence of quote mark was confusing here
12:45 < zipcpi> je'u
12:46  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa gunro fa
12:48 < la_kristan> when did I get disconnected??
12:48 < zipcpi> ju'oi makau catra la .tom. / ju'oinai makau catra la .tom. / ju'oi la .meris. cu catra la .tom.
12:48 < zipcpi> Last one is very close to {ju'o} but might have a subtle difference, being based off {djuno} rather than {birti}
12:49 < zipcpi> ma catra la .tom. / ju'oinai
12:53 < Ilmen> rafsi: xarnu
12:53 < mensi> zo'oi xarn rafsi zo xarnu
12:54 < Ilmen> .u'i lu mi ku'i xarnymau lo xarju li'u pagbu lo selsku pe la'au ko cikna li'u
12:55 < zipcpi> la'au ko cikna li'u mo
12:55 < Ilmen> .i lo panra selsku cu pagbu lo fasybau
12:55 < Ilmen> .i selsa'a doi la zipcpi
12:56 < zipcpi> mi xarnymau le'e xarju jo'au CyLyLy
13:00 < zipcpi> mi puzi te reisku tu'a la gadganzu
13:00 < zipcpi> bu'u la .redit.
13:03 < zipcpi> xy'y da'i lo mema'oi ui moi poi sinxa lo si'o kesri
13:03 < Ilmen> en: kesri
13:03 < mensi> kesri = x1 is a stereotype of x2 (ka/si'o), held by x3 |>>> ctefaho
13:03 < zipcpi> zo ka'u mapti ru'eru'e
13:03 < Ilmen> en: lemkai
13:03 < mensi> lemkai [< le'e ckaji ≈ The stereotypical property] = x1 is a stereotypical representative of property x2 |>>>
13:03 < mensi> Ilmen
13:04 < zipcpi> mi xarnymau lo'e ka'u xarju
13:06 < zipcpi> "I'm more stubborn than the proverbial pig"
13:06 < zipcpi> zo'oi proverbial
13:06 < zipcpi> simsa zo ka'u pei
13:07 < Ilmen> cum'
13:07 < zipcpi> ta'i ma bacru zo'oi cum' u'i
13:08 < Ilmen> sa'u cumki .u'i
13:09 < zipcpi> mi xa'o djuno
13:11 < zipcpi> mi nelci lu <ru'e ru'e> li'u .i ku'i mi na birti lo du'u xukau malrarbauxlu .i simsa zoizoi <sikit-sikit> zoi pe lo mejbau
13:14 < Ilmen> su da stidi lo du lu ru'e sai li'u maptymau
13:15 < zipcpi> oi sko'opu do'e ma'oi ui
13:15 < zipcpi> .y. do'e ji'a ma'oi cai
13:16 < Ilmen> exp: .yrli
13:16 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "y" found.
13:16 < zipcpi> exp: rli
13:16 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "r" found.
13:17 < Ilmen> mi na sanji su krinu be lodu gau do lo depybu'i zo .y se la'erli'e
13:17 < Ilmen> seju la'irli'e
13:18 < Ilmen> seju li'erla'i .oi
13:18 < Ilmen> malvla
13:19 < Ilmen> .e'u se'i ru'e finti zo lidlami
13:20 < zipcpi> u'i
13:21 < Ilmen> la'a zo linlami cu xamgu zmadu toltce
13:21 < zipcpi> lu <mi na sanji su krinu be lodu gau do lo depybu'i zo .y se la'erli'e> li'u .y. tcaci mi
13:22 < zipcpi> .i .y. tcaci mi
13:22 < Ilmen> .i ji'a ra'oi lin co'e zo linsi .i na to'e mapti lo si'o porsi
13:22 < zipcpi> u'i
13:22 < la_kristan> I tried to download the Alice in Wonderland translation as a PDF, using FireFox.  It didn't work.
13:23 < la_kristan> do you know if there is a pdf of it available anywhere?
13:23 < Ilmen> Maybe it's only readable when one's near a rabbit hole
13:23 < zipcpi> ... gleki: Why does your def for {pevna} remind me of Curtis?
13:23 < la_kristan> reading books online is not practical for me.
13:23 < zipcpi> What does "dimension" even mean?
13:24 < Ilmen> ri selsmu makau
13:24 < zipcpi> "x1 : its qualities are represented as a metaphor x2 in dimension x3+1, 2"
13:24 < la_kristan> Ilmen; I'm near a lot of rabbit holes; I live in Colorado!
13:24 < zipcpi> backformed from pe'a
13:24 < Ilmen> je'e
13:25 < la_kristan> the yard is full of rabbit holes.
13:25 < Ilmen> ja'o na krinu
13:25 < la_kristan> but they don't help me in this situation
13:26 < zipcpi> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake
13:26 < la_kristan> or in any situation that I know of...
13:26 < zipcpi> Hmm... {mojbake}? {samsregafle'u}?
13:27 < cliva> mo jbake
13:27 < zipcpi> oi
13:27 < zipcpi> cmojibake
13:27 < Ilmen> mo luska
13:28 < zipcpi> sefta nisku
13:28 < Ilmen> We should change Lojban's terminology from "tosmabru" to "moluska"
13:28 < Ilmen> zo'o
13:28 < zipcpi> Yeah what does tosmabru even mean lol
13:29 < Ilmen> okay, doesn't work; tos- really looks like a short rafsi that could be appended to a gismu
13:29 < zipcpi> Well part of it is that {tosmabru} looks like a lujvo
13:30 < zipcpi> Thus demonstrating that both lujvo and zi'evla can fall into that trap
13:30  * la_kristan tries again...
13:30 < zipcpi> While only zi'evla can be slinku'i
13:31 < zipcpi> nisku = $x_1$ is a bird that swims in the ocean of the Antarctic; then make {sfenisku} a cimjvo. There problem solved zo'o
13:32 < zipcpi> vlaste: nisku (gimka)
13:32 < vlaste> zo nisku gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo nisku gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
13:32 < zipcpi> xu zo gimka gimy'inda
13:32 < durka42> whoa, you found one :p
13:33 < zipcpi> Found what? :p
13:33 < durka42> a gismu that doesn't conflict with any other ones
13:33 < zipcpi> lol
13:33 < durka42> this shortcut is a problem, heh
13:33 < durka42> since *{gimka} _does_ collide
13:33 < durka42> but we are going to start saying it anyway...
13:33 < la_kristan> works even worse than before; maybe if I used my laptop instead of my phone...
13:33 < zipcpi> vlaste: gimka (gimka)
13:33 < vlaste> zo gimka gimkamsmikezypro zo ginka noi catni gismu .i zo gimka gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
13:35 < zipcpi> I would just shorten it to gimsmipro or gimpro. Maybe even gimjanli but that's somewhat metaphorical
13:35 < durka42> gimpro is probably fine
13:35 < durka42> well actually gimpro might mean "x1 jinvi lo du'u x2 na gimy'inda" .u'i
13:35 < zipcpi> u'i
13:36 < durka42> I wonder if krtis knows that people are actually using his lujvo
13:37 < rutytar> coi
13:37 < durka42> coi
13:38  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa gunro fa
13:38 < zipcpi> I think I'd use {gimpante} for that :p
13:38 < zipcpi> <MI BA'E PANTE>
13:39 < durka42> zo gimkamsmikezypro gimy'inda iepei doi la mensi
13:39 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
13:41 < rutytar> what's the difference between {mi djicu nu klama lo zarci} and {mi djicu lo nu klama lo zarchi}?
13:41 < rutytar> *zarci
13:42 < zipcpi> *djica
13:42 < rutytar> right
13:42 < zipcpi> First one makes a tanru... and probably doesn't mean what you want
13:42 < zipcpi> You see, {nu} (and the rest of selma'o NU) embeds a sub-clause and turns into a selbri, which acts just like a brivla
13:43 < zipcpi> So {mi djica nu klama lo zarci} = I am a wanting type-of event-of going to the market
13:44 < zipcpi> Which is... nonsense :p
13:44 < la_kristan> so now it's saved as an html file on my computer... I wonder if, if I transferred it to my phone, it would work?
13:44 < rutytar> okay. that explanation makes much more sense than i thought it would
13:45 < rutytar> i'o
13:45 < zipcpi> {mi djica lo nu klama lo zarci} = I want an-event-of (going to the market) / I want "going to the market" to happen
13:45 < zipcpi> This does not say though, who you want to go to the market
13:45 < zipcpi> It could be you, it could be someone else
13:46 < durka42> (though in the absence of other context it probably implies that it's you)
13:46 < zipcpi> To make it clear that it's you, you have two choices
13:46 < Ilmen> mi djica lo nu klama = I want that [somebody unspecified] go(es)
13:46 < zipcpi> Either place {mi} before {klama}, or replace {nu} with {ka}
13:47 < zipcpi> I like referring to this when talking about nu vs ka: http://imgur.com/Uh7Nm44
13:47 < rutytar> why does replacing {nu} with {ka} change the specification of who it's referring to?
13:48 < zipcpi> ka is a property abstraction, and works much like English infinitives
13:48 < rutytar> but why does it automatically apply to the speaker?
13:49 < rutytar> couldn't you possibly want the property of going to the store to apply to someone else?
13:49 < zipcpi> It doesn't. ka works with a special pronoun called {ce'u}, that indicates the what the property applies to
13:49 < Ilmen> I'd say it doesn't necessarily. I'd use kaidji for more safety
13:50 < zipcpi> lol
13:50 < Ilmen> sorry, was replying to something earlier
13:50 < la_kristan> yay! it works now!
13:50 < rutytar> i understood
13:50 < rutytar> i'a
13:51 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Then {kai'aidji} for the {aidji} equivalent? lol
13:51 < Ilmen> .aidji2 is already a ka
13:51 < zipcpi> Right... doesn't make sense otherwise I suppose
13:51 < la_kristan> now if only I could read it; my vocab's pretty sparse :-(
13:51 < zipcpi> What did you download?
13:52 < Ilmen> ro nu troci cu rinka lo nu certu zenba
13:52 < la_kristan> the translation of Alice in Wonderland.
13:52 < zipcpi> ua
13:52 < Ilmen> Just remember that ractu = to be a rabbit :)
13:53 < zipcpi> And don't confuse it with ratcu :p
13:53 < la_kristan> I tried to do it with my phone, but it didn't work.
13:53 < rutytar> do what?
13:53 < la_kristan> zipcpi: u'i
13:54 < la_kristan> download the page, with FireFox.
13:54 < rutytar> ah
13:54 < la_kristan> so I did it on my laptop and transferred it to my phone.
13:55 < la_kristan> ractu - ratcu... barja - bajra...
13:56 < Ilmen> jibni - jbini
13:56 < Ilmen> (this ohe gave me trouble)
13:56 < Ilmen> *one
13:56 < latro`a> jbini has the bi- sound
13:56 < la_kristan> .i lo ractu cu bajra .ije lo ratcu cu barja
13:56 < latro`a> which is shared with "between"
13:56 < latro`a> that helped me
13:56 < zipcpi> The rafsi jbi doesn't help
13:56 < Ilmen> go'i
13:56 < latro`a> yikes
13:56 < latro`a> didn't even notice that
13:57 < latro`a> :(
13:57 < la_kristan> what?
13:57 < rutytar> speaking of which… who should i email about the arabic etymology?
13:57 < la_kristan> no clue.
13:57 < Ilmen> Maybe Lojbab?
13:57 < rutytar> that's what i'd heard
13:57 < rutytar> does anyone have an email?
13:58 < Ilmen> anyone has, indeed
13:58 < Ilmen> lojbab@lojban.org
13:58 < rutytar> i'o
13:59 < la_kristan> Lojban is a troublesome language for slightly dyslexic individuals like myself
13:59 < la_kristan> but then, other languages aren't much better.
13:59 < rutytar> is John Cowan still active?
14:00 < Ilmen> Less so since several months, but I think you can reach him via mail
14:00 < Ilmen> @ rutyta
14:00 < Ilmen> r
14:00 < la_kristan> vlaste: jibni
14:00 < vlaste> jibni = x1 is near/close to/approximates x2 in property/quantity x3 (ka/ni).
14:01 < la_kristan> vlaste: jbini
14:01 < vlaste> jbini = x1 is between/among set of points/bounds/limits x2 (set)/amidst mass x2 in property x3 (ka).
14:01 < _mukti_> rutytar: What about the arabic etymology? .a'u sai
14:01 < zipcpi> The meanings are even similar lol
14:01 < la_kristan> jep
14:01 < rutytar> when i started learning lojban one of my roommates mentioned that he's been friends with John since highschool
14:02 < Ilmen> ue
14:02 < la_kristan> oops! I meant yep.
14:02 < rutytar> _mukti_: i want them. i found all of them except the arabic
14:02 < la_kristan> too much Esperanto for me...
14:02 < la_kristan> I'm forgetting how to spell!
14:03 < zipcpi> lol et list aim not speling laik dis iet
14:03 < rutytar> i've heard that they exist in hard copy, i've been trying to find them
14:04 < la_kristan> I noticed that "vajni" is a Russian word.
14:04  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa niftyg fa
14:04 < Ilmen> pu zi ze'i sai voksnu do'e la .mambl.
14:04 < zipcpi> ai did haev a pyrsynyl aidiiy for inglic speling riform thou aend it iz cliiyrli beizd oen lojban
14:05 < zipcpi> Er kliiyrli
14:05 < la_kristan> zipcpi; well, that's legible, I think.
14:05 < ctefaho> "viska" in swedish sounds and is spelled pretty much exactly the same but means something very different
14:05 < Ilmen> .ai mi dotybau tinju'i .i co'o ru'e
14:05 < ctefaho> ((to) whisper)
14:06 < ctefaho> and has the stress in the same place ;o
14:06 < zipcpi> There are two false-friend gismu I know of between Lojban and Malay
14:06 < zipcpi> {cinta} and {ganti}
14:07 < la_kristan> vlaste: santa
14:07 < vlaste> santa = x1 is an umbrella/parasol shielding x2 from x3, made of material x4, supported by x5.
14:07 < la_kristan> lol
14:07 < rutytar> lojbab's name is Bob?
14:07 < zipcpi> Malay cat - cinta - prami Lojban
14:08 < zipcpi> Malay ??? - ganti - basti Lojban
14:08 < la_kristan> there's a false friend for you - santa doesn't mean umbrella in English or Spanish!
14:08 < zipcpi> Right lol
14:08 < _mukti_> rutytar: Darn. I thought you might have compiled them. :)
14:09 < la_kristan> yeah, his name's Bob. rutytar
14:09 < rutytar> i've considered it, but it seems like tracking down records is more efficient
14:09 < zipcpi> {kokso}?
14:09 < rutytar> i'll mention in the email that there are a few other people interested in them as well
14:10 < la_kristan> */./,
14:11 < _mukti_> rutytar: You have the lojbanized versions from the finprims document?
14:11 < rutytar> yeah, but it's not very easy
14:11 < _mukti_> Agreed. My understanding is that muplis manually researched and reconstructed the others.
14:11 < _mukti_> I don't think there are records.
14:12 < rutytar> i tried manually converting using google translate, but i still average about 5 a minute. that's still about 5 hours of labor i'm not keen on doing considering the likelihood of error anyway
14:12 < rutytar> 4 hours, i guess
14:12 < zipcpi> Hey I noticed an error on the Esperanto definition of {xaksu}
14:13 < rutytar> muplis is where i got the others from.
14:13 < zipcpi> {fesxaksu} got autoconverted to feŝaksu lol
14:13 < rutytar> i guess if we divide the labor it wouldn't be so bad, but i'd rather just ask lojbab first
14:14 < zipcpi> Hm need a word for "abuse"
14:15 < rutytar> malku'i?
14:15 < _mukti_> Let me know what you learn. I'd be willing to work on that with you, even if we have to do it the hard way.
14:15 < rutytar> i'o
14:16 < rutytar> do you have an email?
14:19 < la_kristan> oo, x-system autoconversion is always messing up words in other languages!
14:19 < la_kristan> linux = linŭ ; thx = tĥ ; ktp
14:21 < la_kristan> but thx isn't really a word anyway.
14:21 < zipcpi> Well I defined both {malpli} and {malku'i}, because both are useful for "abuse" in different contexts
14:23 < ctefaho> hey jbopre
14:23 < ctefaho> what slik and lean lujvo would capture the semantics of zo xa'o best?
14:23 < la_kristan> no clue :-P
14:24 < ctefaho> basically "already"
14:24 < zipcpi> lol za'o is defined based on faurza'o
14:24 < zipcpi> But xa'o has no rafsi
14:24 < zipcpi> It's already the rafsi of {xampo}
14:24 < zipcpi> Someone defined {faunxa'o} anyway though
14:24 < ctefaho> hack
14:24 < ctefaho> i want a real lujvo
14:24 < zipcpi> lol
14:25 < la_kristan> I'll have to go soon; got partyin' to do!
14:25 < niftg> .ua zo vasxu zo'u zo'oi vaŝu te galfi
14:25 < zipcpi> I don't see what's so great about lujvo though; all it is is a shortened and defined tanru
14:26 < la_kristan> ŝŝŝ
14:26 < la_kristan> sxsxsx
14:26 < ctefaho> is real jbovalsi
14:27 < zipcpi> zi'evla are too
14:27 < ctefaho> hisss
14:28 < la_kristan> someone was probably using Tajpi or EK, and didn't notice that the Xs got converted.
14:30 < zipcpi> What does za'o/xa'o even tag anyway
14:31 < la_kristan> .и ми на джуно
14:31 < zipcpi> i mi na djuno?
14:31 < la_kristan> .и ху до жимпе
14:31 < niftg> .ua la'oi Tajpi cu sperybau samci'a tutci
14:32 < niftg> lu .i xu do jimpe li'u
14:32 < zipcpi> mi certu ru'esai lo ka tcidu lo drata lerci'e
14:32 < la_kristan> :-)
14:33 < niftg> .i'o
14:33 < la_kristan> vlaste: tutci
14:33 < vlaste> tutci = x1 is a tool/utensil/resource/instrument/implement used for doing x2; [form determines function].
14:34 < la_kristan> Tajpi- klavarili por Esperantistoj
14:34 < la_kristan> */klavarili/klavarilo
14:35 < niftg> zo'oi -tci- noi jborafsi cu simsa zo'oi -il-
14:35 < ctefaho> zipcpi: pe'i if a lojban cmavo has a semantic meaning it deserves to exist in the language
14:36 < ctefaho> unlike the CAhA...mess
14:36 < la_kristan> stulsssta telefono
14:37 < la_kristan> my phone isn't working very well...
14:38 < la_kristan> I'll have to restart it.
14:38 < la_kristan> and I've got partying to do, anyhow.
14:39 < la_kristan> co'o rodo
14:39 < ctefaho> also FAhA for everyone http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o
14:39  * ctefaho co'orino
15:01  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
15:09 < _mukti_> gleki: I cleared the jobs queue and was able to submit an edit
15:09 < _mukti_> I'll keep an eye on the queue so it doesn't get backed up again
15:23 < zipcpi> vlaste: dumdu (gimka)
15:23 < vlaste> zo dumdu gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo dumdu gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
15:29 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i gi fa'u mi gi do klama lo zarcu fa'u zdani
15:29 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:29 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i gi fa'u mi gi do klama lo zarcu fa'u lo zdani
15:29 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:30 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i fa'u gi mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:30 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:30 < noncomcinse> camxes: *exp .i gi fa'u mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:30 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [.\t\n\r?! ] but "*" found.
15:30 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i fa'u ge mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:30 < camxes> (i fa'u [{ge mi gi do} CU] [klama {<lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:30 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i fa'u ge mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:30 < camxes> (i fa'u [{ge mi gi do} CU] [klama {<lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:31 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i je gi mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:31 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:31 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i je ga mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:31 < camxes> (i je [{ga mi gi do} CU] [klama {<lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:31 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i je gu mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:31 < camxes> (i je [{gu mi gi do} CU] [klama {<lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:31 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp .i je ga mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:31 < camxes> (i je [ga mi gi do] [CU {klama <lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:31 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp .i je gu mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:31 < camxes> (i je [gu mi gi do] [CU {klama <lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:32 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i ga je mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:32 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:32 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp .i ga je mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:32 < camxes> (i [{ga je} mi gi do] [CU {klama <lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:32 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp .i gu je mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:32 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:32 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp .i lo gu je me mi gi me do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:32 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:33 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp .i gu je klama gi zarci
15:33 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:33 < noncomcinse> camxes: .i ga fa'u mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:33 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "z" found.
15:33 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp .i ga je mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:33 < camxes> (i [{ga je} mi gi do] [CU {klama <lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:33 < noncomcinse> camxes: +exp .i ga fa'u mi gi do klama lo zarci fa'u lo zdani
15:33 < camxes> (i [{ga fa'u} mi gi do] [CU {klama <lo zarci KU> <fa'u (¹lo zdani KU¹)>} VAU])
15:33 < noncomcinse> ki'e .camxes.
15:36 < noncomcinse> What's the classical way to do {fa'u} forethought?
15:37 < zipcpi> Warning: Testing lo nunbauspo be la selpa'i:
15:37 < zipcpi> exp: gafa'u ko'a gi ko'e
15:37 < mensi> ([{ga fa'u} ko'a gi ko'e] VAU)
15:37 < zipcpi> ... not sure that worked
15:37 < zipcpi> exp: gafa'u ko'a gi ko'e cu brode
15:37 < mensi> ([{ga fa'u} ko'a gi ko'e] [cu {brode VAU}])
15:38 < noncomcinse> ga fa'u is right
15:38 < zipcpi> Seems so
15:38 < zipcpi> exp: gaje ko'a gi ko'e cu brode
15:38 < mensi> ([{ga je} ko'a gi ko'e] [cu {brode VAU}])
15:39 < noncomcinse> Because la selpa'i proposed ga <any connective> for all-but-tanru fore
15:39 < zipcpi> off: gafa'u ko'a gi ko'e cu brode
15:39 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
15:39 < zipcpi> je'u
15:39 < noncomcinse> and gu <connective> for tanru-fore
15:39 < noncomcinse> exp: gu je broda gi brode
15:39 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
15:39 < noncomcinse> or at least I thought
15:39 < zipcpi> Hm not sure if that gu has been implemented
15:40 < zipcpi> Apparently not
15:40 < noncomcinse> But I recall a classical jbobau way for forethought with illogical connectivrs
15:40 < zipcpi> off: ju'egifa'u ko'a gi ko'e cu brode
15:40 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
15:40 < zipcpi> No...
15:40 < zipcpi> off: gifa'u ko'a gi ko'e cu brode
15:40 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
15:41 < zipcpi> Tsk tsk
15:41 < akmnlrse> camxes has a bug here
15:41 < akmnlrse> probably !gihek should come before joik_jek in whatever sub-rule of "text" it's in
15:42 < akmnlrse> .i je ca zo'u .ei mi sipna co'o
15:42 < akmnlrse> gerna: fa'u gi ti gi ta
15:42 < mensi> (0[{<fa'u gi> ti gi ta} VAU])0
15:42 < zipcpi> ua
15:42 < zipcpi> off: fa'ugi ko'a gi ko'e cu brode
15:42 < mensi> ([{<fa'u gi> ko'a gi ko'e} cu] [brode VAU])
15:43 < akmnlrse> ... or not
15:43  * akmnlrse bed
15:43 < zipcpi> u'xi
15:57 < clakre> in everything I've read about FA so far, nothing has explained what "da cu brode de fa do" would do to da and de.
15:57 < zipcpi> It's one of those silly corner cases that no one has bothered to define yet
15:57 < zipcpi> Although there are attempts
15:58 < clakre> I could swear I'd seen it used in a ZA'O song
15:58 < zipcpi> I think the consensus being something like {da .e do brode de}
15:59 < noncomcinse> Why not just nagendra?
15:59 < zipcpi> The parser works based on selma'o
15:59 < noncomcinse> je'e
16:00 < zipcpi> You'd need a semantic parser to throw things out as nonsense
16:00  * clakre will try understanding it that way (da .e do brode de)
16:00 < noncomcinse> Fair.
16:01 < noncomcinse> de'a jundi fa mi di'a lo na te djuno
16:01 < ctefaho> it is called undefined behaviour
16:01 < ctefaho> welcome to jbobau
16:03 < ctefaho> just cross your fingers and hope it works:)
16:13 < ctefaho> zipcpi: it seems that what you want for your nested abstractions are ce'ai
16:14 < ctefaho> no wait that was for ce'u only
16:15 < ctefaho> and thus, ke'au was born
16:17 < zipcpi> ... how would that even work?
16:17 < ctefaho> "ke'au - Performs magic stuff to fix nested constructs"
16:18  * ctefaho runs to jbovlaste
16:18 < zipcpi> ...
16:19 < zipcpi> What would the prenex even look like?
16:19 < zipcpi> I don't think it works
16:19 < zipcpi> What is its syntax?
16:19 < ctefaho> makfa
16:19 < ctefaho> li'a
16:20 < zipcpi> Then it shouldn't be added to JVS
16:20 < ctefaho> makfa!
16:20 < zipcpi> Sorry, no, that isn't a sufficient answer to how to solve ke'a-suffixing
16:21  * ctefaho puts on his robe and his wizard hat
16:21 < zipcpi> Not to mention you haven't solves no'a-suffixing
16:21 < ctefaho> I swing my wand, to fix your semantics. ke'au does magic, without any antics.
16:22 < zipcpi> I'm serious. We don't even know what selma'o it should be
16:23 < ctefaho> The ke'a points back, and the sky turns black. Yet they still ask, will you fix *my* hack?
16:23 < zipcpi> Stop it
16:23 < ctefaho> never
16:24 < zipcpi> I'll mute you
16:24 < ctefaho> :(
16:24  * ctefaho takes off his robe and his wizard hat
16:24 < ctefaho> The ke'a still points back, the makfa is black
16:25  * ctefaho sisti
16:26  * nuzba @RosstinMurphy: "Before I teach you this new programming language, first I'm going to teach you Lojban so you can properly comprehend it." [http://bit.ly/1QWi1MA]
16:32 < _mukti_> Sadly, that tweet is describing that as a negative case. .u'i
16:33 < zipcpi> What kind of programming language is he even talking about anyway?
16:33 < _mukti_> He
16:33 < _mukti_> Scala, apparently.
16:33 < zipcpi> "Have the best of both worlds. Construct elegant class hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility, implement their behavior using higher-order functions. Or anything in-between."
16:33 < zipcpi> oh my gosh
16:33 < noncomcinse> ke'au?
16:34 < noncomcinse> en: ce'ai
16:34 < mensi> ce'ai = [ZOhU] lambda variable prenex; marks the end of introduction of lambda-scope variables. |>>> Cf. zo'u. In effect
16:34 < mensi> this word is used as a shortcut around verbose repeated assignment in a ka prenex: lo ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e ...
16:34 < mensi> zo'u ... is the same as lo ka ko'a ko'e ... ce'ai ... In either form this style can be used to avoid subscripting and to
16:34 < mensi> disambiguate nested ka, ni, etc. |>>> latros
16:35 < _mukti_> I dunno. Maybe's Scala's type system would be easier to understand explicated in Lojban.
16:35 < zipcpi> Maybe
16:35 < noncomcinse> loka co'e (ce'ai?) zo'u?
16:36 < zipcpi> I'm not even sure how ce'ai works myself...
16:37 < zipcpi> Hmm... apparently autobinds ce'u variables to a list of KOhA
16:38 < noncomcinse> X goi Y means Y=return(X) in every instance, right?
16:38 < zipcpi> Making it easier to understand complicated ka abstractions with n-aryness and nesting
16:39 < zipcpi> Of course, like {zo'u} and {goi}, it requires forethought
16:40 < noncomcinse> inb4 midnex
16:40 < zipcpi> lol
16:40 < noncomcinse> en: zo'au
16:40 < mensi> zo'au = [LA] cmene quote; quotes arbitrary number of adjacent cmevla or one selbri. |>>>
16:40 < mensi> djeikyb
16:40 < noncomcinse> en: zo'ai
16:40 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
16:40 < zipcpi> zo'au? What is that even there for?
16:40 < noncomcinse> .i mi klama zo'ai da poi zarci mi zo'u da
16:41 < noncomcinse> xu jimpe lodu smuni zo zo'ai
16:41 < noncomcinse> de'a jundi
16:42 < zipcpi> jimpe ru'e
16:42 < zipcpi> ju'oru'e
16:44 < ctefaho> noncomcinse: just something to fix nested abstractions cleanly
16:44 < ctefaho> but I have other jbo things to think about right now
16:47 < zipcpi> If you want it to work like {ce'ai}, {ce'ai} can be overloaded (because it always comes at the beginning of its abstraction bridi), but it doesn't avoid the forethought problem
16:48 < ctefaho> tbh if you want to go that deep into an abstraction you need forethought
16:48 < ctefaho> I can maybe come up with another idea later
16:49 < ctefaho> as for jai's abstraction we can always just add 1 to the xi;)
16:49 < zipcpi> I'm not even sure why you're so insistent on making ke'a work with jai
16:49 < ctefaho> Because I think it has to
16:50 < ctefaho> but if I say more than that everyone thinks I am crazy...so;)
16:50 < zipcpi> It doesn't. You only think it works when it has a NU to attach to, but if it doesn't then you'd have no place to put it, and return to {fai}+{ka}+{ce'u}
16:52 < ctefaho> Let's just say I think about things a bit differently mkay
16:52 < ctefaho> I am not forcing you to use my jai
16:58 < ctefaho> let's just focus on xoi-ing the sumtcita iepei
16:58 < mensi> ei mi tugni
16:58 < zipcpi> OK...
17:03 < zipcpi> jai'i: [selma'o JAIhI] Takes next NU word, clarifying the semantic NU-type of the bridi. {fai'i} takes the x2 of that NU, if present.
17:04 < ctefaho> oh god no zipcpi please
17:05 < zipcpi> How else? Even {jai} doesn't fix the problem of putting the rest of a bridi in an abstraction that later bridi cannot easily access with {le se go'i} etc.
17:06 < zipcpi> Same problem with starting a sentence with a NU
17:07 < zipcpi> Except starting a sentence with a NU breaks {le go'i} as well
17:08 < ctefaho> lamgre: x1 is a point tangential to x2, x2 is alongside of x1
17:08 < ctefaho> am I using the word tangential correctly?
17:09 < zipcpi> lamgre is already defined
17:09 < zipcpi> And I'm not even sure how the two concepts can be equated
17:09 < zipcpi> "tangential" is rather... technical
17:09 < ctefaho> No definitions found for "lamgre"  - jbovlaste
17:09 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/lamgre
17:10 < ctefaho> uat
17:10 < ctefaho> ah only in jbo
17:12 < ctefaho> "p1=l1 passes by p2 to p3 from p4 by l2."
17:12 < ctefaho> does that really work for "x2 is alongside of x1"?
17:13 < zipcpi> I don't think {pagre} is what you want for it
17:13 < ctefaho> lamgre is the official definition for zo'a
17:13 < ctefaho> one of them actually
17:14 < ctefaho> bpfk has decided to define it two different ways
17:14 < zipcpi> Hmm... dunno
17:15 < zipcpi> There's still the difference between {mo'i} and {mo'i}-less to think about
17:15 < ctefaho> both "lamgre" and "no'e ragve" is used
17:16  * ctefaho takes no'e ragve instead
17:16 < ctefaho> joink
17:16 < zipcpi> {mo'izo'a}
17:16 < ctefaho> yes?
17:17 < ctefaho> muvdu + no'e ragve = ?
17:17 < ctefaho> love or hate?
17:17 < zipcpi> I don't know. I'm not even sure what no'e ragve means
17:21 < zipcpi> exp: le jaifai go'i
17:21 < mensi> ([le {jai fai go'i} KU] VAU)
17:21 < zipcpi> off: le jaifai go'i
17:21 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [oO] or [uU] but "i" found.
17:22 < ctefaho> I think lamragve makes more sense
17:23 < ctefaho> but I guess that depends on how you see it...
17:29  * ctefaho settles for korla'i ^^
17:29 < zipcpi> I think that implies actually toching
17:29 < zipcpi> *touching
17:30 < zipcpi> And I'm not sure whether {zo'a} does
17:30 < zipcpi> You'd probably have to ask someone else
17:30 < ctefaho> zo'a does not imply touching no
17:31 < zipcpi> I think {korla'i} would imply touching
17:32 < ctefaho> koizva li'a
17:34 < ctefaho> it even exists already
17:34 < ctefaho> but still not the right semantics
17:35 < ctefaho> or is it
17:35  * ctefaho uses it for now
17:37 < ctefaho> or not
17:37 < ctefaho> ...
17:37 < ctefaho> no it is right or bpfk is inconsistent
17:37 < ctefaho> mi pu cliva lo karce zo'a lo malsi
17:37 < ctefaho>     "I left the car by the side of the temple."
17:38 < ctefaho> that has to work with koizva
17:38 < ctefaho> coi durka42
17:38 < durka42> coi
17:39 < ctefaho> durka42 I am trying to figure out what jbovalsi best fits "zo'a"
17:39 < ctefaho> iepei koizva is the word?
17:39 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
17:39 < zipcpi> No, I thought koizva implied touching
17:40 < ctefaho> zvati does not imply touching
17:40 < zipcpi> It means existing "on the boundary"
17:40 < zipcpi> If you're not touching the boundary, you're not on it
17:43 < ctefaho> mimicing the def of ne'a as zvajbi, think I will go with koizvajbi
17:43 < durka42> valrtosmabru
17:44 < durka42> zo korzvajbi .e'u
17:44 < ctefaho> durka saves the day
17:44 < ctefaho> korzvajbi for "alongside of"
17:44 < ctefaho> nice and cromulent
17:44 < ctefaho> side-at-neat
17:44 < ctefaho> side-at-near
17:45 < ctefaho> durka42: Or if you have another idea for "ne'a"?
17:46 < durka42> en:ne'a
17:46 < mensi> ne'a = [FAhA3] location tense relation/direction; approximating/next to ...
17:46 < durka42> seems good to me
17:47 < ctefaho> so
17:47 < ctefaho> {.i broda zo'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ko'a korzvajbi ke'a}
17:47 < ctefaho> wait
17:47 < _mukti_> coi la durkavore
17:48 < ctefaho> {.i broda zo'a ko'a} -> (.i broda xoi ke'a korzvajbi ko'a}  li'a
17:48 < ctefaho> coi mukti
17:50 < ctefaho> I assume you think "zvajbi" fits ne'a? (bpfk def)
17:51 < ctefaho> ehm
17:51  * ctefaho facepalms
17:52 < ctefaho> me tired
17:53 < _mukti_> coi la ctefa'o
17:55 < durka42> coi la mukti
17:58 < ctefaho> so...FAhA -> xoi done
17:59 < ctefaho> fun thing will be how they interact with each other and mo'i
17:59 < ctefaho> and whatever else is allowed
17:59 < durka42> mo'i is deep magic :p
18:00 < zipcpi> I changed JAIhI+NU to a sumtcita, so {fai'i} won't be needed
18:00 < ctefaho> it is basically a xoi muvdu applying to the selbri combining with the spatial it is with
18:01 < ctefaho> also durka42 plz
18:01 < durka42> zo jai'i mo
18:01 < ctefaho> what your opinon of lujvo for xa'o?
18:01 < zipcpi> durka42: "takes the next single NU-word, turns into sumtcita: clarifies the semantic NU-type of the current bridi."
18:02 < durka42> ua
18:02 < zipcpi> (mi jai'i li'i klama lo zarci), (jai'i li'i ku mi klama lo zarci), and (mi klama lo zarci jai'i li'i) are all acceptable and equivalent. Implies ((zo'e) li'i mi klama lo zarci), but avoids wrapping the bridi in an abstraction that makes its sumti hard to access via le go'i etc. // Tagged sumti, if present, fills the x2 of the NU; e.g. (mi klama lo zarci jai'i li'i mi) implies (fe mi li'i mi klama lo zarci).
18:02 < durka42> you mean a lujvo to define xa'o?
18:02 < ctefaho> yep
18:02 < durka42> xm
18:02 < zipcpi> We don't even have a proper lujvo for za'o, except for faurza'o
18:02 < ctefaho> za'o?
18:03 < durka42> doesn't the bpfk have one?
18:03  * durka42 looks
18:03 < ctefaho> mulre'i for za'o?
18:03 < ctefaho> durka42 no xa'o is experimential
18:03 < ctefaho> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/xa%27o
18:03 < zipcpi> BPFK has xa'o defined
18:03 < zipcpi> It's one of the oldest "experimental" cmavo
18:04 < durka42> hmm you're right
18:04 < ctefaho> oh i missed it then
18:04 < durka42> I thought bpfk had put xa'o in the section officially
18:04 < durka42> but I guess not
18:04 < ctefaho> Experimental ZAhO are not included in this page. See xa'o.
18:04 < ctefaho> wtf
18:04 < ctefaho> how is that "has xa'o defined"
18:04 < durka42> jbo:za'o
18:04 < mensi> za'o = [ZAhO] fi'o se mulbacysta
18:05 < zipcpi> I'm not sure about mulre'i or stuff like that; it means continuing after natural/expected end, which might or might not include the concept of completion
18:05 < durka42> vlaste: mulbacysta (co)
18:05 < vlaste> error: ro gismu cu mumlerpoi
18:05 < noncomcinse> en: fa'a
18:05 < mensi> fa'a = [FAhA4] location tense relation/direction; arriving at/directly towards ... |>>>
18:05 < durka42> vlaste: mulbacysta (com)
18:05 < mensi> officialdata
18:05 < vlaste> mulbacysta (components) = mulno bancu stali ≈ complete is-beyond remain
18:05 < zipcpi> Hm
18:05 < noncomcinse> en: xoi
18:05 < mensi> xoi = [XOI] Right-scoping adverbial clause: encloses a bridi and turns it into an adverbial term; the antecedent (ke'a)
18:05 < mensi> of the enclosed bridi stands for the outer bridi lo su'u no'a ku (the bridi in which this xoi term appears), including
18:05 < mensi> all the other adverbial terms (tags...) within this bridi located on the right of this xoi term (rightward scope). |>>>
18:05 < mensi> Terminator: se'u |>>> Ilmen
18:05 < ctefaho> durka42: i was kinda going by http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_sumtcita_Formants
18:05 < durka42> that seems to work for za'o
18:05 < ctefaho> but it seems they use completely different ways to define it in different parts of bpfk?
18:05 < durka42> so maybe for xa'o something like cfabacysta?
18:05 < noncomcinse> en: xo'i
18:05 < mensi> xo'i = [XOhI] Extracts selbri from a tag, inverse of fi'o |>>> xo'i bau is equivalent to bangu, xo'i fi'o broda is
18:05 < mensi> equivalent to broda |>>> selpahi
18:05 < durka42> ctefaho: use what?
18:06 < durka42> {cfabacysta} would follow {mulbacysta}, iepei
18:06 < mensi> ei mi tugni
18:06 < durka42> ki'e la mensi
18:06 < ctefaho> BPFK defines FAhA and ZAhO differently on different pages
18:06 < durka42> er
18:06 < durka42> doubt it
18:06 < ctefaho> ko check
18:06 < ctefaho> now I have to look at FAhA AGAIN
18:06 < noncomcinse> .i pau ma xo'i fi'o nei
18:07 < durka42> which pages are you looking at? the FAhA and ZAhO sections?
18:07 < ctefaho> that and http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_sumtcita_Formants
18:07 < ctefaho> I thought that page nicely summarized everything
18:07 < ctefaho> but it differs in places
18:08 < durka42> hmm
18:08 < durka42> could probably use a consistency audit
18:08 < durka42> I don't think it's "completely different" though :)
18:09 < ctefaho> yeah
18:09 < ctefaho> I just don't want to conflict and confuse people
18:10 < ctefaho> ----> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o
18:10 < ctefaho> if that clarifies FAhA for anyone
18:10 < ctefaho> probably not
18:11 < ctefaho> ...is te'e = "korbi" or "koizva"
18:11 < ctefaho> bpfk differs again
18:12 < ctefaho> probably koizva iepei
18:12 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
18:12  * ctefaho kicks mensi
18:12 < ctefaho> shoo
18:12 < ctefaho> korbi implies the selbri is a border
18:13 < durka42> en:te'e
18:13 < mensi> te'e = [FAhA3] location tense relation/direction; edged by/edging up to ...
18:13 < durka42> not sure
18:13 < _mukti_> iepei
18:13 < mensi> ei mi tugni
18:14 < ctefaho> now they conflict again on to'o >_>
18:14 < _mukti_> ie pei
18:14 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
18:16 < _mukti_> ro lo zmiku cu jerna lo nu se daspo kei ie pei
18:16 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
18:16 < ctefaho> oh wait I just messed up
18:17 < ctefaho> ...fe'e is going to be really fun to formalize :/
18:17 < durka42> it's basically the dual of mo'i, isn't it
18:18 < durka42> sort of
18:19 < ctefaho> "Spatial conversion. It converts a time tag into its space equivalent. "
18:19 < ctefaho> semantic sugar indeed
18:20 < ctefaho> at least mo'i just xoi-muvdus things...
18:21 < ctefaho> ok one last thing
18:21 < ctefaho> to'o == to'a farna || fardukti, or the same?
18:21 < ctefaho> to'e farna*
18:22 < ctefaho> they kinda just do opposite from either direction...
18:23 < durka42> en:to'o
18:23 < mensi> to'o = [FAhA4] location tense relation/direction; departing from/directly away from ...
18:23  * durka42 needs to bone up on FAhA flash cards :)
18:23 < durka42> I guess so yeah
18:24 < ctefaho> i'll use to'e then
18:25 < noncomcinse> coi ru'e
18:26 < noncomcinse> lo morji karda ma kibyzva
18:27 < zipcpi> I gotta go. co'o
18:27 < ctefaho> soooooo FAhA done
18:27 < ctefaho> For Now (TM)
18:28 < noncomcinse> co'o lo cliva
18:28 < noncomcinse> FAhA mo nau
18:29 < ctefaho> this http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new-fi%27o
18:29 < ctefaho> (bu'u bottom)
18:29 < noncomcinse> ki'e
18:30 < noncomcinse> en: xoi
18:30 < mensi> xoi = [XOI] Right-scoping adverbial clause: encloses a bridi and turns it into an adverbial term; the antecedent (ke'a)
18:30 < mensi> of the enclosed bridi stands for the outer bridi lo su'u no'a ku (the bridi in which this xoi term appears), including
18:30 < mensi> all the other adverbial terms (tags...) within this bridi located on the right of this xoi term (rightward scope). |>>>
18:30 < mensi> Terminator: se'u |>>> Ilmen
18:30 < ctefaho> it just basically means that what happens in the xoi applies to the selbri
18:30 < noncomcinse> .e'o ko jai gau mupli zo xoi
18:30 < ctefaho> mi klama xoi sutra
18:31 < ctefaho> "The noi the selbri can't take"
18:31 < noncomcinse> Where does the ke'a go?
18:31 < ctefaho> How do you mean?
18:31 < ctefaho> The ke'a refers to no'a/the outer bridi
18:31 < noncomcinse> 20:30:14 <mensi> xoi = [XOI] Right-scoping adverbial clause: encloses a bridi and turns it into an adverbial term; the antecedent (ke'a)
18:31 < ctefaho> well
18:32 < ctefaho> {.i broda bu'u ko'a} -> {.i broda xoi ke'a zvati ko'a}
18:32 < ctefaho> there it is?
18:32 < noncomcinse> .i mi klama xoi ke'a sutra vau se'u vau?
18:32 < ctefaho> iep
18:32 < noncomcinse> je'e
18:33 < ctefaho> all tags basically work like that (tenses have more complicated rules though as they connect)
18:33 < noncomcinse> pu/pu'o/pubo is still weird xu?
18:34 < ctefaho> we don't speak of the bo (yet)
18:34 < ctefaho> hmm well a bare pu is not that special
18:34 < ctefaho> bapu broda though
18:34 < ctefaho> you get nested xoi
18:34 < noncomcinse> xu xoi ke'a balvi se'u ckire
18:35 < ctefaho> -> {.i broda xoi ke'a purci xoi ke'a balvi se'u se'u vau
18:35 < ctefaho> I think or I am mixing them up again...
18:35 < noncomcinse> .i mi klama lo zarci pu lonu klama lo zdani --- .i ma pamoi se klama
18:36 < ctefaho> .i mi klama lo zarci xoi ke'a purci lo nu klama lo zdani
18:36 < ctefaho> sumtcita just lift their sumti and puts it in an abstraction
18:37 < ctefaho> you can of course use xoi directly too
18:37 < ctefaho> I also claim that this is how na/ja'a should work
18:38  * ctefaho LOVES to expand jbobau
18:39 < noncomcinse> milxe go'i ra'o
18:39 < noncomcinse> de'a lo zi balvi ku jundi
18:40 < ctefaho> camxes de'a lo zi balvi ku jundi
18:40 < ctefaho> camxes: de'a lo zi balvi ku jundi
18:40 < camxes> ([{de'a <lo (¹zi balvi¹) ku>} CU] [jundi VAU])
18:40 < ctefaho> right zi
18:41 < ctefaho> fi'o cmalu temci be lo manri
18:42 < ctefaho> camxes: fi'o cmalu temci be lo manri
18:42 < camxes> ([{fi'o <cmalu (¹temci [be {lo manri KU} BEhO]¹)>} KU] VAU)
18:42 < ctefaho> xoi ke'a cu cmalu je temci fe lo manri
18:43 < ctefaho> sorta
18:44 < ctefaho> la ctefaho can never guarantee the accuracy of any single sintence
18:45 < ctefaho> and la ctefaho is now cu sipna
18:45 < ctefaho> co'o
18:45 < ctefaho> (and always remember, je-cu-jai-ai!)
18:47  * nuzba @uitki: Welcome!/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Welcome!/en by Mukti - /* What's next? */ [http://bit.ly/1GTh6EQ]
18:47  * nuzba @uitki: lojban music - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/lojban_music by Wuzzy - Lojbanize names (use “la” or “la'e lu … li'u” or “la'o”) [http://bit.ly/1KlRGUb]
19:00 < rutytar> how would you say "zero point three repeating" in lojban?
19:02 < idyn> coi ro do
19:06 < clakre> coi idyn
19:06 < idyn> do mo
19:10 < noncomcinse> coi
19:10 < noncomcinse> rutytar: .y.
19:10 < rutytar> coi
19:11 < rutytar> what?
19:11 < noncomcinse> 0.333... = no pi ra'e ci
19:12 < clakre> mi troci lo nu mi jimpe lo sagypemci be lu ZA'O li'u
19:12 < noncomcinse> Numbers after {ra'e} are repeated infinitely
19:12 < rutytar> .ua .i'o
19:13 < noncomcinse> de'a jundi .i vacysai
19:20 < noncomcinse> di'a
19:20 < noncomcinse> mensi: rafsi: sag
19:20 < mensi> xu do so'i va'e cinmo fi lo nu casnu lo simsa
19:22 < noncomcinse> doi la clakre mi ji'a troci
19:22 < noncomcinse> .i la'a su'o drata ji'a go'i
19:23 < noncomcinse> camxes: na broda .ije brode
19:23 < camxes> ([{na broda} VAU] [i je {brode VAU}])
19:24 < noncomcinse> camxes: na ku zo'u broda .ije brode
19:24 < camxes> ([{na ku} zo'u] [broda VAU] [i je {brode VAU}])
19:24 < noncomcinse> camxes: broda .ije brode naku
19:24 < camxes> ([broda VAU] [i je {brode <na ku> VAU}])
19:37 < noncomcinse> en: ta'u
19:37 < mensi> ta'u = [UI3a] discursive: expanding the tanru - making a tanru. |>>> See also tanru. |>>>
19:37 < mensi> officialdata
19:40 < noncomcinse> Can I use {ta'o} for lujvo?
20:16 < noncomci1se> .i mi zukyjdipei lonu benji la'e lu ko te preti lo ro se kucli fo mi li'u fu la .redit.
20:32  * nuzba @ligervision: @fnxTX @EvanMcM Well, that's not very *lojban* or "objective" of u...    What is spirit.. Then we can get into the spiritual defiling in "cap." [http://bit.ly/1JqPvP6]
21:02  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: what would you say is your favorite part about the lojban language?.   grammar?, vocabulary?, attitudinals?, cmavo?, lujvo?, etc.  a'u ro'e [http://bit.ly/1fXhlG0]
21:04  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: my favorite part of lojban was grammar, the sumti places concept. but now i feel like the vocabulary is my favorite because is beautiful. [http://bit.ly/1fXhxVU]
21:05 < noncomci1se> I find the vocabulary lacking sometimes.
21:10 < ldlework> is there a predicate for pe
21:16  * nuzba @ligervision: @EvanMcM @fnxTX I think that concept of winning is simple, JJ can u clarify w/lojban? Cuz I think that's the crux of the prob w/me & Ev.. [http://bit.ly/1RHTQfZ]
21:16 < gleki> mensi: doi zipcpi pevna is just taken from guaspi. the form is such that it matches {pev} rafsi
21:16 < mensi> gleki: mi ba benji di'u ba lo nu la'o gy.zipcpi.gy. di'a cusku da
21:22 < gleki> ldlework: {pe} is  mostly {poi co'e}
21:24 < noncomcinse_> gleki: xu nai zo srana mapti
21:25 < gleki> so'o da na tugni
21:25 < noncomcinse_> je'e
21:27  * nuzba @Dank_scriptor: mis idiomas: lojban, latín, francés.  Y ahora habrá dos nuevas adiciones: purépecha y japonés, por el puro gusto de hacerlo. love languages. [http://bit.ly/1fXjcLe]
23:37  * nuzba @ataccoTnirepuoC: Eとlojbanとラテン語とピンインで「c」の読み方が頭こんがらがる。 [http://bit.ly/1Il5vAF]
--- Day changed Sun Jun 28 2015
01:35  * nuzba @uitki: La Bangu: one-page vlaste - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu:_one-page_vlaste by Gleki - Redirected page to [[La Bangu: Lojban Dictionary with Examples]] [http://bit.ly/1LvytyG]
01:39  * nuzba @oka_iu_tcan: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/La_Bangu:_Lojban_Dictionary_with_Examples    La bangu とはいえこれはすごいな・・・・・・ [http://bit.ly/1LvyF15]
02:51  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
03:31  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
04:21 < ctefaho> coi
04:24 < gleki> coi
04:55  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
05:15  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
05:35 < gleki> en: garpata
05:35 < gleki> je'e
05:36 < gleki> i ge'e
05:36 < gleki> Ilmen: coi do ca lo cabdei lo voksa nu tavla ibo xu
05:38 < gleki> btw, if i allowed {ko'a faubo ko'e} then what's the difference from {ko'a joi ko'e}?
05:40 < gleki> ctefaho: have u followed this http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture ? we need more followers
05:47 < ctefaho> hmm
05:48 < ctefaho> hadn't heard of it
05:48 < gleki> ti'e we need around 10 more followers
05:49 < gleki> anyone else who hasn't followed Lojban StackExchange  please do http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
05:50 < ctefaho> also gleki can one remove http://mw.lojban.org/papri/srfsts or does lojban.org go boom then?
05:50 < gleki> ctefaho: wiki top menu => " ..." button => remove
05:51 < ctefaho> ki'e
05:51 < gleki> ctefaho: i can do that if you follow StackExchange :D
05:52 < gleki> zo'oru'e
05:52 < ctefaho> trying to remove it seems about as easy
05:52 < ctefaho> it only says "move"
05:52 < ctefaho> says/does
05:53 < gleki> "Delete"
05:53 < gleki> can u see that menu item?
05:53 < ctefaho> hmm no I only see a "move". shuld it be above/below that?
05:54 < gleki> then it's security limitations. im deleting it now then
05:55 < ctefaho> ah was suspecting that:p
05:55 < gleki> mi snada
05:56 < gleki> makes sense, though. so that no vandalist can delete the whole wiki
05:56 < ctefaho> iep
05:56 < gleki> still only 56 followers
05:59 < Ilmen> How many is needed?
06:00 < gleki> i suppose around 60
06:00 < gleki> i never got into details
06:00 < gleki> they said 20 more needed. at that time there were 40 followers.
06:00 < gleki> now it's 56
06:02 < gleki> and i dont know what will happen after we reach 60.
06:02 < gleki> Probably, StackExchange will get into stack overflow zo'o
06:03 < ctefaho> there is a vandalist vandalizing my experimential gismu zo'oru'e
06:03 < Ilmen> 57
06:05 < ctefaho> 58
06:06 < ctefaho> hmm still says 57 o_O
06:06 < gleki> click "follow".
06:06 < gleki> and u should be registered
06:06 < gleki> or logged in
06:06 < ctefaho> well I did. it switched to "unfollow" but the number didn't update
06:07 < gleki> do u see the button in "unfollow" position?
06:07 < ctefaho> it even says on my page I am following it..
06:08 < gleki> i.e. do u see the button SAYING "unfollow".
06:08 < gleki> ?
06:08 < gleki> for me it says "unfollow"
06:08 < ctefaho> ua
06:08 < ctefaho> had to verify my email in addition to registering.
06:08 < Ilmen> Have you checked your mails?
06:08 < ctefaho> 58
06:09 < Ilmen> .i'e
06:09 < ctefaho> also guys {lo su'u ce'u morsi}
06:09 < ctefaho> lojban explodes?^
06:10 < gleki> no
06:10 < gleki> actually any NU can have ce'u inside. although some dont like it for {nu} and its derivations
06:11 < Ilmen> « It needs: 2 more followers; 35 more questions with a score of 10 or more »
06:11 < gleki> oh oh. indeed.
06:11 < Ilmen> Seems like the number of follower isn't the more urgent task
06:11 < gleki> then please upvote every questions you like but not less than 5 questions
06:11 < gleki> s/questions/question/
06:11 < fenki> gleki meant to say: then please upvote every question you like but not less than 5 questions
06:12 < gleki> s/questions/question/questions/question/
06:12 < fenki> gleki meant to say: then please upvote every question you like but not less than 5 question
06:12 < gleki> la fenki cu jai fenki
06:12 < ctefaho> s/potatoes/tomatoes
06:12 < ctefaho> garf garf garf
06:12 < ctefaho> s/garf/barf
06:12 < fenki> ctefaho meant to say: barf garf garf
06:12 < Ilmen> So there is a collection of questions without answer?
06:13 < ctefaho> .u'i
06:13 < gleki> some have been answered
06:15 < gleki> yes, we have only 5 questions with the score 10 or more.
06:16 < _mukti_> coi la gleki .i mi ca'o cikre la uitki
06:18 < gleki> anyone else who hasn't followed Lojban StackExchange  please do http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
06:18 < gleki> _mukti_: ^
06:19 < gleki> and please upvote all questions you like
06:19 < gleki> _mukti_: ki'e do i do zukte ma sa'e
06:19 < _mukti_> I already did.
06:19 < gleki> _mukti_: upvoted 5 questions, right?
06:20 < gleki> i ra'u mi na nelci PHP i xanto tilju i la angular cu melbi zmadu i linto i ku'i ku'i
06:20 < mensi> e'u do vrude pajni gi'e nai ze'i co'a cinmo lo ka nelci
06:20 < _mukti_> Yes. Maybe I'll reallocate my votes, provided I can do that.
06:20 < gleki> we just need more upvotes and more followers
06:20 < gleki> and even more questions
06:20 < gleki> my last question is provoking
06:20 < gleki> en: provok
06:21 < mensi> provoke = x1 provokes, evokes x2 (event) to occur
06:21 < gleki> en: provoke
06:21 < mensi> provoke = x1 provokes, evokes x2 (event) to occur |>>> glekizmiku
06:21 < gleki> la glakizmiku vau li'a
06:21 < _mukti_> Yep. Was able to push two more questions up to 10.
06:21 < gleki> 33 more questions with a score of 10 or more
06:22 < ctefaho> I have one
06:22 < ctefaho> "Will teaching computers Lojban give birth to Skynet?"
06:23 < Ilmen> I've voted 5 questions up.
06:24 < gleki> la ilon mask pu xusra lo nu lo simsa ka'e ckape
06:24 < ctefaho> Ilmen: iirc you made "menre". any chance you did "MOI" too?
06:25 < gleki> en: momkai
06:25 < mensi> momkai [< moi ckaji ≈ Ordinal selbri property] = x1 is the x2-th member of set x3 ordered by rule x4 |>>>
06:25 < Ilmen> I'm not the author of the MOI selmaho :P  zo'o
06:25 < mensi> Ilmen
06:25 < ctefaho> I mean gave MOI gismu ;o
06:25 < Ilmen> I've made momkai and memkai
06:25 < ctefaho> ba'e gismu
06:25 < ctefaho> hmm reminds me
06:26 < Ilmen> But I didn't made any for {cu'o} and {si'e}, as they have no rafsi
06:26 < gleki> again tags are probably needed for convenience
06:26 < Ilmen> anyway cu'o probably parallels nilyla'e
06:26 < gleki> lujvo: ni cumki
06:26  * ctefaho moincu
06:26 < ctefaho> makfa
06:26 < mensi> nilcum[5898], nilcu'i[6387], nilcumki[7937]
06:27 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: well the gismu/lujvo/zi'evla distinction doesn't matter much to me, as long as the ratio frequency/wordlength is reasonable
06:27 < gleki> i need tags for moi, mei ({la'u}), fi'o gradu
06:27 < gleki> en: po'i
06:27 < mensi> po'i = [BAI] porsi modal, 1st place (in order)                 sequentially; in the sequence ... |>>>
06:27 < mensi> officialdata
06:27 < gleki> en: sepo'i
06:27 < mensi> sepo'i = [BAI*] porsi modal, 2nd place                            sequentially; sequenced by rules ... |>>> "Under
06:27 < mensi> (total) ordering" |>>> officialdata
06:27 < gleki> en: tepo'i
06:27 < mensi> tepo'i = [BAI*] porsi modal, 3rd place                            sequentially; as an order on set of items ... |>>>
06:27 < mensi> officialdata
06:27 < ctefaho> well I care about keeping gismu and zi'evla somewhat separate
06:27 < Ilmen> Just use xoi, maybe sei also
06:28 < ctefaho> well I will just create them myself then
06:29 < Ilmen> Using the gismu generator is rather time consuming and it's not easy to choose between the various output proposed gismu
06:29 < ctefaho> also, less than 10 ba'e in lo nu binxo and le cmalu noltru combined
06:29 < Ilmen> so I prefer to do this only for concepts that are very frequent and needing shortness
06:29 < ctefaho> we may or may not be losing semantics here :/
06:30 < gleki> i never use gismu generator. i open wiktionary and take words from major languages that have the form of brivl
06:30 < gleki> a
06:31 < ctefaho> MOI are 5 non-compund cmavo
06:31 < gleki> it makes tem easier to remember at least for some people
06:31 < ctefaho> surely jbobau can make room for 5 little gismu '
06:31 < gleki> however, for some concepts natlangs fail to have any matching words. in this case i use my imagination.
06:31 < gleki> this is how i invented {kreivi}. major natlangs just dont have it.
06:31 < ctefaho> Sovjetko
06:31 < gleki> en: kreivi
06:31 < mensi> kreivi = x1 (entity) sits in a squatting position like or as an animal with all legs touching the floor |>>> Cats and
06:31 < mensi> dogs "sit" mostly in such position. Not usual for humans. |>>> gleki
06:33 < gleki> 1 more follower
06:36 < Ilmen> Also, you can first creat a long-winded lujvo, and then mangle it so that it takes fewer syllables
06:36 < ctefaho> I will just make do with MOIncu for now
06:36 < Ilmen> en: cu'o
06:36 < mensi> cu'o = [MOI] convert number to probability selbri; event x1 has probability (n) of occurring under cond. x2. |>>>
06:36 < mensi> officialdata
06:36 < Ilmen> en: nilyla'e
06:36 < mensi> nilyla'e [< ni lakne ≈ Amount abstract likely] = x1 is the probability of x2 (event) |>>>
06:36 < mensi> Ilmen
06:38 < gleki> the amount of something is likely
06:38 < gleki> but should those likelinesses sum up?
06:38 < ctefaho> I just want it for my heresy tinkerino mkay
06:39 < _mukti_> gleki: Rebuilding the search indexes aborts with this exception: No handler for model 'flow-board' registered in $wgContentHandlers
06:39 < _mukti_> Does that mean anything to you?
06:39 < gleki> _mukti_: oh yes, we talked with robin about it.
06:39 < gleki> Flow extension is broken and is now disabled.
06:40 < gleki> but its traces ...!
06:40 < gleki> they need to be removed.
06:40 < _mukti_> Apparently. Ok, digging in.
06:40 < gleki> Flow was in alpha. i should have never installed it.
06:41 < _mukti_> Live and learn. I think I have a solution.
06:43 < gleki> we should solve all issues and never update anything. But the problem is that in some cases in order to fix a bug you have to update an extension and in order the new version of it to run you need to update MW completely. </recursion>
06:45 < _mukti_> Yes, it's unavoidably messy. But don't worry. We'll be back on the yellow brick road in no time.
06:45 < gleki> and we can't do without extensions unless we build our own CMS
06:46 < _mukti_> And then it will be our own bugs we're worrying about.
06:46 < gleki> look at lernu and see that it will never happen for us.
06:46 < _mukti_> I updated the DB and am running the rebuild process again.
06:46 < gleki> i wish WikiMedia finally started getting rid of php
06:47 < _mukti_> We're now past the point where it previously aborted.
06:47 < _mukti_> Yeah, that's a drawback to mediawiki.
06:47 < _mukti_> But it's not really so bad.
06:47 < gleki> in terms of localisation nothing is better
06:48 < _mukti_> Mediawiki and Wordpress pretty much guarantee PHP is going to be around for a long time
06:51 < gleki> _mukti_: also Prsoid is not working. that's a separate process, though
06:51 < gleki> *Parsoid
06:51 < _mukti_> What's parsoid?
06:52 < gleki> A process. it enables Wysiwyg editing for VisualEditor
06:57 < gleki> en: sedu'u
06:57 < mensi> sedu'u = [NU*] compound abstractor: sentence/equation abstract; x1 is text expressing [bridi] which is x2. |>>>
06:57 < mensi> officialdata
06:58 < gleki> en: seka'a
06:58 < mensi> seka'a = [BAI*] klama modal, 2nd place                            with destination ... |>>>
06:58 < mensi> officialdata
07:00 < gleki> _mukti_: i just mean that the modern trend in front pages is something like landing page with minimum of information but when you scroll down the page scrolls infinitely. definitely MW will never in observable future be able to do that.
07:06 < gleki> k:xuuandi
07:06 < mensi> (UI:xu [CU {Z:uandi VAU}])
07:15 < _mukti_> gleki: Well it may be that we want to eventually consider creating a separate front page from the wiki home page.
07:16 < _mukti_> I think we can still improve on what we have for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if we want to do that eventually.
07:17 < _mukti_> BTW, rebuild is still churning. Search index table rebuilt. Recent changes table rebuilt. Working on links table now.
07:28 < gleki> _mukti_: if that wiki or CMS uses Translatewiki.net db then no problem
07:29 < gleki> _mukti_: yes, rebuild is always that slow. it's normal
07:43  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
07:59  * nuzba @fotono: #lojban .ui lo zantufa tricu cu milxe banro http://guskant.github.io/gerna_cipra/zantufa_farvi.svg .i ganaida'i da nabmi gi komi jungau fo la'edi'u http://guskant.github.io/gerna_cipra/zantufa-0.16.html [http://bit.ly/1IDiyct]
08:02 < durka42> .u'isai lo nopiparemoi cu se cmene lu da spofu li'u sa'u
08:06 < gleki> la zantufa cu frica fi ma fe la ilmentufa
08:07 < gleki> i za'a lo mekso i ku'i ma ji'a
08:08 < durka42> .a'o lo tricu cu spuda
08:09 < gleki> please upvote any questions here (up to 5 of them) http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
08:10 < durka42> I think I already used my upvotes
08:10 < gleki> okay
08:11 < gleki> what is the next phase anyway?
08:13 < ctefaho> cliva: tense talk reminder
08:18 < gleki> ctefaho: cliva: please upvote any questions here (up to 5 of them) http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
08:37 < gleki> actually we need to reach 10 for almost every question
08:37 < gleki> there are 35 questions and we need 10 for 32 questions
08:38 < ctefaho> Is there any hurry?
08:39 < gleki> i dont know. but once this project was shut down because of low activity.
08:49  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
09:05 < rlpowell> _mukti_: So you can turn on flow in LocalSettings.php just long enough for an index rebuild, and then turn it off again; that's what I've been doing.
09:06 < _mukti_> rlpowell: I fixed it by updating the the database to turn off the flow content model for the afflicted pages.
09:06 < rlpowell> Oh nice!
09:07 < rlpowell> I didn't know how to do that.
09:07 < rlpowell> gleki says Parsoid is down and that's bad but I don't know what that is or how to fix it?
09:07 < rlpowell> Is that the node thing?
09:07 < _mukti_> I'm not sure. He said it has something to do with WYSIWYG editing, which might explain why I didn't see it.
09:09 < _mukti_> Hmm. Yes, it does seem to have a node component. Weirdness. So have we been running a node service, too?
09:09 < rlpowell> Yes.
09:10 < rlpowell> rlpowell@jukni> sudo -u apache /usr/bin/node /srv/parsoid/api/server.j -- found in my backscroll.
09:10 < _mukti_> ue
09:11 < _mukti_> So it looks like we had a problem yesterday due to mediawiki's jobs queue backing up. It appears that mediawiki needs to fork a php process to consume the jobs queue, and so I immediately started wondering whether SELINUX is configured to allow that to happen. Have you encountered this?
09:11 < rlpowell> Oh, I made /etc/systemd/system/parsoid.service ; neat.
09:12 < _mukti_> I mean, it could be something as innocent as not having the right path configured.
09:12 < _mukti_> But of course my mind automatically gravitates to the most convoluted answer first.
09:12 < rlpowell> Can you set up a job in the queue so we can test?
09:13 < rlpowell> No, starting with selinux is a good idea, because testing it is super trivial.
09:13 < rlpowell> OK, parsoid is up.
09:13 < gleki> rlpowell: it is the node thing
09:14 < _mukti_> There are currently 1813 jobs queue up.
09:14 < gleki> okay too late 
09:15 < _mukti_> MediaWiki is supposed to check the queue and spawn a worker every N requests according to the wgJobRunRate variable.
09:15 < rlpowell> OK.
09:15 < _mukti_> Oh. I see. We have that set to 0
09:16 < rlpowell> That seems relevant.
09:16 < _mukti_> .u'i
09:16 < rlpowell> No [jJ]ob in localsettings.
09:16 < _mukti_> I just removed the line
09:17 < _mukti_> was: $wgJobRunRate = 0;
09:17 < gleki> it should be = 1
09:17 < _mukti_> I think that's the default.
09:17 < gleki> and that's the default value
09:17 < _mukti_> In any case, I will manually clear the queue once again, and then watch it again to see if it builds up.
09:18 < gleki> _mukti_: search now works as expected. so rebuildall fixed it all
09:19 < _mukti_> How many lojbanists does it take to run a mediawiki installation?
09:19 < _mukti_> (I don't know the punchline.)
09:19 < gleki> 3
09:19 < rlpowell> *snrk*
09:19 < gleki> the first convinces MW is necessary, the second fights with those who disagree, the third runs it.
09:20 < rlpowell> _mukti_: You know how to disable selinux for testing?
09:20 < _mukti_> rlpowell: No, can you teach me?
09:20 < gleki> Currently LMW is very fast
09:20 < rlpowell> sudo setenforce 0
09:21 < _mukti_> Nice. I think the slowness may have had something to do with the queue backing up.
09:21 < rlpowell> sudo getenforce -- returns "Permissive" if it's off, "Enforcing" if it's on.
09:21 < rlpowell> That command takes effect *instantly*.
09:21 < _mukti_> And does that turn it of systemwide or is it scoped to the shell?
09:21 < rlpowell> It's a really nice thing about selinux; the question "is this selinux's fault?" can be answered in seconds.
09:21 < rlpowell> It's systemwide.
09:21 < _mukti_> Yikes, ok, I'll keep that behind glass in case of emergency.
09:21 < rlpowell> Oh, no, I use it all the time.
09:22 < _mukti_> haha
09:22 < rlpowell> I mean, don't *leave* it like that.
09:22 < rlpowell> But you wanna do that for half an hour to test something?  It's fine.
09:22 < _mukti_> Ok, thanks, that's a good tool to have.
09:22 < rlpowell> These systems are well secured via the regular mechanisms.
09:22 < _mukti_> Redundant layers of security are good.
09:22 < rlpowell> Also, I have selinux in extra-crazy mode.
09:22 < rlpowell> So it being at fault is unusually likely.
09:23 < _mukti_> It's a wild and wooly world. And only getting woolier.
09:23 < gleki> .dict wooly
09:23 < fenki> wooly — noun: 1. (US) Alternative form of woolly — adjective: 1. (US) Alternative form of woolly
09:23 < gleki> .dict woolly
09:23 < fenki> woolly — noun: 1. (informal) A sweater or similar garment made of wool — adjective: 1. Made of wool, 2. Having a thick, soft texture, as if made of wool
09:23 < rlpowell> gleki: In this case it means "crazy/complicated">
09:24 < rlpowell> The literal meaning is "a thick mat of hair" basically; like lamb's wool.
09:24 < ctefaho> Did someone say my name?
09:24 < ctefaho> mirc blinked but I can't see who called
09:24 < gleki> confused and vague; used especially of thinking ?
09:24 < rlpowell> Yes.
09:24 < rlpowell> But "wild and wooly" is its own, distinct expression.
09:24 < gleki> no idea how to translate that
09:25 < rlpowell> "wooly" by itself is not really used.
09:25 < rlpowell> "wild and wooly" => crazy/complicated
09:25 < _mukti_> Googled "wild and woolly": "uncouth in appearance or behavior"
09:25 < gleki> ctefaho: if me then i only asked to upvoted questions with rating below 10 http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
09:25 < rlpowell> 28-09:25 <     _mukti_> Googled "wild and woolly": "uncouth in appearance or behavior" -- *blink*  Really?
09:25 < _mukti_> Yeah, go figure.
09:25 < ctefaho> hmm ah well probably just mirced who bugged out then, saw that before
09:26  * ctefaho crawls back to his cave
09:26 < _mukti_> I like this better: "unrestrained; lawless: a wild-and-woolly frontier town"
09:26 < rlpowell> That.
09:26 < _mukti_> That's definitely more like what I meant.
09:26 < gleki> The ride home was a little wild and wooly <-- it was not known, impossible how we managed to get there
09:26 < gleki> Things get a little wild and wooly at his place Saturdays
09:27 < gleki> lawless <-- much better
09:28 < gleki> ma xe fanva
09:28 < gleki> fi lo lojbo
09:29 < Ilmen> nonytinbe?
09:30 < gleki> en: tinbe
09:30 < mensi> tinbe = x1 obeys/follows the command/rule x2 made by x3; (adjective:) x1 is obedient. |>>> See also minde, lacri, javni,
09:30 < mensi> flalu, zekri. |>>> officialdata
09:30 < _mukti_> That's a good question. Having we just found an "under conditions" place?
09:30 < _mukti_> I'm thinking flalu4
09:30 < gleki> e.g. Things get a little wild and wooly at his place Saturdays <-- here it's about lo fasnu itself.
09:31 < _mukti_> If {ve flalu} is conditions of lawfulness for a community would negating it indicate conditions of lawlessness?
09:31 < Ilmen> jvacau?
09:31 < gleki> va'o is usually under conditions
09:31 < gleki> well, {kalsa} and {se ganzu} are most obvious solutions
09:32 < gleki> se flalu no da
09:32 < _mukti_> Right, and I don't think I've ever intentionally used an "under conditions" place. But I'm wondering if this would be an appropriate use.
09:32 < gleki> or just zekri1
09:32 < gleki> i never used flalu4 because then why javni4 doesnt exist?
09:33 < gleki> _mukti_: have u used all your upvotes for StackExchange Lojban place?
09:33 < _mukti_> gleki: yes
09:34 < gleki> looks like every person who joined that place should have used all their 5 upvotes.
09:34 < _mukti_> ko nalmo'i doi la .djeik. .i ti me la jugytca
09:34 < gleki> e.g. currently we need 31 questions with the rating at least 10. Then 31*10/5 = 60
09:35 < gleki> 60 followers should have used all their upvotes
09:36 < _mukti_> lo flalu be fi lo cicricfoi
09:36 < _mukti_> to lo cicricfoi cu te flalu fo no da toi
09:37 < _mukti_> i.e. there are no conditions under which the jungle is a lawful community
09:38 < _mukti_> Now, I'm not sure anything is gained by using the position.
09:38 < Ilmen> flacau
09:38 < gleki> Ilmen: have u used all your upvotes for StackExchange Lojban place?
09:38 < Ilmen> I have.
09:39 < gleki> claxu is weird. especially tolcau which is "to have". seems natlangish ju handy.
09:39 < Ilmen> Maybe tolcau = ralte
09:40 < Ilmen> the question is, when X co'u claxu Y, then X co'a mo Y?
09:40 < gleki> co'a tolcau
09:41 < gleki> i mi claxu lo ka kanro i ku'i xu ca da mi pu co'u ralte lo ka kanro
09:42 < Ilmen> I'd say claxu doesn't imply x1 have had x2 by the past
09:42 < Ilmen> ku'i birti na ku
09:42 < gleki> i la'acu'i zo tolcau dunli zo jarco
09:42 < Ilmen> jbo: claxu
09:42 < gleki> masno
09:43 < gleki> _mukti_: what's going on with vrici atm? it's superslow
09:43 < mensi> claxu = x1 na ckaji x2 |>>> mabla lo ka na ckaji (= malclaxu), zabna lo ka na ckaji (= zanclaxu) |>>>
09:43 < mensi> selpahi
09:43 < gleki> en:coi
09:43 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
09:43 < _mukti_> I'll check it out. I'm hammering jukni pretty hard right now, with the rebuild and the queue learing.
09:43 < Ilmen> ua
09:43 < _mukti_> (clearing)
09:43 < gleki> en:coi
09:43 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
09:43 < gleki> jbo: claxu
09:43 < gleki> ua
09:44 < gleki> en: coi
09:44 < gleki> en:coi
09:44 < Ilmen> According to selpahi claxu = narkai, ŭe
09:44 < _mukti_> Wow I see what you mean
09:44 < gleki> _mukti_: it may be so that read/write speed is actually super slow.
09:44 < _mukti_> Node is going crazy.
09:44 < _mukti_> Is that where parsoid node is running?
09:44 < gleki> i judge it because "en:" is fast but "jbo:" is not.
09:45 < gleki> _mukti_: no idea but on vrici my livla.js is running 
09:45 < mensi> claxu = x1 na ckaji x2 |>>> mabla lo ka na ckaji (= malclaxu), zabna lo ka na ckaji (= zanclaxu) |>>>
09:45 < mensi> selpahi
09:45 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello. |>>> officialdata
09:45 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
09:45 < gleki> _mukti_: still crazy?
09:45 < _mukti_> gleki: Still pretty busy. It's your proc, 2727
09:46 < _mukti_> ircbot
09:46 < gleki> let's restart it
09:46 < gleki> any better now?
09:47 < _mukti_> Load seems to be falling
09:48 < gleki> let's try increasing it
09:48 < gleki> en:coi
09:48 < mensi> coi = [COI] vocative: greetings/hello.
09:48 < gleki> jbo: claxu
09:48 < mensi> claxu = x1 na ckaji x2 |>>> mabla lo ka na ckaji (= malclaxu), zabna lo ka na ckaji (= zanclaxu) |>>>
09:48 < gleki> _mukti_: now?
09:48 < mensi> selpahi
09:49 < _mukti_> Load definitely dropped. Node is still using quite a bit of CPU, but all of the load averages are under 1.
09:49 < gleki> magic.
09:50 < gleki> most likely memory leaks
09:50 < _mukti_> Yeah, I noticed the swap demon was busy, too, so I think you're right
09:55 < gleki> still no answer on my {ko'a fau bo ko'e} proposal
09:55 < gleki> i give up
09:56 < Ilmen> What should it mean?
09:57 < gleki> it should expand into {ko'a broda i faubo ko'e broda}
09:57 < gleki> if {ko'a e fau bo ko'e} expands into {ko'a broda ije faubo ko'e broda}
09:58 < Ilmen> I'm not sure there's much difference between {faubo} and {.efaubo} though
09:58 < gleki> mi slaka damba
09:58 < Ilmen> but I don't oppose {faubo}
09:59 < gleki> Ilmen: how did you expressed joi via fau or fasnu in past?
09:59 < Ilmen> joi/jo'u between two predicates?
10:00 < Ilmen> My assumption is that {brode jo'u cu brodo} = {fasnu fa lo nu brode jo'u lo nu brodo}
10:01 < Ilmen> and {broda fau lo nu brodu} = {broda jo'u cu brodu} (but the former probably gives more importance~focus to "broda")
10:03 < Ilmen> {jo'u gi broda gi brode} is already grammatical under jbofihe
10:03 < Ilmen> {brode jo'u cu brode} is just its (new) afterthought version
10:04 < gleki> so {ko'a jo'u ko'e} is the same as {ko'a faubo ko'e}?
10:04 < Ilmen> However the meaning of {jo'u gi broda gi brode} has never been formally described or defined, as far as I know
10:04 < Ilmen> hmm
10:05 < gleki> because {ko'a e faubo ko'e} is strange. why {e} there if they are connected?
10:28 < Ilmen> As jo'u is a non-logical connective, X jo'u Y is not equal to X faubo Y
10:43 < gleki> you mean that {faubo} is logical?
10:43 < gleki> Ilmen: 
10:43 < Ilmen> I'd say so
10:44 < gleki> do you think all {tag bo} are logical?
10:44 < Ilmen> at least it seems to behave more like {.e}
10:44 < gleki> dont you think that you are mixing {jo'u} as in casnu1 with {jo'u} linking two events together?
10:44 < Ilmen> {mi jo'u do} is a sumti in itself, it's like {lo se menre be mi .e do .e no drata}
10:45 < Ilmen> {mi .e do} has no meaning without being part of a complete bridi; {mi .e do broda} = {ge mi broda gi do broda}
10:45 < gleki> {lo se menre be mi .e do .e no drata} <-- how can you go from ther into {broda fau lo nu brodu} = {broda jo'u cu brodu}
10:45 < gleki> ?
10:45 < gleki> from there*
10:46 < Ilmen> I can't .u'i
10:47 < Ilmen> non-logical connective, applied on sumtis, simply create a new sumti from two input sumti
10:47 < gleki> the problem is just in {jo'u}
10:48 < gleki> if it creates sets, i.e. {lo se menre} then that's all. that's its only function.
10:48 < gleki> no {fasnu} expansion
10:48 < Ilmen> logical connectives, even when applied on sumti (e.g. {mi .e do}), modify the whole bridi and not the sumti themselves
10:49 < Ilmen> mi .e do broda ---> ge mi broda gi do broda
10:50 < Ilmen> mi ca bo do broda  ---> ca gi mi broda gi do broda
10:50 < Ilmen> so it seems "cabo" behaves just like ".e"
10:50 < Ilmen> it combines two bridi, instead of combining two sumti
10:51 < Ilmen> (in term of underlying meaning, not of syntax, li'a)
10:51 < Ilmen> ie nai pei
10:51 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
10:51 < gleki> mensi: i do jinvi ma
10:51 < mensi> Have you asked anyone else ?
10:51 < gleki> Oh
10:51 < gleki> right
10:51 < gleki> i should ask ilmen
10:51 < Ilmen> ŭe glibau
10:51 < gleki> ki'e la mensi
10:52 < gleki> i nu'o fanva ro da
10:52 < _mukti_> Rebuild is done. It took just under 4 hours.
10:52 < Ilmen> ja'o ditcma
10:52 < Ilmen> xo'o .oi dai
10:56 < gleki> _mukti_: cnano
10:57 < gleki> en: cnano
10:57 < mensi> cnano = x1 [value] is a norm/average in property/amount x2 (ka/ni) among x3(s) (set) by standard x4. |>>> Also mean,
10:57 < mensi> normal, usual; (x3 specifies the complete set).  See also tcaci, fadni, kampu, lakne, tarti, rirci. |>>>
10:57 < mensi> officialdata
10:57 < gleki> norm or average...
10:57 < gleki> loglan: norma
10:57 < mensi> norma = C is the mean/average/norm of distribution F.
11:02 < gleki> normal, usual and average are three different concepts
11:04 < VoltzLiveq> Does anyone here actually speak lojban on a semi regular basis?
11:04 < VoltzLiveq> Like.. speak it, not just type it?
11:05 < gleki> in voice chats? yes, every weekend
11:06 < VoltzLiveq> Have you ever experienced someone listening in and confused to what you were speaking? xD
11:06 < gleki> of course. imagine that i start speaking lojban to you :D
11:06 < VoltzLiveq> I would be mostly confused ;D
11:07 < VoltzLiveq> What about using Lojban to hide what you were saying?
11:07 < gleki> ua xamgu sidbo i ai ma'a roroi pilno
11:07 < gleki> ^ just done
11:09 < VoltzLiveq> Thanks jboski
11:09 < gleki> je'e
11:10 < VoltzLiveq> One day I will be fluent....
11:10 < VoltzLiveq> One day..
11:12 < durka42> coi
11:12 < VoltzLiveq> coi
11:12 < durka42> coi pu'i filta'a ui
11:12 < gleki> durka42: have u used all your upvotes for StackExchange Lojban place?
11:12 < durka42> VoltzLiveq: ^ "hello possibly-but-not-yet fluent speaker :)"
11:13 < durka42> gleki: yes I did as I already told you
11:13 < durka42> months ago when it was first set up
11:13 < gleki> im making a list of who did
11:13 < durka42> je'e
11:14 < Ilmen> en: Arithmetics
11:14 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
11:15 < gleki> cliva: xu do su'omumoi zanru do'e la stakekstcanj
11:17 < Ilmen> How about sujna'o = arithmetic mean, and pi'irna'o = geometric means?
11:21 < Ilmen> Maybe I'll just assign nacna'o for arithmetic mean
11:25 < deltab> sujna'o and pi'irna'o make sense to me in a way that nacna'o doesn't
11:29 < Ilmen> je'e
11:30 < Ilmen> I've already entered {nacna'o}, but I can create {sujna'o} as a synonym
11:30 < Ilmen> people then could vote for whichever they prefer
11:32 < Ilmen> Oh, sujna'o was already in Jbovlaste
11:32 < Ilmen> en: sujna'o
11:32 < mensi> sujna'o [< sumji cnano ≈ Sum average] = c1 [value] is a/the arithmetic mean in property/amount c2 among c3 (set)(s) by
11:32 < mensi> standard c4. |>>> jongausib
11:32 < Ilmen> why didn't I find it >_<
11:33 < Ilmen> At least, if both I and jongausib had the idea of sumji+cnano, then this lujvo seems a good choice
11:34 < Ilmen> en: pi'irna'o
11:34 < mensi> [< pilji cnano ≈ Multiply average] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
11:34 < mensi> pi'irna'o[7976], piljyna'o[8517], pi'ircnano[9506], piljycnano[10047]
11:34 < gleki> en: Arithm
11:34 < mensi> 14 da se tolcri: dekydugri, de'o, dugri, gau'i'o, pavnondugri, reldugri, te'o zei dugri, di'ei'o'au, ga'au, mai'e'e,
11:34 < mensi> mo'e, sei'u'e, sujna'o, vi'ei'e
11:34 < gleki> trim endings
11:34 < Ilmen> je'e
11:35 < gleki> what about "norm"?
11:38 < Ilmen> why the hell sujna'o has the place structure of cnano
11:38 < Ilmen> I'll propose another place structure
11:39 < Ilmen> Oh, Wuzzy's definition is better:  c1 [number] is the arithmetic mean of c3 (number set).
11:49  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
12:12 < cliva> gleki: pu za go'a
12:12 < cliva> ctefaho: .ai ca ki'e mojgau
12:14 < cliva> .i lo tense nu tavla zo'u: tavla fi lu pu zi li'u je lu ro roi pu li'u je lu ze'u pu li'u je lo simsa
12:15 < cliva> .i sa'e brirei fa mu'a lo ka jei lu pu fasnu fa lo nu zi li'u selsmudu'i lu pu zi li'u
12:24 < cliva> ze'ilsaivi'e
12:31 < gleki> en: ze'ilsaivi'e
12:31 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
12:31 < gleki> en: brirei
12:31 < mensi> brirei [< bridi preti ≈ Predicate question] = c1 is a question asking for a predicate, asked by c3 to c4. |>>> In Lojban,
12:31 < mensi> this is a question using the word “mo”. |>>> Wuzzy
12:31 < cliva> oi
12:31 < cliva> .i pu sruma lo du'u panra zo brireisku
12:34 < cliva> mensi: ko ningau
12:35 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
12:36 < gleki> en: brireisku
12:36 < gleki> ra'u lo lujvo cu mabla
12:36 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
12:36 < mensi> brireisku [< bridi preti cusku ≈ Predicate question say] = x1 asks x3 what arguments satisfy the predicate x2 |>>> See
12:36 < mensi> also brije'u, ju'odji, brije'uju'o. |>>> Ilmen
12:37 < cliva> ge mabla da gi zabna da
12:37 < cliva> .i zabna ki'u ra'u lo nu su'a lo brivla cu clani
12:38 < gleki> lo ra'oi sku lujvo cu stura dunli zu'ai
12:38 < cliva> ro drata be lo nu go'i cu jai zekri
12:39 < cliva> jbo: ze'irsaivi
12:39 < mensi> ze'irsaivi = x1 cu jundi x2 noi velsku vau xoi ke'a dukse lo ka ditcma kei lo nu x1 snada lo te zukte be lo ka gasnu
12:39 < mensi> ke'a bei x1  |>>> ze'i sai vitke |>>> ahernai
12:40 < gleki> en: ze'irsaivi
12:40 < cliva> sa .i da'i lo nu na go'i cu jai zekri
12:40 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
12:40 < gleki> en: a'ernai
12:40 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
12:40 < gleki> jbo: a'ernai
12:40 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
12:40 < gleki> mo
12:40 < gleki> i srana zo a'e xu
12:40 < cliva> ma'i lo ca vajni na valsi
12:40 < cliva> .i .a'e zei nai
12:42  * nuzba @uitki: ce ki tau jau - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ce_ki_tau_jau by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1LP6fgm]
12:43 < cliva> zo ge ge'e
12:44 < cliva> .i da'i va'o lo nu bi'ai terpa tu'a lo diftogo zo'u zo gi'e ja zo gu'e ja zo lo'a mapti
12:45 < cliva> .i va'i pe'i da'i va'o lo nu pavyslaka cu linto dukse
13:55  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
14:14 < Ilmen> coi
14:14 < dutchie> coi
14:15 < dutchie> do mo pei
14:16 < Ilmen> mi ba zi sipna zukte .i je na birti lo du'u ca ti djica lo nu zukte ma kau
14:17 < Ilmen> By the way I recall that Selpahi uses "do ma lifri" for "how are you?"
14:18 < Ilmen> I've completely forgotten that option last time I've been asked for how to translate this expression
14:18 < dutchie> it doesn't seem to have a really natural translation (that i've encountered)
14:24  * nuzba @Neozao: coisas q não gosto em linguagem    -sujeito oculto    -lojban    -objetividade        de resto de boa [http://bit.ly/1CCU4Os]
14:25 < durka42> mi lifri lo se lifri be mi
14:25 < durka42> grammar palindrome :p
14:26 < Ilmen> "do ma lifri" sounds pretty good to me for "how are you?"
14:27 < durka42> co'o
14:27 < durka42> mi lifri lo nu vacysai
14:27 < Ilmen> In French, the usual expression is «Comment allez-vous?» (= How go you?, literally)
14:28 < Ilmen> In Japanese, it's something like "Are you healthy~lively~spirited?"
14:28 < dutchie> "Wie gehts" in German, also "how does it go?"
14:28 < Ilmen> or "how is your mood?"
14:30  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
14:32  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
14:32 < Ilmen> Yeah
14:32 < Ilmen> Last time, Selpahi told me «Wie geht's = do ma lifri»
14:32 < ctefaho> lifri seems like a good choice for that ie
14:33 < niftg> pe'i .uinai jai nandu fai lo nu fanva do'i lo ponjo
14:34 < dutchie> pe'i ro lo nu fanva cu nandu
14:35 < niftg> .ie .i ku'i du'u xo kau ni nandu
14:35 < Ilmen> faumlu fa lo nu zoi py.  ogenki (desu ka?)  .py cu fadni
14:35 < Ilmen> co panra
14:36 < Ilmen> .i ku'i la'a sai na smudu'i lu do ma lifri li'u
14:37 < niftg> lu xu do kanro li'u jbimau
14:37 < Ilmen> ĭe
14:48 < niftg> ca'o vistcidu da lo sanga jufra pe le jborapu albuma pu lo nu da'i tinytcidu lo mulno
14:48 < Ilmen> mi na cpacu lo selsa'a prosa
14:49 < Ilmen> .i ku'i so'o selsa'a pagbu cu jai nandu fai lo ka selsku jimpe
14:49 < Ilmen> .i su'o pagbu cu simlu lo ka na cumki fa lo nu tirna jimpe .u'i
14:49 < zipcpi> Hm would anybody mind if I cekitaujau {i'au} to {go}?
14:49 < mensi> zipcpi: cu'u la'o gy.gleki.gy.: pevna is just taken from guaspi. the form is such that it matches {pev} rafsi |
14:49 < mensi> 2015-06-28T04:16:57.718Z
14:50 < niftg> lo nu zo'e ja'a go'a cu sarcu lo nu dunda rauda
14:50 < zipcpi> Hm I'm not familiar with guaspi definitions; do they all look like that? lol
14:50 < Ilmen> je'e la .nif.
14:51 < niftg> sa'e lo za'u rau rupnu
14:53 < niftg> la balnema zo'u traji frili fa lo nu tinytcidu vau vau la'a
14:53 < Ilmen> ca lo ca'abna mi na ka'e terve'u .i ku'i .a'o mi ba kakne
14:53  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa ctefa'o fa
14:54 < niftg> .a'u bu'o gaspo vlaste
14:54 < Ilmen> ba'anai la'au za'o lo fanmo li'u banzuni jai frili
14:54 < Ilmen> .i ji'a la nonseka
14:56 < Ilmen> .i mi ba'o jimpe pi so'e tu'a la'au lo nanmu na klaku li'u
14:56 < Ilmen> ba'a nai
14:56 < ctefaho> hey zipcpi
14:56 < Ilmen> .i ku'i la'au na sa li'u nandu mi
14:56 < Ilmen> .i sa'e la'oi nasa
14:57 < zipcpi> coi la ctefa'o
14:58 < niftg> .ua si'au la'au nonseka li'u se pagbu lo so'e cmavo .i .a'u
14:58 < Ilmen> lo sutra dukse se bacru .e lo se stika voksa se bacru cu nandu mi
14:59 < niftg> .a'o semau frili fa lo nu tinytcidu lo tokpona .i ku'i la'a nandu fa lo nu jimpe fi ri
14:59 < zipcpi> I also added a description for the new proposed {i'au} grammar to JVS
15:00 < ctefaho> zipcpi guess what
15:00 < zipcpi> Huh?
15:00 < Ilmen> lo mi tokpona cu fusra dukse .i mi na pacna lo nu mi ka'e tirna jimpe .u'i
15:00 < ctefaho> err nvm
15:00 < ctefaho> sa sa
15:01 < niftg> .u'i .i lo tokpona cu fuzme zmadu pe'i zo'o
15:02  * ctefaho crawls back to his awesome jbo cave
15:02 < ctefaho> (co'o)
15:02 < Ilmen> co'o do
15:02 < niftg> jbokevna .u'i co'o
15:02 < zipcpi> exp: broda xoi brode
15:02 < mensi> (CU [broda {xoi <CU (¹brode VAU¹)> SEhU} VAU])
15:03 < zipcpi> exp: broda vau xoi brode
15:03 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
15:03 < Ilmen> xoi...se'u is an adverbial term, it behaves just like "naku"
15:03 < Ilmen> with regard to syntax
15:03 < zipcpi> I know
15:03 < zipcpi> Just testing on how it should work with {i'au}
15:04 < zipcpi> Currently I have: selma'o IhAU: reset bridi-level to zero // Auto-inserts all necessary terminators to reset to the top-level bridi of the sentence (i.e. everything but the last vau). May be used with xoi. May also be used with UI-cmavo; UI-cmavo placed immediately after would apply to the entire sentence.
15:07 < zipcpi> "everything that {i} would insert except the last {vau}", rather
15:08 < zipcpi> Makes it behave as expected within lu...li'u, to...toi, etc
15:14  * nuzba @languagefever: RT languagefever: Want to learn a new language that nobody speaks yet, but that would encompass all ?  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban #lojban #la… [http://bit.ly/1BOR3jc]
15:14 < zipcpi> Nah, you want Ithkuil lol
15:15 < dutchie> ie u'i
15:16 < niftg> ju'ocu'i lo itku'ile ja'a se farna lo ro sidbo
15:27 < Ilmen> co'o ro do
15:29  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
15:29 < dutchie> co'o la .ilmen.
16:07  * nuzba @uitki: Nuzba:xu do djuno - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Nuzba:xu_do_djuno by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1CD6Axn]
16:54 < zipcpi> ctefaho: What are the etymologies of {benre} and {kesri}? (Well, {benre} is kinda obvious, though is there a reason you chose {r} over anything else)
16:56 < zipcpi> Hmm -ke- is probably from Chinese
16:56 < durka42> .u'i zo ze'irsaivi
16:58 < durka42> zipcpi: za'a do co'a jbovlaste pendo la .krtis. .u'i
16:58 < zipcpi> u'i
16:59 < zipcpi> ie si'au ky sai'e nelci lo valsi poi mi finti
17:00 < zipcpi> ku'i mi za'o na jimpe su'o valsi poi ky finti go u'i
17:00 < zipcpi> .y. oi mi na mulno lo ka slabu lo tcekitaujau
17:00 < durka42> zo go mo
17:00 < zipcpi> mi tcekitaujaugau zo i'au
17:01 < durka42> ua
17:01 < durka42> mu'i ma na pilno zo .iau
17:01 < zipcpi> zo iau su'oroi nitcu la'o gy glottal stop gy
17:02 < durka42> sa'u do ca'o finti lo ki'oki'o valsi ku poi ro ke'a se smuni zo ca'e .i la .krtis. cu camselci'i
17:02 < durka42> .y ienai
17:02 < durka42> zo iau se tolfa'o lo karmlisna .i seni'ibo so'ane'eroi nitcu
17:02 < zipcpi> .ije suda jinvi lo cmavo poi na selpau lo zunsna cu mutce lo ka simsa lo cnima'o
17:03 < zipcpi> ua lu so'ane'e li'u
17:04 < zipcpi> zo simlu mapti semau
17:09 < durka42> zo'oi almost-never
17:09 < durka42> xu lu da'aroi li'u mapti
17:10 < zipcpi> na ia
17:10 < zipcpi> mi jimpe lu so'ane'e li'u
17:11 < zipcpi> zo da'a cu jibni zo ro
17:11 < durka42> lo drata pu cusku lu ji'inoroi li'u
17:12 < zipcpi> .ije mi na djuno lo du lu da'aroi li'u cu se smuni gekau plixau .i zoi zoi all-but-one-times zoi ki'a
17:14 < zipcpi> lu <lo drata pu cusku lu ji'inoroi li'u> li'u .i ua ji'a mapti pe'i
17:14 < zipcpi> ku'i mi nelci lu so'ane'e li'u ji'a
17:15 < durka42> ie
17:16 < durka42> lu ji'inoroi li'u zo'u mi se slabu lo si'o pinoroi co'e jenai lo si'u ni'upinoroi .u'i co'e
17:17 < zipcpi> lu ni'uno li'u se smuni da ma'i lo me'oi rounding
17:19 < zipcpi> ku'i ju'oinaisai zo ni'u peva'o tau zo roi se smuni makau
17:27 < zipcpi> xu zo se'irsaivi simsa zoi zoi attention-deficit zoi u'i
17:27 < durka42> srana si'au .u'i
18:24 < zipcpi> kai'eru'e la zantufa cu ji'isre pe'a lo du lu <jo'aunai> li'u cu smudu'i zo <jo'au>
18:25 < zipcpi> ei mi jungau la .guskant.
18:27 < zipcpi> ku'i mi na djuno lo du gekau ze'oijo'au versiio cu se sanji zy
18:31 < durka42> oi mi co'u jimpe lo do jbobau .u'i
18:32 < zipcpi> u'i la zantufa cu gasnu lo nu zo zei jei zo ze'ei cu se cmima ma'oi si
18:33 < durka42> ie banli
18:33 < durka42> simsyse'e so'ida
18:33 < durka42> er
18:33 < durka42> sampyse'e so'ida
18:34 < zipcpi> ua u'i ra'oi se'e
18:34 < zipcpi> lo lujvo poi se rafsi
18:36  * nuzba @uitki: nuzba/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzba/en by Mukti - Results of LLG Officers election [http://bit.ly/1Jsqhjm]
18:45 < zipcpi> zo iau cu ji'a se fanmo lo jbikarsna .ijebo so'i cnima'o cu se tolfa'o me'o uy
18:46 < durka42> iebu'o je'u
18:49 < clakre> ...just realized I can't say .i li pai du {any finite number of digits of pi}
18:50 < _mukti_> Translation help? For "elect" can we get any closer than {cmicu'a} ?
18:50  * clakre finds ji'i.  that fixes it
18:51 < zipcpi> mukti: What sense do you want?
18:52 < durka42> _mukti_: jinga fo lo nu cmicu'a ?
18:52 < _mukti_> zipcpi: I'm trying to write a lojban version of the announcement of the LLG Board elections.
18:52 < _mukti_> In English, "The LLG Board of Directors have re-elected ... "
18:53 < _mukti_> Odd that {cmicu'a} has no place for office, or is that what is meant by "voting group"?
18:53 < durka42> lo nu LLGBD cmicu'a cu ve jinga fo ...
18:53 < durka42> yeah, I am not sure
18:53 < durka42> there is also {gubycu'a}
18:54 < durka42> I think "voting group" is the people who are voting?
18:54 < _mukti_> Argh. Yeah. Bad lujvo. No lojbiscuit.
18:54 < zipcpi> Nah I think you want something "elect someone to some position"
18:54 < zipcpi> lol lojbiscuit
18:54 < durka42> ma'udzau...
18:55 < zipcpi> u'i
18:55 < zipcpi> ro le ma'udzau
18:55 < zipcpi> ko cpacu ro le ma'udzau
18:55 < zipcpi> .y. le ka ma'udzau
18:56 < zipcpi> le ka se ma'udzau
18:56 < durka42> I thinking about something like {selzauco'aturni} (needs work)
18:56 < zipcpi> u'i
18:56 < zipcpi> .addpoint durka42
18:56 < zipcpi> .y.
18:56 < durka42> en:turni
18:57 < mensi> turni = x1 governs/rules/is ruler/governor/sovereign/reigns over people/territory/domain/subjects x2.
18:57 < _mukti_> catni3 seems relevant
18:57 < durka42> yeah, catni > turni
18:57 < durka42> co'arcatni
18:57 < zipcpi> catnygaucu'a?
18:57 < zipcpi> ca'irgaucu'a
18:57 < durka42> lo nu LLGBD ba'o cmicu'a cu selja'e lo nu A co'arcatni ...
18:59 < _mukti_> tu'a lo fuzraikamni be la lojbangirzu za'u re'u te catni lo kagja'a la lojbab
18:59 < durka42> .i'e
19:00 < _mukti_> or could make it more explicit ... lo nu lo fuzraikamni be la lojbangirzu cu cmicu'a kei ...
19:01 < zipcpi> la lojbab cu catni lo kagja'a iau ki'aru'e
19:02 < durka42> xm
19:02 < durka42> la lojbab cu kagja'a
19:02 < _mukti_> I'm assuming catni2 is flexible enough to accept a title.
19:02 < _mukti_> Perhaps that's assuming too much.
19:03 < durka42> it sounds like the vote gave Bob control over the president
19:03 < zipcpi> lo fuzraikamni be la lojbangirzu cu cmicu'a ja'e lo nu la .lojbab. za'ure'u kagja'a
19:03 < durka42> I like that better
19:03 < _mukti_> Yeah, that's clearer
19:04 < _mukti_> I'm rolling with that. Thank you, zipcpi.
19:04 < zipcpi> je'e
19:05 < _mukti_> Ha, I almost forgot about {vipsi}. I get to use it for the first time.
19:07  * nuzba @bakkasel: Part of me thinks that #Lojban should be the official language of every #EU member state. Written in Tolkien's #Tengwar script. [http://bit.ly/1Jsro2u]
19:07  * nuzba @bakkasel: Lojban is after all a language created to expand the minds of those who speak it. It seems to me that Europe needs exactly that right now. [http://bit.ly/1JsrvuX]
19:10 < durka42> this just in, Greece requests an extension of the bailout terms until CLLv2 is published
19:15 < _mukti_> .u'i
19:15 < _mukti_> For a second I believed you
19:17 < zipcpi> mu'a lu me'au la'e zoi zoi illocutionary act zoi li'u zo'u: xu da cmavo jecu smudu'i lo'u <me'au la'e zoi> le'u
19:17 < _mukti_> lo fuzraikamni be la lojbangirzu cu cmicu'a ja'e lo nu la'o zoi Robert LeChevalier zoi cu za'u re'u kagja'a .i la'o zoi And Rosta zoi cu co'a vipsi kagja'a .i la'o zoi Riley Martinez-Lynch zoi cu co'a ci'arse'u je baxpre .i io ckire la'o zoi Veijo Vilva zoi noi ba'o vipsi kagja'a .e la'o zoi Robin Lee Powell noi pu ze'u ci'arse'u je baxpre
19:18 < _mukti_> Oops, missing ku'o
19:19 < zipcpi> I would replace those {i}s with {ju'ei} to make it all part of the voting ja'e, but I don't know how much you like {ju'ei} :p
19:19 < zipcpi> I'm pretty bad with using experimental cmavo
19:19 < _mukti_> I've never encountered {ju'ei}. Since I'm making an official announcement for LLG, I think I best walk the line.
19:20 < zipcpi> lol
19:20 < zipcpi> It starts another bridi within an abstraction like a POI-clause or a NU-clause. They can be replaced by ju'egi ... gi..., but that requires forethought
19:21 < _mukti_> Oh. That's cool. I've looked for that a number of times.
19:23  * nuzba @uitki: nuzba - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/nuzba by Mukti - lo fuzraikamni be la lojbangirzu cu ba'o cmicu'a [http://bit.ly/1GUDYnu]
19:23 < zipcpi> xu da cmavo jecu smudu'i lo'u <me'au la'e zoi> le'u
19:24 < zipcpi> galfi lo uenzi poi na'e se jbobau ku'o lo selbrisle
19:25 < zipcpi> simsa zo me'oi jeku'i cu panra zo la'o
19:25 < durka42> zo me'oi
19:26 < durka42> uanai
19:26 < zipcpi> zo me'oi galfi papo'o valsi
19:26 < durka42> uanainai
19:26 < durka42> pe'i noda valsi
19:26 < zipcpi> mu'oi*ci'ai gy illocutionary act gy
19:30 < durka42> zo ci'ai se velcki
19:31 < zipcpi> Marks experimental cmavo
19:31 < zipcpi> tcita lo cipra cmavo
19:31 < durka42> oh I was confused by your asterisk
19:31 < zipcpi> ci'ai*ci'ai*ci'ai*ci'ai*ci'ai li'o li'o li'o xi ci'i
19:31 < zipcpi> u'i
19:50 < _mukti_> Is there a lojban-announcements admin in the house?
20:14 < zipcpi> Hmm... need equivalents to sub- and super-
20:15 < zipcpi> x1 is subordinate to x2 in aspect x3
20:15 < zipcpi> Oh right vipsi kinda works
20:16 < zipcpi> I dunno though. vipselma'o = sub-selma'o ?
20:16 < zipcpi> vipysetmima
20:16 < zipcpi> tolvipysetmima
20:16 < zipcpi> I dunno lol
20:17 < zipcpi> doi lo drata be mi do'u pei
20:36 < niftg> en: vipsi
20:36 < mensi> vipsi = x1 is a deputy/vice/subordinate in aspect [or organization principle] x2 (ka) to principal x3. |>>> Also
20:36 < mensi> assistant, adjutant.  See also krati, sidju. |>>> officialdata
20:39 < niftg> du'u ka'e xukau ciksi fo lo du'u vipsi makau makau
20:43 < zipcpi> exp: lo nu tu'e broda
20:43 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
20:44 < zipcpi> exp: lo nu tu'e broda .i brode
20:44 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
20:45 < zipcpi> I've been told that is another experimental option for having multiple sentences within a subclause; advantage is that it might save some breath and avoid having to close further subclauses; disadvantage is that it requires forethought
20:46 < zipcpi> exp: lo nu ju'egi broda gi brode gi ko'a brodu
20:46 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
20:46 < zipcpi> exp: lo nu ju'egi broda gi brode
20:46 < mensi> ([lo {nu <CU (¹ju'e gi¹) (¹CU [broda VAU]¹) gi (¹CU [brode VAU]¹) VAU> KEI} KU] VAU)
20:46 < zipcpi> Huh only works for two
20:46 < durka42> yes forethought only works for two operands
20:47 < durka42> otherwise nested forethought would be ambiguous
20:47 < zipcpi> Right
20:47 < zipcpi> So {ju'ei} is not fully replaceable then
20:47 < durka42> only with extreme forethought :p
20:47 < zipcpi> Except maybe {kei jo'u lo nu} but yuck
20:47 < durka42> i.e. you have to know how many {ju'e gi} to put at the beginning
20:48 < zipcpi> Oh yeah or that, which is also yuck
20:48 < durka42> ie
20:52 < zipcpi> I translated a particular passage of the Bible with heavy usage of {ju'ei}
20:53 < zipcpi> Seriously the sentence ran across three verses IIRC
21:15 < zipcpi> Hm how to convert a sumti into a PA... mo'e doesn't seem to work
21:16 < zipcpi> Oh wait it does
21:16 < zipcpi> I was using the standard grammar parser; that's surprising though
21:16 < zipcpi> exp: mo'e ko'a broda
21:16 < mensi> ([{<mo'e ko'a TEhU> BOI} broda KU] VAU)
21:16 < zipcpi> off: mo'e ko'a broda
21:16 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
21:17 < selpli> zipcpi: In what situation would you use sumti -> PA?
21:18 < zipcpi> "an odd number"
21:18 < zipcpi> Probably we don't want new PA for "odd number", "even number", "number divisible by 3", etc :p
21:19 < zipcpi> Also sometimes you want to assign numbers to sumti to use later
21:19 < durka42> off: vei mo'e ko'a broda
21:19 < mensi> ([{vei <mo'e ko'a TEhU> VEhO} broda KU] VAU)
21:19 < zipcpi> ua
21:19 < durka42> yacc attack
21:19 < selpli> Why not just use selbri for that?
21:20 < zipcpi> I don't even know if we have a mo'e-equivalent for selbri :p
21:22 < selpli> you could define something like remdilcu
21:22 < selpli> *reldilcu
21:23 < durka42> right
21:23 < durka42> and then if you needed it in a mekso expression it'd be like {li pa su'i mo'e lo reldilcu ...}
21:24 < durka42> camxes: li pa su'i mo'e lo reldilcu
21:24 < camxes> ([li {<pa BOI> <su'i (¹mo'e [lo reldilcu KU] TEhU¹)>} LOhO] VAU)
21:25 < zipcpi> Do we already have a VUhU for modulus...
21:25 < zipcpi> Could probably also use a brivla for it
21:25 < selpli> there is a pretty good blog post arguing against mekso in general: http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban,+Math,+mekso,+and+bridi+cmaci
21:25 < durka42> vlaste: remainder
21:25 < vlaste> 10 results: velvi'u, dilcu, vimcu, cicyspavi'u, kafxumvi'u, mosyvi'u, pilvi'u, zifyvlavelvi'u, ampute, me'ei'o
21:26 < durka42> yeah, it's not like I ever use mekso myself :
21:26 < zipcpi> selpli: There might be an argument there; seeing that the whole "no precedence" thing is... horribly inconvenient. As well as the whole "completely new grammar not used anywhere else in the language" thing
21:27 < durka42> and taking up acres of cmavo space
21:27 < zipcpi> u'i
21:27 < durka42> I can't find a VUhU for modulus/remainder
21:27 < selpli> Agreed. gismu are so and simple, and according to the author, less than 50% longer
21:27 < zipcpi> Not even a kurtynomvla? lol
21:29  * nuzba @uitki: rinsa - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/rinsa by Mukti [http://bit.ly/1CDwFfQ]
21:33 < zipcpi> ni'ai? gi'ui??
21:33 < zipcpi> Second one isn't even morphologically acceptable according to current doctrine; and I'm not sure if it ever was lol
21:34 < durka42> I feel like it should be related to fe'ei
21:34 < selpli> Actually it would be nice to free up all the mekso cmavo, if IRC could restrain itself and not immediately define it as something useless
21:34 < durka42> (pretty sure it never was)
21:34 < zipcpi> What's fe'ei
21:35 < durka42> free
21:35 < durka42> selpli: don't give la zipcpi any ideas :p
21:35 < zipcpi> lol
21:36 < selpli> I'd be nicer to have official gismu for something that's really used like la'oi
21:36 < durka42> er
21:37 < durka42> how would there be a gismu for la'oi
21:37 < selpli> *cmavo
21:37 < zipcpi> Ah...
21:37 < durka42> meh, la'oi might as well be official by now :)
21:38 < zipcpi> There's always cekitaujau, but I dunno, I kinda like la'oi as is. It'd be hard to reassign it as well as its friends zo'oi, me'oi, in a way that keeps consistency
21:38 < selpli> Doesn't it break something important? I can't remember what, though
21:38 < durka42> right, technically it's "experimental shape" but you want it to sound like la'o anyway, so there's no point in reassigning it to another cmavo form
21:38 < zipcpi> Of course I also just defined mu'oi, which "should" be {me'o} to keep consistency, but, erm...
21:39 < durka42> yeah, but you just had to add it anyway, didn't ya
21:39 < zipcpi> lol
21:40 < durka42> selpli: well, it breaks audiovisual isomorphism, but it kinda has to, because how else are you going to write down a URL or whatever
21:40 < selpli> I wonder what the most used unofficial cmavo are. Any idead beside (la/zo/me)'oi?
21:40 < durka42> Ilmen made a list not too long ago
21:40  * durka42 rustles papers around
21:40 < durka42> http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Experimental_gismu_and_cmavo_frequency_lists
21:41 < selpli> Hahaha, besto is around number ten.
21:41 < zipcpi> lo'ai-sa'ai-le'ai is rather high. So is {di'ai}
21:41 < selpli> kinda sorta xalbo
21:42 < selpli> Whoa, kanpe is experimental?
21:42 < zipcpi> Yep, one of the oldes
21:46 < zipcpi> Oh ni'ai is defined there; I skipped reading a bit
21:46 < selpli> Who on earth called "smaka" for "smaka"?
21:49 < durka42> huh?
21:52 < zipcpi> lol Now I want new mekso
21:53 < zipcpi> Also frees up a bunch of additional mekso cmavo that Curtis has added... lol
21:53 < zipcpi> I dunno though; shouldn't he be the first to figure out how broken mekso are
21:54 < durka42> I'm just trying to imagine how he would react if someone suggested removing mekso from the language
21:54 < zipcpi> lol
21:56 < selpli> Anyway, gotta go
22:00 < zipcpi> Hmm could poi'i work for ni'ai?
22:01 < zipcpi> Then ke'a would work rather than ce'u
22:05 < zipcpi> I kinda like ni'ai vs poi'i for this though; makes it clear that you expect a number
22:16 < akmnlrse> zipcpi: la'au pa la'e di'e li'u zo'u: zo mei'e ka'e mapti
22:17 < akmnlrse> .i ru'a ka'e gasnu lo nu mapti ro ka'e se xi rau terjoma poi na selbrisle
22:18 < akmnlrse> s/se xi rau/te/
22:25 < zipcpi> Yeah we did talk about {mei'e} the other day. Of course it contradicts the current definition, but we're not sure how useful the current definition is anyway
22:25 < zipcpi> The main problem is getting the grammar to work
22:26 < akmnlrse> .ai mi ca troci lo gerna srana
22:27 < zipcpi> {mei'o} can also be repurposed if you need it
22:30 < akmnlrse> ... za'a mi sreji'i
22:32 < akmnlrse> zoi gu pa [MEI'X] [FA] lo re broda [FA] lo re brode gu zo'u jalge fa tu'a pa lo re plurale
22:32 < akmnlrse> .i zoi gu [FA] pa [MEI'X] lo re broda lo re brode gu zo'u jalge fa tu'a pa lo vo .individu
22:32 < akmnlrse> .i ja'o .ei su'o ba'e ci da se lanzu lo me zo mei'e moi
22:33 < zipcpi> xy'y
22:33 < akmnlrse> mei'e -> sumti
22:34 < akmnlrse> mei'i -> sumsmi
22:34 < akmnlrse> ja brirebla
22:34 < akmnlrse> mei'u -> selbrisle
22:35 < zipcpi> xu lo sumtcita cu sumsmi
22:35 < akmnlrse> lo stura poi se pagbu ge lo sumtcita gi lo sumti poi se tcita
22:35 < akmnlrse> cu go'i
22:36 < akmnlrse> .i si'a go'i fa mu'a lo zo xoi stura
22:36 < akmnlrse> me'oi term
22:36 < zipcpi> pa [mei'i] co'a [gi?] ca'o [gi?] co'u
22:37 < akmnlrse> va'o lo xanri be mi zo ku basti zo gi
22:37 < zipcpi> ua
22:37 < akmnlrse> .i .ai cipyzu'e fi lo ka se jalge su'o gerna nabmi
22:48 < akmnlrse> xm da'i zo nu'i basti zo mei'i .i xu lo nu relsmu poi da'i jalge cu dukse lo ka mabla
22:49 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: pa mei'e ti ta
22:49 < spagetufa> ([FA {<pa BOI> <mei'e (¹ti ta¹) MEI'O>}] VAU)
22:49 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: pa mei'e ti ta cu broda
22:49 < spagetufa> ([FA {<pa BOI> <mei'e (¹ti ta¹) MEI'O>}] [cu {broda VAU}])
22:50 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: pa mei'e ti ta fe tu cu broda
22:50 < spagetufa> ([{FA <(¹pa BOI¹) (¹mei'e [ti ta] MEI'O¹)>} {fe tu}] [cu {broda VAU}])
22:50 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: pa mei'i ti ta broda
22:50 < spagetufa> ([{pa BOI} mei'i {<FI'A ti> <FI'A ta>} MEI'O] [CU {broda VAU}])
22:51 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: pa mei'i ti ta nu'i pu ku ba ku broda
22:51 < spagetufa> ([{pa BOI} mei'i {<FI'A ti> <FI'A ta> <nu'i (¹[pu ku] [ba ku]¹) NU'U>} MEI'O] [CU {broda VAU}])
22:51 < akmnlrse> ^ PALCI
22:52 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: pa mei'i ti ta mei'e mi do broda
22:52 < spagetufa> ([{pa BOI} mei'i {<FI'A ti> <FI'A ta> <FI'A (¹mei'e [mi do] MEI'O¹)>} MEI'O] [CU {broda VAU}])
22:56 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: mi ti ro mei'i ta lebna vau tu dunda
22:56 < spagetufa> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "d" found.
22:56 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: mi ti ro mei'i lebna vau dunda
22:58 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: mi ti ro mei'i lebna vau dunda
22:58 < akmnlrse> cimni refkursi .u'e
23:01 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: mi ti cu ro mei'i lebna ta vau dunda tu
23:03 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: mi ti cu ro mei'i lebna ta vau dunda tu
23:03  * akmnlrse de'a
23:12 < gleki> zipcpi: jhave you used all of your 5 upvotes here? http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
23:14 < zipcpi> gleki: No; can't decide what to vote for
23:15 < gleki> zipcpi: only for those that are below 10 in rating. or create new questions.
23:15 < gleki> dutchie: jhave you used all of your 5 upvotes here? http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
23:16 < gleki> zipcpi: in selpa'is blog there used to be a section on guaspi
23:17 < gleki> en: biscuit
23:17 < mensi> cmananba [< cmalu nanba ≈ Small bread] = n1 is a roll/bun/biscuit/bun made from grains n2.
23:17 < zipcpi> Don't ask us to use ve'i nanba :p
23:18 < zipcpi> Though... hm that isn't exactly very specific
23:18 < gleki> neither cmananba
23:18 < gleki> .dict biscuit
23:19 < gleki> .dict biscuit
23:19 < fenki> biscuit — noun: 1. (chiefly UK, Australia, New Zealand, rare in the US) A small, flat, baked good which is either hard and crisp or else soft but firm: a cookie, 2. (chiefly Canada, US) A small, usually soft and flaky bread, generally made with baking soda, which is similar in texture to a sc[...]
23:19 < zipcpi> k: biskoti
23:19 < mensi> ([{PA:bi BOI} G:skoti KU] VAU)
23:20 < gleki> sei la gleki cu sraku be lo stedu
23:20 < zipcpi> k: binkati
23:20 < mensi> (CU [Z:binkati VAU])
23:20 < gleki> what is biscuit???
23:20 < gleki> just a cookie?
23:20 < zipcpi> vlakra fa tu'a lo jugbau
23:21 < gleki> note that there are two biscuits
23:21 < gleki> do you want the second meaning?
23:22 < gleki> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biscuit
23:22 < gleki> nice pics
23:22 < zipcpi> Hmm... probably the British one. The American one looks like it should be cmananba or ze'i nanba
23:22 < zipcpi> What the Americans would call a cookie
23:23 < gleki> en: cookie
23:23 < mensi> 3 da se tolcri: ckafika, fi'ikca, titnanba
23:23 < gleki> en: titnanba
23:23 < mensi> titnanba [< titla nanba ≈ Sweet bread] = n1 is a cake/cookie made from grains n2. |>>> Cf. titla, nanba, jupypesxu,
23:23 < mensi> rutytisna. |>>> arj
23:23 < gleki> terrible
23:23 < zipcpi> en: kenka
23:23 < mensi> kenka = k1 is a quantity of cake/torte/tart/pie/flan made of/containing ingredients k2, prepared according to method k3.
23:23 < mensi> |>>> Cf. titnanba, jupypesxu, rutytisna |>>> djeikon
23:23 < gleki> rafsi: nanba
23:23 < mensi> zo'oi nab .e zo'oi nanb rafsi zo nanba
23:23 < zipcpi> What is with all these tirxu gismu lol
23:24 < gleki> we at least should have words for cookie, biscuit2, cracker.
23:24 < gleki> let's assume that kenka/torta is fine.
23:24 < gleki> In North America, a biscuit is a small, soft baked bread similar to a scone but not sweet. In the United Kingdom, a biscuit is a small, crisp or firm, sweet baked good — the sort of thing which in North America is called a cookie. (Less frequently, British speakers refer to crackers as biscuits.) In North America, even small, layered baked sweets like Oreos are referred to as cookies, while in the UK, only
23:24 < gleki>  those biscuits which have chocolate chips, nuts, fruit or other things baked into them are also called cookies.
23:25 < gleki> Throughout the English-speaking world, thin, crispy, salty or savoury baked breads like these are called crackers, while thin, crispy, sweet baked goods like these and these are wafers.
23:25 < gleki> Both the US and the UK distinguish crackers, wafers and cookies/biscuits from cakes: the former are generally hard or crisp and become soft when stale, while the latter is generally soft or moist and becomes hard when stale.
23:25 < gleki> im lost
23:25 < zipcpi> u'i
23:25 < gleki> what are wafers?
23:26 < zipcpi> "a very thin, light, crisp, sweet cookie or cracker, especially one of a kind eaten with ice cream."
23:26 < zipcpi> oi
23:26 < zipcpi> "a thin disk of unleavened bread used in the Eucharist."
23:26 < zipcpi> "a very thin slice of a semiconductor crystal used as the substrate for solid-state circuitry."
23:27 < gleki> the latter is definitely titnanba
23:27 < zipcpi> u'i
23:30 < gleki> one word for each concept
23:30 < gleki> i havent decided what should be the prefix
23:30 < gleki> maybe just {dja}
23:30 <@Broca> Why would one use a semiconductor substrate rather than an isolator?
23:38 < gleki> Broca: have you used all of your 5 upvotes here? http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
23:39 < zipcpi> akmnlrse: u'i mi djica lo ka bastygau zo i'au zo go kei ki'u lo du lo drata cmavo jai cizra fai lo ka da'i basti zo i'au kei ra'anai lo ni dy jai tolcafne fai lo ka se pilno
23:39 < gleki> selbastygau
23:39 < gleki> *cu jai cizra
23:40 < zipcpi> oise'i
23:40 < zipcpi> mi jai cafne lo ka ji'isre lo du zo jai simsa lo sumtcita tu'a lo gerna
23:42  * nuzba @lai_krtisfranks: What if we deplete all of gismu space (under current conflict rules) without being able to assign all of the possible rafsi? #Lojban [http://bit.ly/1Np30gT]
23:43 < zipcpi> There are already proposals to assign certain rafsi to zi'evla or even lujvo lol
23:44 < zipcpi> zmo for zmo'una (not sure what that should be used for)
23:44 < zipcpi> -se'e- for selja'e
23:46 < b_jonas> zipcpi: you can't assign rafsi to lujvo. IMO, technically, you can assign to a zihevla, but I think if you want to do that, that's a sign for the need of a new gismu of that meaning.
23:47 < zipcpi> I'm not the one who proposed those things
23:47 < zipcpi> vlaste: selje (gimka)
23:47 < vlaste> zo selje gimkamsmikezypro no catni gismu .i zo selje gimkamsmikezypro no cipra gismu
23:47 < gleki> b_jonas: coi. have you used all of your 5 upvotes here? http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
23:48 < gleki> zipcpi: it's just rinka acc. to xorxes
23:48 < zipcpi> To me {rinka} means A would cause B without any intervention
23:49 < gleki> se jalge as well
23:49 < sezycei> So I bought Djemynai's album, za'o, and I'm looking through the lyrics - and it appears he very deliberately left out denpabu. Is this common practice, or?
23:49 < zipcpi> I dunno, I think of jalge of something like "x1 is the consequence of x2"
23:50 < zipcpi> Mechanism of consequence unspecified
23:50 < zipcpi> Thus able to cover krinu/mukti/rinka/nibli
23:50 < gleki> sezycei: coi. have you used all of your 5 upvotes here? http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
23:51 < sezycei> Have I used all 5 of my upvotes there? No, I didn't know it was a thing.
23:52 < gleki> sezycei: yes, we need to upvote all questions with rating below 10
23:52 < sezycei> Why is that?
23:53 < b_jonas> gleki: five? don't I have ten per proposal? but anyway, no, because I'm not convinced that making a stackoverflow site about lojban is a good idea or that I care about one. maybe I should at least look at it one day, but I don't think that will change my opinion because SE site proposals don't usually contain much extra info.
23:54 < sezycei> Okay, I upvoted five things. Still don't know why I've done this.
23:54 < b_jonas> gleki: you're right, five only
23:54 < gleki> no one know. but it can increase presence of Lojban on the net.
23:54 < b_jonas> http://area51.stackexchange.com/privileges/vote-question-up says five
23:55 < gleki> b_jonas: it dfoesnt matter wether stackexchange sites are good or not. increasing presence is our only hope
23:55 < b_jonas> gleki: not _my_ only hope, no
23:55 < b_jonas> or not the only hope for _my_ goals, rather
23:57 < sezycei> gleki: What is your native language?
23:57 < gleki> mi rusko
23:58 < sezycei> do ba cilre fi lo xo bangu
23:59 < sezycei> I hope that means what I want it to mean.
23:59 < sezycei> pu
23:59 < sezycei> I meant pu, not ba
23:59 < b_jonas> gleki: that said, if the proposal is popular enough, I should check it out definitely, and at least try to take it into a direction
23:59 < zipcpi> {do se bangu xo da}?
23:59 < gleki> mi pu tadni lo glibau e lo portybau e lo sperybau e lo tokpona
--- Day changed Mon Jun 29 2015
00:00 < b_jonas> and that time may be close because the percent-o-meter shows the proposal is past half of the define phase
00:00 < gleki> i ku'i mi na carmi tadni lo spanybau
00:01 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: lo lorxu cu ro mei'i plipe re mei'e lo ci pezli lo gerku vau kancu ro mei'i ri'oi pezli lo bitmu grana vau sutra lo ka no'a
00:01 < spagetufa> ([FA {lo lorxu KU}] [cu {ro BOI} mei'i {<CU (¹plipe [{FI'A <(²re BOI²) (²mei'e [{lo <(³ci BOI³) pezli> KU} {lo gerku KU}] MEI'O²)>} vau]¹)> <CU (¹kancu [{<ro BOI> mei'i <(²FI'A [ri'oi pezli KU]²) (²FI'A [lo {bitmu grana} KU]²)> MEI'O} vau]¹)> <CU (¹sutra [{FI'A <lo (²ka [CU {no'a VAU}] KEI²) KU>} VAU]¹)>} VAU MEI'O])
00:01 < sezycei> Oh, back to my earlier question: is it now common practice to leave out denpabu when typing Lojban?
00:01 < sezycei> {i mi gleki} instead of {.i mi gleki}
00:01 < akmnlrse> sezycei: mu'a gleki does this all the time
00:01 < akmnlrse> I sometimes do
00:02 < sezycei> Djemynai also did it in his album's lyricsheets. It seemed very deliberate.
00:02 < gleki> it's common since spaces do the trick anyway
00:02 < gleki> en :mei'i
00:02 < gleki> en: mei'i
00:02 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
00:02 < gleki> jbo mei'e
00:02 < gleki> jbo: mei'e
00:02 < mensi> mei'e = [MEIhE] galfi lo sumti porsi goi py. lo selbrisle .i x1 menre lo cmima be py. |>>> srana fa zo me .e zo menre .e
00:03 < mensi> zo cmima .e zo sumpoi .i se famyma'o zo mei'o |>>> selpahi
00:03 < gleki> ua lo kurtyvla pe la selpa'i
00:03 < akmnlrse> je'e je'e do'u mi mabla lo ka jai gau gentufa fi lo nu'o se jbovlaste
00:04 <@Broca> gleki: I'm not sure I _want_ a StackExchange for Lojban. Isn't there another Q&A site already?
00:05 < gleki> Broca: it will just increase presence of lojban on the web
00:05 < gleki> the main Q&A site is this IRC channel
00:05 < gleki> but few people use it. So spreading solutions from here to other places may be desirable
00:06 <@Broca> An IRC channel is not an IRC channel :-)
00:06 <@Broca> Umm
00:06 <@Broca> An IRC channel is not a Q&A site :-)
00:06 <@Broca> (I think I need more coffee)
00:06 < akmnlrse> zipcpi: za'a bu'o zo mei'e ne mi xa'o frica lo se skicu
00:06 < gleki> Broca: i just think that the more copies of information about Lojban we have the mosre chances appropriate people will start working with Lojbanistan
00:06 < akmnlrse> lo ka jai cupra lo me'oi sumti_6 je nai lo selbrisle
00:07 < akmnlrse> .i ga'a do'o ma xagmau
00:07 < gleki> aunai mi cuxna
00:07 < akmnlrse> je'e
00:08 < zipcpi> gleki: He's working on that extended logical connectives thing
00:10 < gleki> mi ca na cinmo lo ka djica lo ka sidju
00:12 < akmnlrse> zipcpi: do se xanri mo'oi gerna pe zo mei'a
00:12 < akmnlrse> si mei'u
00:13 < akmnlrse> mei'u broda brode -> [broda brode] ji [broda jo'u brode] ?
00:13 < zipcpi> xy'y nandu
00:13 < akmnlrse> .i va'o tu'a lo pa moi zo'u ma tersepma'o
00:14 < zipcpi> zo go zo'o
00:14 < akmnlrse> .u'i
00:15 < akmnlrse> zo .sf.
00:16 < zipcpi> u'i
00:17 < zipcpi> eipei la .sf. cu se sinxa lo cmavo
00:18 < akmnlrse> na djuno .i da'i sidju fi tu'a lo'u mlatu co lo pinxe co .sf. ladru co lo le'u
00:18 < zipcpi> kai'eru'e plixau fiji'a tu'a lo cnima'o
00:19 < gleki> mi pu'i fliba tu'a lo'u i mlatu co lo co fa cu pinxe le'u
00:20 < akmnlrse> ue ru'e .i mi pu se jetmlu lo du'u snada
00:20 < gleki> mi pu'i snada tu'a lo'u i lo mlatu co fa cu pinxe le'u po'o
00:20 < gleki> alta: lo mlatu co fa cu pinxe
00:20 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "p" found.
00:21 < gleki> ue
00:21 < gleki> exp: lo mlatu co fa cu pinxe
00:21 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "p" found.
00:21 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: lo mlatu co fa cu pinxe
00:21 < spagetufa> ([{lo mlatu KU} co fa] [cu {pinxe VAU}])
00:21 < gleki> cinri
00:21 < gleki> alta: lo mlatu co ca[3~
00:21 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected ['h] or ['hiI] but "c" found.
00:21 < gleki> alta: lo mlatu co ca
00:21 < mensi> ([{<lo (¹mlatu SF¹) KU> co ca} {FA ZOhE}] [CU {COhE SF} VAU])
00:21 < gleki> alta: lo mlatu co fa
00:21 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "a" found.
00:22 < gleki> je'e
00:22 < akmnlrse> ru'a lo .peg. nu te sumti sanji cu fanta lo nu ma'oi fa ma'oi pu gerna dunli
00:22 < gleki> ie ie
00:33 < zipcpi> da'i zo u cu basti zo zo'u ma'i la tcekitaujau go u'i
00:34 < zipcpi> xy'y na du'eva'ei mabla go pe'i
00:35 < zipcpi> zo a jei zo e jei zo o jei zo u
00:35 < akmnlrse> ie na mabla
00:38 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: lo lorxu cu ro mei'i plipe re mei'e lo ci pezli lo gerku vau kancu ro mei'i ri'oi pezli lo bitmu grana vau sutra lo ka no'a
00:38 < spagetufa> ([FA {lo lorxu KU}] [cu {ro BOI} mei'i {<CU (¹plipe [{FI'A <(²re BOI²) (²mei'e [{lo <(³ci BOI³) pezli> KU} {lo gerku KU}] MEI'O²) KU>} vau]¹)> <CU (¹kancu [{<ro BOI> mei'i <(²FI'A [ri'oi pezli KU]²) (²FI'A [lo {bitmu grana} KU]²)> MEI'O} vau]¹)> <CU (¹sutra [{FI'A <lo (²ka [CU {no'a VAU}] KEI²) KU>} VAU]¹)>} VAU MEI'O])
00:38 < akmnlrse> (to sa'u stika ja'e lo nu mapti lo vlaste velcki toi)
00:49 < zipcpi> pe'i zo a li'o cu simsa lo me'oi punctuation
00:51 < zipcpi> zo zo'u cu simsa la'oi : .ije ri se sinxa lu zo'u bu li'u goji'a
00:53 < zipcpi> da'i ka'eku zo ju'ei basti zo e .i ku'i mi na birti lo du pai'ekau cafne
00:54 < zipcpi> ja se nitcu
00:55 < akmnlrse> (to se xu basti toi)
00:56 < zipcpi> oi mi na selsau le terbri
00:56 < zipcpi> zoizoi "x1 trades places with x2" zoi u na sidju
00:57 < akmnlrse> x1 instead of x2
00:57 < zipcpi> ei zo basysi'u mu'a
00:57 < akmnlrse> .i ja ba'e mi srera
00:57 < akmnlrse> jbo: basti
00:57 < mensi> basti = x1 pu na je ca ckaji x3 noi pu je nai ca se ckaji x2 |>>> ckaji; cabna; purci |>>>
00:57 < mensi> xorxes
00:57 < zipcpi> x1 replaces/substitutes for/instead of x2 in circumstance x3; x1 is a replacement/substitute.
00:58 < zipcpi> za'a mi srera
01:00 < zipcpi> zoi zoi trade places zoi ei co'e zo basysi'u
01:00 < akmnlrse> ie
01:01 < gleki> basti zu'ai
01:02 < zipcpi> ie ka'e ku ji'a
01:12 < akmnlrse> si'au BPFK na xusra lo du'u lu pu zi li'u cu tarti su'o na se nibli be lo me zo pu moi jo'u lo me zo zi moi
01:13 < akmnlrse> .i va'i si'au lo du'u fasnu ca lo purci je nai lo balvi na se natfe tu'a lu ba zi li'u
01:15 < gleki> li'a
01:17 < akmnlrse> na se li'anmo mi
01:18 < akmnlrse> .i xu nai lu ba zi X li'u poi ja'a se pilno cu se smuni lo du'u fasnu ca lo balvi ba'ei *poi* temda'o fi lo cmalu
01:20 < gleki> uanai i ku'i ca'o na natfe lo du'u ka'eku fasnu ca lo purci ji'a
01:20 < akmnlrse> ie ju'o
01:21 < akmnlrse> .i mi tavla fi lo nu da'i ge lo fasnu na fasnu ca su'o balvi gi ku'i lu ba zi li'u mapti ca lo balvi be lo nu pu fasnu
01:21 < gleki> zo pu'i e zo ba'o e zo mo'u e zo ca'o e zo ca'a ka'e sidju i lo munje be lo cmavo cu barda
01:24 < akmnlrse> .i va'iva'i lo fadni smuni be lu pu zi li'u cu dunli lo me lu pu je fau bo zi li'u moi
01:24 < akmnlrse> soi milxe co cizra mi vau sa'u
01:28  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
01:34  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa gunro fa
01:34 < gleki> zo zi tense stika
01:34 < gleki> i na fadni sumtcita
01:36 < akmnlrse> xu lu pu zi broda li'u lu pu ku zi broda li'u smufrica
01:37 < akmnlrse> .i xu go'i lu pu ku lo nu zi broda cu fasnu li'u
01:37 < gleki> pe'i bi'ai frica
01:37 < gleki> i la'a smuni dunli lu puku baja puzi li'u
01:37 < akmnlrse> je'e
01:38 < gleki> i mi pu stidi lo nu zo zi na se steci tu'a lo ditcu
01:39 < gleki> i lo drata noi lo te sepli cu mupli cu ka'e srana lo smuni
01:39 < gleki> i ku'i lo ba'e mi se ba'e stidi
01:39 < akmnlrse> xu va'o ku ma'oi va co'u jai sarcu
01:40 < gleki> go'i
01:41 < gleki> na jai sarcu gi'e plixau
01:42 < ctefaho> coi
01:42 < akmnlrse> coi
01:42 < gleki> ctefaho: coi. have u used all of your upvotes for StackExchange?
01:42 < akmnlrse> ctefaho: co'a casnu lo tense cmavo http://pastebin.com/xBdC7eqC
01:42 < ctefaho> cliva: tense the tensed tenses
01:43 < ctefaho> gleki: no I was tinkering around yesterday, can do today
01:43 < gleki> thanks
01:43 < ctefaho> akmnlrse: xmm
01:45  * ctefaho brb
01:46 < akmnlrse> spagetufa: +g si'au ByPyFyKy na xusra lo du'u lu pu zi li'u cu tarti su'o na se nibli be lo me zo pu moi jo'u lo me zo zi moi
01:46 < spagetufa> (apparently [{<b (¹p f k¹)> claims, asserts} {that <a(n) (¹bridi abstract [{<« (²in-past short time²) »> behaves} {in manner <at least (²not [{2nd conversion necessitate} {<link sumti (³2nd sumti place [{a(n) <among (⁴zo pu⁴) end sumti to selbri ordinal selbri>} in common with {a(n) <among (⁴zo zi⁴) end sumti to selbri ordinal selbri>}]³)> end linked sumti}]²)>}]¹)>}])
01:46 < gleki> akmnlrse: xu bredi
01:46 < akmnlrse> ... za'o ku so'i da na sai bredi
01:46 < gleki> spagetufa: +g mi se prami do
01:46 < spagetufa> (me [you loves])
01:47 < gleki> ge'e
01:48 < akmnlrse> ge'e ra'o .i li'a lo vlaste tarmi za'o na banzuka
01:48 < akmnlrse> .i mu'a la jbofi'e zo'u ro selbri cu se tcita fi lo ka naurne ja lo ka ve'erbe ja ma kau
01:48 < gleki> se prami - to be loved by
01:52  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa gunro fa
01:52  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa gunro fa
02:10 < zipcpi> exp: ge'era'o
02:10 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [oO] but "r" found.
02:10 < zipcpi> u'i
02:10 < zipcpi> mi'oi zbusufukai
02:11 < akmnlrse> li'a zo ra'o cmavo ma'oi ui
02:11 < zipcpi> ieieie
02:13 < zipcpi> gajanai da'i ro valsi cu cmima ma'oi ui gi baku no da nabmi co gerna go zo'o
02:14 < zipcpi> traji fi lo ka zbusufukai
02:14 < zipcpi> .y. fe
02:14 < zipcpi> traji lo ka zbusufukai
02:14 < akmnlrse> si'a ka'e ku ro valsi cu co'e ma'oi si
02:15 < zipcpi> ma'oi su
02:15 < zipcpi> ro da se u zei bangu
02:16 < akmnlrse> uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
02:16 < zipcpi> uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
02:16 < akmnlrse> u u uuuuu uu uuu uu u uu u u uu uuuuuuuu u u u uu u uuuuu uu u uu u u uu
02:16 < zipcpi> uuuuu uuu uuu uuuu uuu uuu uu
02:16 < akmnlrse> .u'a
02:25 < zipcpi> ei mi cliva co'o
03:37 < gleki> en: archetyp
03:37 < mensi> prane = x1 is perfect/ideal/archetypical/faultless/flawless/un-improvable in property/aspect x2 (ka).
03:39 < gleki> en: prototyp
03:39 < mensi> jvisrbipmo = x1 is the BIPM (French: Bureau international des poids et mesures; English: International Bureau of Weights
03:39 < mensi> and Measures) designation/result/standard/code for topic x2 applied to specific case/individual/group/entity/idea/thing
03:39 < mensi> x3 according to rule/BIPM specification x4 published by/according to mandating organization x5 (default:
03:39 < mensi> BIPM)
03:44 < gleki> en: arxetipo
03:44 < mensi> arxetipo = x1 is an archetype, prototype of x2 |>>> x1 is an original model of which x2 is a derivative, copy, emulation
03:44 < mensi> having the same pattern. See also tarmi, morna |>>> gleki
03:50  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
03:50  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
04:24  * nuzba @uitki: te gerna la lojban - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/te_gerna_la_lojban by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1Nt90Vk]
05:29  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa gunro fa
05:37 < _mukti_> In case there's a lojban-announcements admin tuned in, I have an email to announcements that is awaiting moderation.
05:46 < gleki> ok
05:47 < gleki> wait, are members of LLG subscribed to that mriste?
05:47 < gleki> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lojban-announcements ?
06:03 < gleki> en: bangu'u'u
06:06 < gleki> en: bangu'u'u
06:06 < mensi> bangu'u'u = x1 is the language with ISO 639-3 code ''uuu'' (U). |>>> See also bangu |>>>
06:06 < mensi> glekizmiku
06:06 < gleki> .w U language
06:06 < fenki> "The U language, or P'uman 濮满, is spoken by 40,000 people in the Yunnan province of China and possibly Burma." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_language
06:31  * nuzba @uitki: some principles pertaining to the quasiprescriptive function of jboske - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/some_principles_pertaining_to_the_quasiprescriptive_function_of_jboske by Cirko - formata cikre [http://bit.ly/1HsgERu]
07:16 < gleki> en: formata
07:16 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
07:16 < gleki> en: gloss
07:16 < mensi> 12 da se tolcri: bangigusu, bogytacfi'e, sparnodontoglosu, sparnrosioglosu, dutso, finprplekoglosu, karpo'ijbe, pupsu,
07:16 < mensi> sparbe'alara, sparburage'ara, sparko'eloglosu, zucna
07:19 < gleki> en: format
07:19 < mensi> 45 da se tolcri: bi'u, bi'unai, jetrinsku, zildatni, aigne, aski, brauzero, calse, cartu, cukcartu, datni, datnyvei,
07:19 < mensi> ekra, guglsisku, info, jau'au, kerlo, kibyca'o, kompadi, korpora, le'elkai, nirna, noi, nunynau, nuzba, poi, samrxra,
07:19 < mensi> samymo'i, savru, selbritcita, sfaile, sitna, sorcu, sumtcita, tcese, tcita, tcita zei uidje, tcitygau, tcityuidje,
07:19 < mensi> tefsujme'o, temse, tivyvidni, venci'e, xau'e'o, zucna
07:23 < gleki> en: formata
07:23 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
07:23 < gleki> en: formato
07:23 < mensi> formato = x1 is a format, layout of a publication or document x2 |>>> See also uencu, morna, tarmi |>>>
07:23 < mensi> gleki
07:23 < gleki> en: glosa
07:23 < mensi> glosa = x1 is a gloss (brief explanatory note or translation) of x2 (text) |>>> See also lo ve ciksi, uenzi, traduki
07:23 < mensi> |>>> gleki
07:35  * nuzba @gkjohn: @vinayaravind Heh. Lojban. [http://bit.ly/1InLWYv]
07:39  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
08:34  * nuzba @garydale: Did I Miss Anything?: Question frequently asked by students after missing a class by Tom Wayman The As... http://bit.ly/1U0NPiv #lojban [http://bit.ly/1QZoc2o]
08:45 < zipcpi> alta: ke broda je brode ke'e be da
08:45 < mensi> ([FA ZOhE] [CU {<(¹ke [broda {je brode}] ke'e¹) (¹be [FE da]¹) BEhO> SF} VAU])
08:48 < zipcpi> alta: broda gu'e brode
08:48 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
08:48 < zipcpi> alta: gu'e broda gi brode
08:48 < mensi> ([FA ZOhE] [CU {<gu'e (¹broda SF¹) gi brode> SF} VAU])
08:52  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
08:55 < zipcpi> lol Guskant assigned {lau'u} to what CKTJ wanted to make {lau} stand for
08:56 < zipcpi> That's great though; now it can be a proper swap, so if we ever actually need {lau} in CKTJ... lol
08:57 < zipcpi> Huh just discovered {sicpi}
08:57 < zipcpi> That's nice; a specific word for "rain", while {carvi} can be any precipitation
08:58 < latro`a_> doi la zipcpi za'a zo ju'ei noi mi finti ke'a cu slabu do .i mi vedli lo li'i finti .i ca lo nu finti ku simlu lo ka na plixau .i do ma jinvi
08:59 < zipcpi> plixau mi .i mi su'oroi nitcu lo ka cfagau lo za'umoi bridi ne'i lo mema'oiNUmoi
08:59 < gleki> lo sicpi cu litki carvi vau sa'u
09:01 < zipcpi> ca lo nu mi fanva lo xrisobibliio kei mi so'iroi pilno zo ju'ei
09:02 < latro`a> .a'u
09:02 < zipcpi> lu <.i tezu'ebo rivbi va'o lo nu do mo'u citka jebo cu tolxagji je cu zbasu lo zabna zdani je cu xabju ri ju'ei loi cagda'u be do ferti se panzi ju'ei loi rijno joi loi solji vu'o po do zei'a sormei ju'ei loi ro se ponse be do zei'asai sormei kei> li'u
09:03 < latro`a> .i ctuca mi lo du'u lo pluja jufra noi zo ju'ei bau lo lojbo cu plixau fi tu'a ke'a cu xlali
09:03 < latro`a> kei pu zu
09:04 < latro`a> y
09:04 < zipcpi> simsa lo mu'oi gy run-on sentence gy xu
09:04 < latro`a> .i sa'e ctuca fi lo du'u lo glico jufra noi simsa lo lojbo jufra pe zo ju'ei cu xlali
09:05 < latro`a> ja'a
09:05 < gleki> latro`a: coi do i xu do su'e mu re'u zanru lo preti pe la'oi StackExchange
09:05 < latro`a> zo su'e xu
09:05 < latro`a> .i na go'i .i .ei co'e
09:05 < latro`a> ki'e
09:07 < latro`a> .i doi la gleki zo su'e ji zo su'o co'e
09:08 < latro`a> vau pau
09:08 < zipcpi> zo su'e sinxa lo du'u na'e dubmau
09:09 < zipcpi> "not more than five"
09:09 < latro`a> .i mu'a lo du'u mi no roi zanru cu nibli lo du'u mi su'e mu roi zanru
09:09 < zipcpi> je'u
09:10 < latro`a> .i fadni fa lo nu lo nu zo go'i jai te spuda cu te gleki
09:11 < latro`a> .i ku'i lo nu zo go'i jai te spuda tu'a la gleki cu te badri
09:11 < latro`a> .i mi lo ka tokpona tavla ku mi cinmo simlu vau .u'i
09:12 < latro`a> va'i: usually questions are posed in such a way that "yes" is the answer you want to hear, but this seems to be the other way around
09:42 < gleki> latro`a: zo su'o i u'u
09:42 < gleki> http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
10:13 < zipcpi> alta lo broda cu brode
10:13 < zipcpi> alta: lo broda cu brode
10:13 < mensi> ([FA {lo <broda SF> KU}] [cu {brode SF} VAU])
10:13 < ldlework> SF?
10:14 < zipcpi> pseudo-cmavo that terminates selbri
10:14 < ldlework> ua
10:15 < gleki> it was supposed to be the first block in verb/noun detection to achieve better glossing to English. But it all stopped at that point.
10:15 < zipcpi> Yeah I am assigning it to {sei'o} for testing purposes (and perhaps niche-cases involving attitudinals), so I want to be sure I get its definition right
10:16 < gleki> noun is basically {LE ... SF}
10:20 < durka42> kaidji - x1 wants to x2 (ka)
10:20 < durka42> kaitcu - x1 neeeds to x2 (ka)
10:20 < durka42> kaidju - x1 is a giant sea monster from another dimension
10:20 < zipcpi> u'i
10:20 < durka42> xu do pu kinzga lo sitna be mi
10:21 < durka42> se sitna*
10:21 < gleki> en: kaidju
10:21 < mensi> [< ckaji sidju ≈ Characteristic help] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
10:21 < mensi> kaidju[5847], ckajydju[7988], kairsidju[9006], ckajysidju[10047]
10:21 < durka42> pu'i velcki
10:21 < durka42> sidju2 is la'a already a ka of sidju3 though
10:21 < durka42> jb:sidju
10:21 < mensi> sidju = sidju — x1(entity)  helps  x2(entity)  do  x3(property of x2)
10:21 < mensi> :lo sidju — helper.
10:21 < mensi> :do kakne xu lo ka sidju mi lo ka tadni lo cmaci — Could you help me in studying
10:21 < mensi> math?
10:21 < mensi> :Related words: si'u, rirni, sarji, vipsi, ferti, selfu
10:21 < zipcpi> mi selsau le ponbau valsi
10:21 < durka42> uh, yeah
10:21 < durka42> what mensi said
10:22 < gleki> lo kaidju cu ckaji lo ka sidju lo prenu lo ka se citka be vo'a
10:22 < durka42> .u'i
10:22 < zipcpi> u'i
10:24 < durka42> la .guskant. cu finti re cinri cmavo
10:25 < gleki> zo ci'oi e zo tai'i ibo xu
10:25 < zipcpi> la'a na go'i
10:25 < zipcpi> pe'i zo lau'u je zo po'a
10:25 < gleki> alta: lo broda cu brode
10:25 < mensi> ([FA {lo NS broda NF KU}] [cu {brode VAU}])
10:25 < gleki> SF removed
10:26 < gleki> NS ... NF added
10:26 < zipcpi> lol
10:26 < durka42> zipcpi: zo po'a je zo tu'ai
10:26 < gleki> superuseless
10:26 < gleki> basically i state that sumti_6 is noun
10:27 < zipcpi> What is useless, SF? Eh, like I said, maybe good for attaching attitudinals. Also was considered when dealing with the extended logical connective system
10:27 < gleki> all of them are useless
10:28 < gleki> hm, noun is actually tertau just before NF
10:28 < gleki> alta: lo broda be lo brodi cu brode
10:28 < mensi> ([FA {lo NS <broda (¹be [FE {lo NS brodi NF KU}]¹) BEhO> NF KU}] [cu {brode VAU}])
10:28 < durka42> so, we take this tree structure that has the information we need, then we throw away most of that information flattening it into a string. so we add in all these markers during the flattening...
10:28 < durka42> this seems backwards :)
10:29 < gleki> okay let's put it another way. "NS ... tertau" is noun
10:29 < gleki> durka42: exactly. i ge'esai
10:30 < gleki> cirko will come now saying that 'ey have done everything
10:30 < gleki> but not using PEG
10:33 < zipcpi> I would like it if we could use {gi} for selbri-separator for {*mei'u}, but I'm not sure if that would cause problems
10:33 < zipcpi> Probably, when dealing with nesting
10:34 < zipcpi> SF was considered
10:34 < durka42> what's mei'u?
10:35 < zipcpi> Not yet added. It is considered for the "extended logical connective" system I raised in the mriste
10:36 < zipcpi> Cirko is working on it... right now the idea is to repurpose PAmei'e for sumti, PAmei'u for selbrisle
10:36 < durka42> I see
10:36 < zipcpi> And PAmei'i for terms, I think...
10:37 < zipcpi> mei'o being the famyma'o for all of them
10:37 < durka42> but then you need something in between
10:37 < zipcpi> Exactly
10:37 < zipcpi> For selbrisle at least
10:37 <@xalbo> What are any of these {mei'V}?
10:37 < zipcpi> They're not finished yet
10:38 < durka42> xalbo: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/Jz6bw4zKn7k
10:39 <@xalbo> je'eki'e
10:41 < gleki> xalbo: have you used all of your 5 upvotes on StackExchange Lojban proposal?
10:41 <@xalbo> I have not.
10:42 <@xalbo> I haven't interacted with Area51 there before. What's the deal?
10:43 < zipcpi> I couldn't seem to find the email they're supposed to send me for verification
10:43 < gleki> xalbo: please login and upvote 5 questions that have the rating lower than 10 area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
10:44 < durka42> Area 51 is a "staging area" for new stack exchange sites. if a wannabe site can stuff their own ballot box full enough, they get to join stack exchange
10:45 < durka42> strange system pe'i
10:46 < zipcpi> durka42: {lo'oi}? Looks like that's {lo poi'i} / {lo voi [jo'au CKTJ]}
10:46 < durka42> en:lo'oi
10:46 < mensi> lo'oi = [LOhOI] Description clause: create a sumti from the enclosed bridi, describing the referent of the created sumti
10:46 < mensi> as filling the bridi place filled with ke'a.
10:47 < durka42> lo'o is bridi => sumti
10:47 < durka42> which is what I thought po'a does, too
10:47 < durka42> po'a seems to be {lo su'u da'i}
10:47 < zipcpi> Just lo su'u
10:47 < zipcpi> And lo'oi looks like it's just lo poi'i
10:48 < zipcpi> Terminator: ku'au... wut
10:49 < gleki> it eliminates the need in {be} within {lo ... ku}
10:49 < gleki> be-less Lojban
10:49 < gleki> to be or not to be
10:50 < zipcpi> So does {poi'i}, except it's a little longer. CKTJ reassigns it to {voi} though
10:50 < gleki> in altatufa even {noi} is probably enough
10:51 < zipcpi> Right... lo poi -> lo co'e poi
10:51 < gleki> alta: lo noi klama la paris cu pendo mi
10:51 < mensi> ([FA {lo NS <COhE (¹noi [{FA ZOhE} {CU <klama (²FE [la NS paris NF KU]²) VAU>}] KUhO¹)> NF KU}] [cu {pendo <FE mi> VAU}])
10:51 <@xalbo> That sounds like nightmare to parse
10:51 < zipcpi> Well, that's altatufa for you
10:52 <@xalbo> camxes: lo noi klama la paris cusku cu pendo mi
10:52 < camxes> ([{lo <(¹noi [klama {la paris} VAU] KUhO¹) cusku> KU} cu] [pendo {mi VAU}])
10:52 <@xalbo> alta: lo noi klama la paris cusku cu pendo mi
10:52 < gleki> wait a bit
10:52 < gleki> im restarting it
10:52 < gleki> alta: lo noi klama la paris cusku cu pendo mi
10:52 < mensi> ([FA {lo NS <COhE (¹noi [{FA ZOhE} {CU <klama NF> <FE (²la NS [paris {cusku NF}] KU²)> VAU}] KUhO¹)> KU}] [cu {pendo NF} {FE mi} VAU])
10:52 < gleki> altatufa uses cmevla/brivla merge like exp.
10:53 <@xalbo> alta: lo noi klama do cusku cu pendo mi
10:53 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected ['h] but end of input found.
10:53 <@xalbo> camxes: lo noi klama do cusku cu pendo mi
10:53 < camxes> ([{lo <(¹noi [klama {do VAU}] KUhO¹) cusku> KU} cu] [pendo {mi VAU}])
10:53 < gleki> looks like i broke something
10:54 < gleki> alta: lo broda brodi be mi cu brode
10:54 < mensi> ([FA {lo NS <broda (¹brodi NF [be {FE mi}] BEhO¹)> KU}] [cu {brode NF} VAU])
10:54 < gleki> NF here is tertau
10:56  * xalbo imagines an obfuscated Lojban contest, like the ones for Perl and C.
10:56 < zipcpi> lol
10:56 < zipcpi> vau vau kei ku vau
10:57 < gleki> alta: lo broda brodi be mi cu brode
10:57 < mensi> ([FA {lo <broda (¹NS brodi NF [be {FE mi}] BEhO¹)> KU}] [cu {NS brode NF} VAU])
10:57 < ctefa`o> xalbo: bpfk sections are not enough?:)
10:58 <@xalbo> Bah, terminators are for sissies. Real jbofi'u omit terminators altogether
10:58 <@xalbo> lu gleki fa mi se cusku mi do
10:59 < zipcpi> u'i
10:59 < gleki> alta: gleki fa mi se cusku mi do
10:59 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected ['h] or ['hiI] but end of input found.
10:59 <@xalbo> alta: lu gleki fa mi se cusku mi do
10:59 < mensi> ([FA {lu <(¹FA ZOhE¹) (¹CU [NS gleki NF] [fa mi] VAU¹)> LIhU}] [CU {NS <se cusku> NF} {FE mi} {FI do} VAU])
11:00 <@xalbo> lo nu cfipu do cusku mi pluka
11:00  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
11:01 < gleki> alta: lo broda brodi be mi cu brode
11:01 < mensi> ([FA {lo <broda (¹NS brodi NF [be {FE mi}] BEhO¹)> KU}] [cu {NS brode NF} VAU])
11:01 < gleki> so here we know that "NS brodi NF" has to be glossed as a noun, not as a verb
11:01 < gleki> wait, no. i omitted one more thing
11:01 < gleki> ju'inai
11:01 < gleki> i nu'o bredi
11:06 < durka42> gleki: where's the page with the buttons and phoneme recordings?
11:07 < durka42> ua http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cirkotci.html
11:07 < gleki> mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cirkotci.html
11:07 < durka42> .u'i mi sisku fi lo pu se ciska be mi .urli
11:07 < zipcpi> Ugh still couldn't find my email
11:08 < durka42> ko sisku fi lo spama
11:08 < zipcpi> I did
11:08 < gleki> then you may restore your password
11:08 < gleki> also login via gmail, facebook is available
11:12 < gleki> i have no idea where  po'a can be useful
11:12 < zipcpi> It's just a drop-in for lo su'u
11:12 < gleki> i have another drop in for it
11:13 < gleki> based on djica2 and djuno2
11:13 < zipcpi> Although I probably won't use it much; I like specifying the NU
11:13 < zipcpi> May be useful for songs though
11:15 < gleki> as if someone wanted to force {lonu} into the language ignoring the usefulness of {PA nu} and {le nu}
11:15 < gleki> although the latter could probably be done using additional words like UI
11:15 < zipcpi> Oh yeah the gadri too
11:16 < zipcpi> ge'e ne'au... no skin off my teeth
11:25 < gleki> mensi: gadri
11:25 < mensi> lo [PA] broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda [gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda]
11:25 < mensi> la [PA] broda = zo'e noi lu [PA] broda li'u cmene ke'a mi
11:25 < mensi> lo PA sumti = lo PA me sumti
11:25 < mensi> la PA sumti = zo'e noi lu PA sumti li'u cmene ke'a mi
11:25 < mensi> loi [PA] broda = lo gunma be lo [PA] broda
11:25 < mensi> lai [PA] broda = lo gunma be la [PA] broda
11:25 < mensi> loi PA sumti = lo gunma be lo PA sumti
11:25 < mensi> lai PA sumti = lo gunma be la PA sumti
11:25 < mensi> lo'i [PA] broda = lo selcmi be lo [PA] broda
11:25 < mensi> la'i [PA] broda = lo selcmi be la [PA] broda
11:25 < mensi> lo'i PA sumti = lo selcmi be lo PA sumti
11:25 < mensi> la'i PA sumti = lo selcmi be la PA sumti
11:25 < mensi> PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti
11:25 < mensi> PA broda = PA da poi broda
11:25 < gleki> LIVLABOT: "mensi: gadri" outputs a short table of gadri expansions
11:28 < gleki> looks like the best flash2html converter tool for Lojbanistan is ... la cirko
11:41 < zipcpi> {kai'a} is just a UI to import the semantic I want from gadganzu-lo'i without having to commit to the code-switch
11:43 < zipcpi> {lo remna cu kai'a srera .ije lo cesyvu'e cu kai'a fraxu} = jo'au gadganzu {lo'i remna cu srera .ije lo'i cesyvu'e cu fraxu}
11:43 < zipcpi> brivla base is {kairpau}
11:43 < zipcpi> "Being x1 is part of being x2"
11:44 < zipcpi> {lo ka srera cu kairpau lo ka remna .ije lo ka fraxu cu kairpau lo ka cesyvu'e}
11:46 < durka42> I like that better :)
11:48 < gleki> en: kairpau
11:48 < mensi> kairpau [< ckaji pagbu ≈ Characteristic part] = being x1 (ka) is part of being x2 (ka) |>>> Or "x2 implies x1", but
11:48 < mensi> stronger than the logical sense; this word is definitional or essentialistic, and implies that if something stopped
11:48 < mensi> being x1, it'd stop being x2. See bi'ai, kai'a |>>> spheniscine
11:54 < gleki> so jvajvo rule for -pau is that x1 being an abstraction leads to x2 also being an abstraction
12:03 < zipcpi> Hm somewhat related to {jinzi}
12:05 < durka42> very much so
12:06 < durka42> hey I found out how to full-text search for lojban words in vlaste :)
12:06 < durka42> vlaste: jinzi
12:06 < vlaste> jinzi = x1 (property - ka) is an innate/inherent/intrinsic/natural property/quality/aspect of x2.
12:06 < durka42> vlaste: JINZI
12:06 < vlaste> 6 results: lakne, rarna, stati, tcaci, jizyselpre, tcuselkai
12:12 < fchmmr> what the hell am I doing here
12:14 < zipcpi> Dang it now I have four translations on Tatoeba for "To err is human, to forgive divine" lol
12:15 < zipcpi> Just wait till I do the same for "How happy are you"?
12:17 < zipcpi> Well apparently there are also four Japanese translations, so I suppose it's cool lol
12:55  * nuzba @pangorochan: http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~adam/lojban/allgismu.txt [http://bit.ly/1JkJOQ0]
12:59 < zipcpi> All gismu that don't clash?
12:59 < zipcpi> Oh wait no
12:59 < ldlework> I saw a gismu today
12:59 < durka42> just all of them
12:59 < ldlework> That was literally the opposite of ckaji
13:00 < durka42> ijakc?
13:00 < ldlework> u'i
13:00 < zipcpi> u'i
13:00 < ldlework> It was like "x1 is characteristic of x2"
13:00 < zipcpi> What kind of gismu would that be?
13:01 < zipcpi> {jinzi}?... not really though
13:01 < ldlework> en: steci
13:01 < mensi> steci = x1 (ka) is specific/particular/specialized/[special]/a defining property of x2 among x3 (set). |>>> [x2 are
13:01 < mensi> members/individuals of a subset of x3; object whose association is specific/defining of a subset or individuals (=
13:01 < mensi> tecra'a, also cf. cmavo list po'e, [x2 is also special to x1]); also: especially/strongly/specifically associated]; (x3
13:01 < mensi> is completely specified set)]; See also srana, se ponse, ckini, tcila, tutra. |>>>
13:01 < mensi> officialdata
13:02 < zipcpi> Oh that. Dunno about the x3 though
13:02 < zipcpi> Also I zi'o-ed x1 as one way to explain {itca}; obviously a somewhat shaky one though
13:03 < ldlework> lo ka srera cu steci lo remna  .i lo ka fraxu cu steci lo cevni
13:03 < zipcpi> Eh. I don't want a mere se ckaji though
13:04 < zipcpi> Also I translated "divine" as {cesyvu'e} rather than {cevni}
13:05 < ldlework> is a property (divinity) is restricted to a certain klesi its probably enough to use the klesi rather than create a nonce-one that accesses that propery you care about
13:05 < ldlework> if*
13:05 < ldlework> like remna
13:05 < ldlework> well
13:05 < ldlework> I guess there are different kinds of gods
13:05 < zipcpi> I really like {kairpau} though
13:06 < ldlework> Though devine doesn't insinuate virtuosity
13:06 < ldlework> at least where I can find it defined
13:06 < zipcpi> Yeah... {jinzi le/la cevni} might be better
13:06 < ldlework> I don't like jinzi
13:06  * mumble jorne co'a fa la'o fa menli fa
13:07 < zipcpi> se ckaji is too weak
13:07 < ldlework> I think the original quote accesses capability not essestentialism
13:07 < zipcpi> All it does is means X is Y
13:07 < ldlework> jinzi?
13:07 < zipcpi> ckaji
13:07 < ldlework> oh right
13:07 < ldlework> That's all the quote says though
13:07 < ldlework> Even if you read into the english
13:08 < zipcpi> Right... I tend to add stuff sometimes
13:08 < ldlework> it almost says
13:08 < zipcpi> Like I don't like translating English future tense as a mere {ba}
13:08 < ldlework> lo ka srera cu ckaji
13:08 < ldlework> as in
13:08 < ldlework> the property of being in error is 'humanistic'
13:08 < ldlework> IE, one property has another
13:08 < durka42> I think the original quote is closer to kairpau than ckaji
13:08 < ldlework> rather than to err being a character of humans
13:09 < ldlework> lo ka srera cu ckaji lo ka remna
13:09 < zipcpi> No... ckaji1 is an agent
13:09 < Ilmen> va'i dai lo ka srera cu remna
13:09 < ldlework> oh brother
13:10 < ldlework> ckaji is not agentitive
13:10 < ldlework> Ilmen: ie
13:10 < ldlework> but I don't think we can do that
13:10 < zipcpi> You just said {lo ka remna cu srera}
13:10 < ldlework> yes I did
13:10 < zipcpi> Which doesn't make much sense
13:10 < ldlework> wait what
13:10 < zipcpi> That's all ckaji does
13:10 < zipcpi> Takes out the ka and says "X is Y"
13:11 < durka42> ckaji1 isn't a ka
13:11  * ldlework leaves
13:11 < durka42> I think there is just a missing {se}
13:11 < zipcpi> Well theoretically it could be but by trying to put a ka is both ckaji places, it comes out wrong
13:11 < durka42> heh, but {lo ka remna cu ka srera} is a funny way to phrase the quote
13:11 < ldlework> zipcpi: I'm characterizing a property
13:11 < ldlework> I don't see anything wrong with that
13:12 < ldlework> the property of being beautiful, has the property of being desirable
13:12 < durka42> hmm I guess it does work
13:12 < zipcpi> No, the way ckaji works, it converts to {lo ka remna cu srera}
13:12 < Ilmen> ckaji1 may be a ka
13:12 < Ilmen> ckaji1 is typeless
13:12 < ldlework> zipcpi: right, I hear you saying what you've said a few times now
13:12 < zipcpi> Making srera apply to {lo ka remna} itself
13:12 < durka42> right you have to double the ka
13:12 < ldlework> kam
13:12 < durka42> lo ka remna cu ka srera => lo ka remna cu ckaji lo ka ka srera
13:13 < zipcpi> u'i
13:13 < durka42> sounds weird
13:13 < ldlework> just use kam and its fine
13:13 < zipcpi> Meh why bother when {kairpau} works
13:13 < ldlework> I'd still use two properties
13:13 < ldlework> Since nothing is actually human here
13:14 < zipcpi> I'm merely trying to define gadganzu-lo'i, and to give an alternative to importing the semantic where commiting to the code-switch might be undesirable
13:15 < ldlework> I think defining lo'i in terms of kairpau is like defining le in terms of whatever that referent predicate is
13:15 < ldlework> (though despite being a tautology, is also wrong)
13:15 < ldlework> (in the case of the le thing, not this)
13:16 < ldlework> If you can definte a cmavo in terms of a single predicate, you should be able to define the cmavo in terms of the predicate's expansion.
13:16 < zipcpi> I dunno. This is how I was (mis)using lo'i since that fateful day
13:16 < durka42> so it's not possible to define then?
13:16 < ldlework> durka42: I'll assume you were typing as I typed what I typed last, just now
13:16 < durka42> or you're just saying that if we don't have a jbovelcki for kairpau then we should't use kairpau to define lo'i
13:16 < ldlework> zipcpi: I don't think kairpau is the wrong predicate
13:16 < ldlework> I just think its not a useful definition
13:16 < ldlework> durka42: yeah something like that I think
13:17 < zipcpi> Then it all got messed up with the thing about the two legs that made it look more like {le'e}; but from the beginning it was meant to only talk about essential/definitional characteristics
13:17 < durka42> oh there is a jbovelcki for kairpau though
13:17 < ldlework> And more specifically, internal modeling
13:17 < durka42> kairpau 	x1 noi zilkai cu pagbu x2 noi zilkai
13:17 < ldlework> zipcpi: IE, they don't have truth-values beyond the critque of the speaker.
13:18 < durka42> so is that a good definition for gadganzu-lo'i?
13:18 < zipcpi> ldlework: Perhaps but I don't want to add a ma'i-place to lo'i
13:18 < zipcpi> I mean kairpau
13:18 < ldlework> The subjectivity is super important though
13:18 < zipcpi> Well I did define lo'i itself based on jinvi
13:18 < zipcpi> And a use of pagbu that is really kairpau
13:19 < ldlework> I might even use jimpe
13:19 < zipcpi> Hm
13:19 < ldlework> jinvi is closer to le'e
13:19  * zipcpi nods
13:19 < ldlework> And "mi nelci le'e mlatu" isn't even "mi jinvi --"
13:20 < ldlework> zipcpi: you have a tough job
13:21 < ldlework> You should define le'e in terms of identifiability
13:21 < ldlework> a'o
13:21 < zipcpi> Sorry, my {le'e} was CLL-le'e
13:22 < ldlework> zipcpi: you've changed?
13:22 < ldlework> positions on the gadganzu gadri?
13:22 < zipcpi> No, just talking about the comparison between gadganzu {lo'i} and CLL {le'e}
13:22 < ldlework> oh osrry
13:22 < ldlework> je'e
13:22 < zipcpi> gadganzu {le'e} is still {le bi'unai}
13:23 < zipcpi> As for "stereotypicality", we have {kesri} and {sei'i} now
13:25  * nuzba @uitki: zipcpi: Yet another gadri article - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1FLcVa0]
13:25 < zipcpi> Marking stereotypicality with a UI is much better than using gadri IMO because when I was told the difference between CLL-{lo'e} and CLL-{le'e}; it reminded me very much of veridicality-guilt
13:25 < zipcpi> In that it's hard to use {lo'e} correctly and perhaps we should all stick to {le'e}
13:26 < zipcpi> So yeah. xorlo'e, in a way lol
13:27 < zipcpi> Gadganzu lo'e would merge the two, while kesri/sei'i would serve as intensional modifiers
13:27 < zipcpi> Heck it probably doesn't even differ from current usage
13:28 < ldlework> zipcpi: I feel like we don't encode anything about referentiality in the definitions
13:28 < ldlework> And this is the most important linguistic division
13:28 < zipcpi> Part of the problem it that it all lies in that little brivla: itca
13:29 < ldlework> But with the indefinites there is no set
13:29 < zipcpi> I need to rework some of the definitions. My current thinking in that the indefinites generalize over a set
13:29 < zipcpi> But is not an actual member of it
13:29 < ldlework> Yeah
13:29 < Ilmen> You could also define kairpau this way: X kairpau Y = X me lo poi'i Y si'o me'au ro me ke'a
13:30 < ldlework> zipcpi: Have you been reading Speech Acts at all?
13:30 < zipcpi> I read some part of it on the Internet; it started with chapter 2 though I think
13:31 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Wow those cmavo lol
13:32 < Ilmen> Well yeah, you can add a label "100% cmavo definition"
13:32 < Ilmen> zo'o
13:32 < durka42> Deep Cmavo Structure
13:34 < zipcpi> X is among the characteristics that Y is a concept of all of them
13:34 < zipcpi> ... not sure if I got that right
13:34 < Ilmen> "X is among something that is such that Y is the concept of having all the property among it
13:34 < Ilmen> "
13:35 < durka42> that doesn't seem right
13:35 < durka42> where did {si'o} come into this
13:35 < Ilmen> X is one of the properties P that are such that Y is the concept of having all the properties P
13:35 < zipcpi> Yeah I did get blindsided by that... how do you equate a {ka} with a {si'o}
13:36 < durka42> that seems to have very little to do with the existing definition of {kairpau} ...?
13:36 < Ilmen> durka42: well, I used me'au and si'o in order to cover relations as well
13:36 < durka42> relations?
13:36 < Ilmen> not only unary properties va'i
13:37 < durka42> hmm starting to make a little more sense in my head, but I still don't see any need for si'o+me'au
13:37 < Ilmen> .i'a
13:37 < Ilmen> you can simplify by replacing them with ka+ckaji
13:37 < durka42> Y ka ckaji ro me ke'a?
13:38 < durka42> mm so you're just using si'o as n-ary ka
13:38 < Ilmen> yeah
13:38 < Ilmen> "ka citka" is rather ambiguous as is (is citka2 a ce'u or a zo'e?)
13:39 < durka42> right
13:39 < Ilmen> I take si'o to fills everything with ce'u instead of zo'e
13:40 < Ilmen> but maybe using {me'ei} instead of {lo si'o} would be better
13:40 < Ilmen> at least the definition of me'ei is clear
13:40 < durka42> ...has it changed?
13:40 < Ilmen> en: me'ei
13:40 < mensi> me'ei = [LE] Article for abstract predicate sumti |>>> Has an inverse: me'au |>>>
13:40 < mensi> latros
13:40 < zipcpi> Yeah I suppose it's kinda like ckini. ckini is well defined with a binary-ka, but I suspect most usages only use a unary-ka with ckini
13:40 < durka42> the definition of me'e used to be the standard for my definition of "opaque"
13:41 < Ilmen> Well it could have been clearer, sure
13:41 < Ilmen> me'ei citka = lo ka ce'u ce'u citka
13:41 < durka42> .u'i
13:41 < durka42> yes!!!
13:41 < Ilmen> me'ei dunda = lo ka ce'u ce'u ce'u dunda
13:41 < durka42> that is what I call a definition
13:41 < durka42> why can't that actually be written somewhere
13:41 < durka42> instead of a string of words that sounds like "abstract abstract abstract go away"
13:42 < durka42> zo'o nai
13:42 < Ilmen> xD
13:42 < zipcpi> Because you're suppose to just know these things, or you lose your jbopre license forever. zo'osai
13:42  * durka42 adds those examples
13:42  * durka42 blatantly disregards the "examples must be valid lojban sentences" rule
13:42 < Ilmen> Now I better understand why nobody uses {me'ei}
13:43 < zipcpi> lol
13:43 < durka42> pei "Article for abstract predicate sumti. Turns a selbri into an abstraction with all open places filled by {ce'u}."
13:44 < zipcpi> Yeah that's probably better than {si'o}. {se si'o} implies it is an idea held by someone
13:44 < Ilmen> Yeah. me'ei broda = the predicate {broda}
13:45 < Ilmen> ĭe
13:45 < durka42> uo
13:45 < Ilmen> .i'o stika
13:46 < Ilmen> {me'ei} has been around for a while; it's {me'au}'s twin
13:46 < zipcpi> "examples must be valid lojban sentences" rule: Yeah that might be mabla. There is after all, a separation between examples for the word, and examples for the definition (which is tied to language), so perhaps there should be translations into the language as well, and some usage notes
13:47 < zipcpi> Though we then run into the problem again that currently translations are all their own separate definitions
13:47 < Ilmen> me'au me'ei broda = broda
13:47 < Ilmen> me'ei me'au ko'a = ko'a
13:47 < Ilmen> so they're dual to each other
13:47 < zipcpi> Rather than grouped by competing definitions (where some gismu have been redefined from the original gimste, or competing definitions for an experimental word)
13:48 < durka42> the thing is sometimes examples are useless without a translation
13:49 < durka42> and the {zoi gy ... gy xe fanva lu ... li'u} hack is dumb
13:49 < zipcpi> lol
13:49 < Ilmen> I'd move examples to the notes
13:49 < Ilmen> until Jbovlaste can handle them properly
13:49 < zipcpi> The problem is that the notes only take one paragraph
13:49 < durka42> it handles them fine :p
13:49 < zipcpi> I've been compensating with using // sometimes
13:51 < durka42> hmm
13:51 < durka42> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/blob/master/lib/Wiki.pm#L307
13:52 < durka42> nope doesn't work in notes fields
13:54 < zipcpi> Ilmen: So what's your definition rewritten with {me'ei}?
13:57 < jbovlaste> There's Latex syntax in your notes field! This will break everything!! The sky is falling!!!
13:57 < durka42> zipcpi: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/test !
13:58 < Ilmen> zipcpi: maybe {X kairpau Y = X me lo poi'i Y mintu me'ei me'au ro me ke'a}
13:59 < durka42> don't me'ei and me'au cancel each other out?
14:00 < Ilmen> seems like that doesn't really apply to quantifications
14:01 < Ilmen> cuz I could say instead {me'ei .emna be fa ro me ke'a}
14:01 < Ilmen> ie nai pei
14:01 < mensi> mi tugni i ie mi tugni
14:03 < Ilmen> Anyway even if you want to add this definition, I suggest not removing the previous definition; you can say put an alternative definition with {.i va'i}. E.g. ciknygau = "x1 gasnu lonu x2 cikna .i va'i lo nu x2 cikna cu se gasnu x1"
14:04 < zipcpi> Yeah I agree.
14:04 < zipcpi> The pagbu no'e-metaphor may be easier to understand
14:04 < Ilmen> s/say put/put /*kosmajidoilafenki*/
14:04 < fenki> Ilmen meant to say: Anyway even if you want to add this definition, I suggest not removing the previous definition; you can put  an alternative definition with {.i va'i}. E.g. ciknygau = "x1 gasnu lonu x2 cikna .i va'i lo nu x2 cikna cu se gasnu x1"
14:04 < zipcpi> While your definition serves to formalize it better, but may be harder to understand
14:06 < Ilmen> broda
14:06 < durka42> lol that technique for adding linebreaks causes jbovlaste to run latex2html on every page load
14:06 < durka42> great :)
14:06 < Ilmen> s/broda/brodo/brode
14:06 < fenki> Ilmen meant to say: brodo
14:06 < Ilmen> ua
14:06 < durka42> brodo
14:07 < durka42> s/o/a
14:07 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: brado
14:07 < durka42> s/o/a/g
14:07 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: brada
14:07 < durka42> s/O/a/gi
14:07 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: brada
14:07 < durka42> s/O/a/g
14:07 < Ilmen> je'e
14:07 < durka42> me'o gy plixaurai
14:08 < Ilmen> It's why we use it for zoi quotes
14:08  * Ilmen runs
14:08 < durka42> .u'i
14:08 < durka42> brodo
14:08 < durka42> s/do/\1\1\1
14:08 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: bro\1\1\1
14:08 < durka42> s/do/$1$1$1
14:08 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: bro$1$1$1
14:08 < durka42> boo
14:08 < durka42> brodo
14:08 < durka42> s/(do)/\1\1
14:08 < durka42> s/(do)/$1$1
14:09 < durka42> s/\(do\)/$1$1
14:09  * durka42 stops
14:14 <@xalbo> Brodo Baggins isn't nearly as well remembered as his relatives.
14:15 < durka42> yeah, he was too generic
14:17  * nuzba @Nubobot42: to publicando um livro escrito em lojban [http://bit.ly/1GLtkwX]
14:20 < zipcpi> u'i
14:20 < zipcpi> Hmm it might be nice to have something like {ce'ai} to specifically indicate: "These variables are meta-syntactic"
14:21 < zipcpi> Which as a bonus, also unassigns those variables from anything they might have been assigned to before
14:22 < Ilmen> "foo %s bar" ~> zo fo'o ce'o ko'a ce'o zo bar
14:23 < zipcpi> u'i
14:24 < zipcpi> Not sure how it'd work for brodV though... {me'ei}?
14:24 < zipcpi> {me'ei broda me'ei brode *ge'ai}
14:25 < zipcpi> {me'ei broda me'ei brode ko'a ko'e ko'i *ge'ai}
14:25 < zipcpi> Selma'o ZOhU, to match {ce'ai}
14:25 < zipcpi> Seems cromulent
14:27 < zipcpi> exp: lo broda goi ko'a poi brode goi ko'e poi ko'a citka ko'e
14:27 < mensi> ([{lo <broda (¹goi [ko'a {poi <CU (²brode VAU²)> KUhO}] GEhU¹)> KU} {goi <ko'e (¹poi [ko'a {CU <citka (²ko'e VAU²)>}] KUhO¹)> GEhU}] VAU)
14:27 < zipcpi> exp: lo broda goi ko'a ge'u poi brode goi ko'e ge'u poi ko'a citka ko'e
14:27 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
14:33 < durka42> camxes: me'ei broda
14:33 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
14:33 < durka42> camxes: +exp me'ai broda
14:33 < camxes> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found.
14:34 < durka42> camxes: +exp me'ei broda
14:34 < camxes> ([me'ei broda KU] VAU)
14:34 < durka42> camxes: +exp me'ei broda me'ei brode ko'a ko'i ko'e ge'ai si zo'u mo
14:34 < camxes> ([{<me'ei broda KU> <me'ei brode KU> ko'a ko'i <ko'e (¹ge'ai si¹)>} zo'u] [CU {mo VAU}])
14:49 < zipcpi> exp: broda brode brodi zo'u
14:49 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "o" found.
15:16  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
15:26 < zipcpi> ua zo xu'u
15:59 < zipcpi> Welp, I entered {ni'ai}. Should I fire the shot and post a link to the proposal in the comments lol
16:00 < zipcpi> I changed it from binding to ce'u to binding to ke'a, since that makes more sense in light of poi'i
16:07 < zipcpi> OK interesting... {te dilcu} is the remainder; but how do you distinguish remaindered division from remainderless division?
16:08 < zipcpi> Er, {ve dilcu} rather
16:08 < zipcpi> Maybe frinu lol
16:16 < zipcpi> xu'u? Oh man. I still do use {po} now and then
16:17 < zipcpi> And swapping it for {xu'u} is... odd... much preferred {po'a} lol
16:43 < zipcpi> ... uh oh. Curtis wants {su'ai}
16:44 < zipcpi> "Gleki told me that he no longer prefers this word; use zu'ai instead.
16:44 < zipcpi> I am going to propose an alternative and unrelated meaning." Righhht
18:23 < latro`a> I get kinda freaked out when people do nontrivial new stuff with my words
18:24 < latro`a> like the me'ei/me'au stuff that zipcpi and durka were doing
18:24 < latro`a> a few hours ago
19:22 < Simorgh> test test
20:49 < ldlework> what is ceikitaujau
20:51 < durka42> ldlework: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/ce_ki_tau_jau
20:51 < ldlework> ki'e
20:51 < kmir> It's a dialect where you swap some useful common words with shorter words that rarely get any use
20:52 < ldlework> I've seen http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
20:52 < ldlework> Though I'm confused. I thought the purpose of the comments in an Area51 are to discuss the quality of question not to answer them.
20:52 < durka42> they are
20:54 < ldlework> I see a lot of answers to the questions. How can we alert people to that?
20:54 < durka42> I dunno
20:54 < durka42> maybe comment in the reddit thread where gleki is trying to get more people?
20:54 < durka42> I mean I don't see any harm in having answers there
20:54 < durka42> I'm also kinda pessimistic about the chances of this area 51...
20:55 < ldlework> Oh I thought that people from StackExchange eventually review our area 51 and rate it based on how well it went
20:55 < ldlework> If we don't follow the rules, I figured that would hurt the chances of it
20:55 < durka42> hmm you might be right about that, I dunno
20:55 < durka42> in the top right, it says there is a numerical requirement for moving onto whatever the next phase is
20:55 < durka42> unclear where there is a deadline
20:56 < ldlework> Yeah I was familiar with the systematic progression through the trial
20:59 < ldlework> Looks like it is totally automatic
20:59 < durka42> well, until the beta period
21:00 < durka42> I guess humans take a look at it then
21:11 < ldlework> Has anyone written up or proposed any sort of outline of what kind of questions we're looking for?
21:11 < ldlework> Or is it sort of, "Hey man, any questions are good since there wont be many"
21:12 < durka42> I haven't seen one
21:13 < Simorgh> hello
21:13 < ldlework> Like I wonder if open-ended philosophical questions are the aim
21:13 < Simorgh> I'm new here
21:13 < ldlework> hello
21:13 < Simorgh> and I have been watching this channel for some time
21:13 < Simorgh> and did a little background research
21:13 < Simorgh> I really want to learn this language
21:13 < ldlework> cool
21:13 < Simorgh> do you guys ahve any sort of self-learning package compiled?
21:14 < Simorgh> I would really appreciate any reources you can point me to
21:14 < durka42> coi la .simorg.
21:14 < ldlework> Simorgh: We have various texts that describe various dialects and an out-of-date textbook which describes the official one.
21:15 < durka42> there are some good links here http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Welcome!/en#Learning_Lojban
21:15 < durka42> people seem to like the Wave Lessons and the Crash Course
21:15 < kmir> Simorgh: I'm happy to answer any newbie questions you have
21:16 < durka42> ta'o coi la .kmir.
21:16 < Simorgh> thank you very much
21:16 < kmir> ui coi do
21:16 < kmir> I've been cranking Za'o :) It's fricken good
21:17 < durka42> same :)
21:18 < kmir> ma traji lo ka do nelci
21:19 < durka42> ju'ocu'i lu na sa li'u
21:20 < kmir> .ie .i la tokiponas cu cizra be mi
21:20 < kmir> .i ku'i zdile
21:21 < kmir> ta'o au mi retsku
21:21 < durka42> retsku ma ma
21:22 < kmir> in the chorus of "Balnema", is he saying, he dreamed he was a whale for a day? or that the _day_ is a whale drifting slowly in infinite darness
21:22 < kmir> darkness*
21:22  * durka42 looks up the line
21:23 < kmir> {i mi senva lo nu ze'a lo djedi cu balnema}
21:23 < durka42> mi senva lo nu ze'a lo djedi cu balnema
21:23 < kmir> ie
21:23 < durka42> {lo djedi} isn't the x1
21:23 < durka42> {lo djedi} is inside the {ze'a} term
21:23 < durka42> so he doesn't specify the x1 of balnema, I'd assume it's the former
21:24 < ldlework> exp: mi senva lo nu ze'a lo djedi cu balnema
21:24 < mensi> (mi [CU {senva <lo (¹nu [{ze'a <lo djedi KU>} {cu <balnema VAU>}] KEI¹) KU> VAU}])
21:24 < ldlework> o.O
21:24 < kmir> yeah if my understanding of his style is correct, an abstraction create free variables starting at x1, right?
21:24 < durka42> i'i pe'i la balnema cu traji lo ka mi nelci kei lo drata be la'e lu na sa li'u
21:24 < ldlework> It does look like lo djedi ku is x1 of balnema
21:24 < kmir> .ie la balnema se neltce mi
21:24 < ldlework> oh
21:24 < durka42> ldlework: {ze'a lo djedi} is a term
21:25 < ldlework> right
21:25 < durka42> I'm not accustomed to {nu} having free variables, but maybe?
21:25 < durka42> I haven't done a close look at these lyrics yet... been meaning to do my own translation
21:25 < ldlework> kmir: why do you think there are free variables here?
21:26 < durka42> if it were {mi senva lo ka balnema}, it would definitely be "I dream about [me] being a whale"
21:26 < kmir> it's in CKTJ style which is related to fancylojban, which interprets abstractions as creating lambda functions
21:26 < kmir> that may just be {ka} tho
21:26 < kmir> oh its just ka
21:26 < durka42> with {nu}, if {nu} doesn't have a {ce'u}, then it's merely implied
21:26 < ldlework> o.O?
21:26 < kmir> yeah, true
21:26 < ldlework> nu has ce'u?!
21:26 < durka42> it's the old {ma djica lo nu cenba} / {ma djica lo ka cenba} thing :p
21:26 < kmir> no no, I'm wrong
21:26 < durka42> ldlework: I don't think it does
21:27 < ldlework> mi cfipu u'i
21:27 < ldlework> ugh
21:27 < ldlework> so much for that agentitive pattern
21:28 < ldlework> maybe its more generally 'causal' than agentitive
21:28 < kmir> in the staile on the album, you can create arbitrary fronting thingies with ke'a anyway, which is like the same
21:28 < durka42> you mean ki? :p
21:28 < kmir> yeah, in CKTJ
21:29 < kmir> he uses new-voi a lot, its interesting
21:29 < durka42> ie cinri
21:29 < kmir> in balnema even
21:29 < ldlework> I have no idea what any of this is
21:29 < ldlework> How do you guys keep up with this stuff?
21:29 < kmir> Nerd Juice (TM)
21:30 < durka42> it was easier before zipcpi became krtis v2
21:30 < durka42> and started adding 100 cmavo to jbovlaste, and 5 to CKTJ, every day
21:30 < durka42> :p
21:30 < ldlework> oh voi is the bridi relativvizer?
21:30 < durka42> voi used to be pronounced poi'i
21:30 < kmir> ie
21:30 < ldlework> so.. yes?
21:30 < kmir> yes :)
21:31 < ldlework> je'e
21:31  * durka42 doesn't know what a relativizer is
21:31 < ldlework> poi and noi create relativizing phrases
21:31 < durka42> kmir: new-voi is a good way to add 2 filler syllables, if nothing else :)
21:31 < ldlework> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause
21:31 < durka42> da broda => da voi ki broda
21:31 < durka42> ldlework: ah right
21:31 < kmir> u'i ie
21:32 < kmir> I'm fairly sure it does exactly that at various points on the album, too
21:32 < ldlework> durka42: or not have to learn the tags :)
21:32 < ldlework> mu'i ma do na citka => do na citka voi ma mukti
21:33 < kmir> ie
21:33 < kmir> i ro xamsi cu voi su boxna ki pagbu
21:33 < kmir> i je ro rictu'a cu voi su tricu ki xabju
21:33 < kmir> i ro rirxe cu voi ki su krasi cu cliva
21:33 < kmir> i je mi voi ki senva lo se djica
21:33 < kmir> I wonder if we can refactor those
21:33 < durka42> ldlework: no that's xoi
21:33 < ldlework> What's the semantic difference?
21:33 < Simorgh> citka
21:34 < durka42> kmir: well the first one is {ro xamsi cu se pagbu su boxna}, I think
21:34 < Simorgh> is that pronounced "sitka" or "chitka"
21:34 < durka42> sheetkah
21:34 < Simorgh> ?
21:34 < ldlework> shitka
21:34 < Simorgh> aha
21:34 < Simorgh> thks
21:34 < durka42> kmir: unless there are scope differences, heh
21:34 < durka42> ldlework: it's different grammar. new-voi is in NU, it basically translates as "x1 is such that [bridi]"
21:35 < ldlework> so my grammar was wrong then
21:35 < kmir> yeah new-voi has selbri-ish grammar IIRC
21:35 < ldlework> in my mukti voi example?
21:35 < durka42> yes
21:35 < ldlework> give me a super simple example
21:35 < ldlework> that has content pe'u
21:35 < ldlework> u'i
21:35 < durka42> hm
21:36 < durka42> well can we just use the first line of Balnema which kmir pasted above
21:36 < durka42> {ro xamsi cu voi su boxna ki pagbu}
21:36 < durka42> de-CKTJ-ed... ro xamsi cu poi'i su'o boxna ke'a pagbu
21:36 < durka42> All oceans are such that some waves are part of them
21:36 < kmir> ie
21:37 < ldlework> wow is there an expansion for that?
21:37 < ldlework> it seems kind of hand-wavy
21:37 < ldlework> well, all abstraction semantics are hand-wavy
21:37 < ldlework> nevermind
21:37 < Simorgh> sorry to bother but what is Balnema?
21:38 < Simorgh> a poem?
21:38 < kmir> It's a song
21:38 < durka42> Simorgh: it's a song on the recently-released lojban rap album, Za'o
21:38 < Simorgh> oh
21:38 < kmir> https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/track/balnema
21:38 < kmir> one of my favourites ;)
21:38 < ldlework> durka42: can you think of an objectified usecase?
21:38 < durka42> ldlework: it... might be a language primitive?
21:39 < Simorgh> I take it it's about whales
21:39 < Simorgh> :)
21:39 < durka42> hmm could you expand it as something like poi'i => du zo'e noi
21:39 < kmir> yeah :) In the song, the protagonist daydreams he is a whale
21:39 < durka42> Simorgh: it is! {balnema} means whale
21:39 < Simorgh> balaine
21:39 < Simorgh> balnema
21:39 < Simorgh> okay I get it
21:40 < durka42> specifically baleen whales, apparently
21:40 < durka42> vlaste: balnema
21:40 < vlaste> balnema = x1 is a baleen whale of species x2
21:40  * durka42 forgot that part
21:40 < Simorgh> oui
21:40 < Simorgh> balaine ou cachalot
21:40 < durka42> ua xu do fraso (Are you French?)
21:40 < Simorgh> no I speak french
21:41 < Simorgh> but am not french myself
21:41 < Simorgh> :)
21:41 < Simorgh> anyway sorry to disrupt your chain of thought
21:41 < Simorgh> do go on
21:41 < durka42> ldlework: unassailable use cases? I dunno. there are example here of course http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=new_voi. it's useful for emphasizing one sumti, also for manipulating scopes
21:41 < durka42> no worries, I will :p
21:42 < ldlework> "Prenex predicate abstraction. x1 is such that the contained bridi hold true of it."
21:43 < ldlework> Oh.
21:43 < durka42> Simorgh: actually {do fraso} likely still applies because the Lojban word is broader than that, you could say {mi fraso lo ka se bangu}, which means "I'm related to French-ness in that I speak the language"
21:43 < durka42> ldlework: my, what a... ma'oste-ish definition :/
21:44 < ldlework> durka42: what is your personal expansion of lo btw?
21:44 < ldlework> your existential expansion, don't care about semantics
21:44 < ldlework> I wont argue, promise
21:44 < durka42> eh, {zo'e noi} I think?
21:45 < kmir> {lo} expands?
21:45 < ldlework> durka42: and zo'e is a language primitive to you?
21:45 < kmir> zo lo is a language primitive to me, :P
21:45 < ldlework> kmir: we have to keep our roots
21:45 < durka42> yeah I think zo'e is a language primitive
21:45 < ldlework> if lo is a language primitve, bye bye roots
21:46 < kmir> I don't understand what is meant by roots :/
21:46 < ldlework> durka42: I wonder what the semantic difference between da and zo'e is to you
21:46 < durka42> lo genja, of course
21:46 < ldlework> But I'm not asking
21:46 < durka42> at some point I should write up a treatise
21:46 < durka42> call it "durka's interpretations" and put it next to tsani's wiki essays
21:47 < kmir> i'e would read
21:47 < ldlework> durka42: I'll just say that I lean towards the idea that there are only 3 language primitives that encompass all language, quantified variables, predicates and logical operators.
21:48 < ldlework> mi'u go'i
21:48 < kmir> I'm lost. I'm intrigued about this roots idea tho. Does anyone want to take the time to explain?
21:49 < ldlework> kmir: Lojban is rooted in first-order predicate logic
21:49 < kmir> I'm interested to find out what *I* consider language primitives :)
21:49 < ldlework> Its the foundation for its design.
21:49 < kmir> ie with you so far
21:49 < ldlework> That's all that is meant
21:49 < ldlework> lo has nothing to do with first-order predicate logic; not directly anyway
21:49 < kmir> so the implication is that zo lo has no equivalent in predicate logic
21:49 < ldlework> its a mechanism of language to wrap up a sterile logical form in a usable linguistic one
21:50 < durka42> it's possible I could expand [my understanding of] {lo} using existential quantifiers, but it would be a more complex mapping than simply {lo broda} => {da poi broda ku'o}
21:50 < kmir> ah, yeh
21:50 < durka42> I'll have to think about this
21:50 < kmir> its a linguistic abstraction
21:50 < ldlework> durka42: I argue that all the gadri expand the exact same way, logically
21:50 < ldlework> durka42: as language features, they embedd illuctionary acts
21:50 < ldlework> But they all related variables with predicates in the same way
21:51 < durka42> with you there. not sure I'm with you on what that way is. but I need to do some more theorizing
21:51 < ldlework> variables in logic representing the referrents to which we refer
21:51 < ldlework> durka42: oh sure, I reserve the exactual expansion for people who actually intend to bother using lojban for FOPL
21:51 < ldlework> since I'm sure they care the most
21:51 < ldlework> 'exactual' u'i
21:51 < ldlework> actual and exact
21:52 < kmir> zo exactual i'e
21:52 < durka42> ex actual? like ex machina? :p
21:53 < ldlework> durka42: you know how when you add xu to a sentence, you don't change the logical structure, the predicated relationships, but you completely change the meaning of the sentnece. Its kind of like that.
21:53 < durka42> sure
21:53 < ldlework> Well, its precisely that actually (imo, I mean of course)
21:54 < ldlework> I feel like we need a convention for denoting illocutionary force within our expansions so we can demonstrate the logical form and the linguistic one in a single structure.
21:55 < durka42> sa'e / sa'enai?
21:55 < ldlework> A lot of the time we create strange logical expansions for what are really semantic demonstrations of what we mean
21:55 < ldlework> durka42: I was thinking almost like, relatiziving the expansion with xoi or some crazy thing
21:55 < durka42> yes and a lot of arguments start from someone misinterpreting a semantic expansion as a logical one, or vice versa
21:55 < ldlework> like a illocutionary subtext beneath the logical expansion
21:56 < durka42> (I'm guilty here)
21:56 < durka42> uanairu'e
21:56 < durka42> ko jai nu mupli
21:57 < ldlework> le broda => da poi broda xoi da ka'e termi'u
21:57 < ldlework> Where the xoi doesn't ever effect the scope
21:58 < ldlework> zo'e broda => da poi broda xoi da na mlauca
21:58 < ldlework> lo'e => da poi broda xoi da ka'enai termi'u
21:58 < ldlework> etc etc
21:59 < durka42> yeah xoi is useful for expansions
21:59 < kmir> (xoi delimits the whole bridi right?)
21:59 < ldlework> yup
21:59 < kmir> je'e
21:59 < ldlework> my semantic formalizations are horrid
21:59 < ldlework> but the point being at least we are always getting the real logical expansion
21:59 < durka42> camxes: +exp da poi broda xoi da ka'enai termi'u
21:59 < camxes> ([da {poi <CU (¹broda [xoi {da <CU (²[ka'e nai] termi'u²) VAU>} SEhU] VAU¹)> KUhO}] VAU)
22:00 < durka42> camxes: -f+exp da poi broda xoi da ka'enai termi'u cu brode
22:00 < camxes> ([da {poi <broda (¹xoi [da {ka'e nai} termi'u]¹)>}] [cu brode])
22:00 < ldlework> I wish the parsers used my convention for marking
22:01 < durka42> write an alternative tree->string routine :)
22:01 < kmir> what's the english for 'xoi da ka'e termi'u'. I can understand the individual words but I dont get what it's expressing
22:01 < ldlework> hehe
22:01 < ldlework> "where the-something can be identified"
22:01 < durka42> mintu3 is a by-standard...?
22:01 < ldlework> "something brodas where the-something can be identified"
22:02 < ldlework> It doesn't remark on the assertion, it remarks on the utterance
22:02 < durka42> shouldn't that just be da ka'e mintu
22:02 < ldlework> durka42: well you're aruging semantics now and I don't really care about that
22:02 < ldlework> :)
22:02 < ldlework> I just care that the mental divsion is advocated
22:03 < kmir> je'e
22:03 < durka42> okay, your expansion doesn't make sense but I won't ask about it now :)
22:03 < ldlework> between logical formulation and speech acts, etc
22:03 < ldlework> durka42: the semantic expansion?
22:03 < durka42> I just thought that {da} referred to the thing that brodas
22:03 < ldlework> pick your favorite for "is qualitatively discernable by the listener"
22:03 < durka42> so presumably it isn't a mintu3
22:03 < ldlework> da does refer to the thing that brodas
22:04 < durka42> but mintu3 is a standard for comparing mintu1 and mintu2
22:04 < ldlework> durka42: oh you're saying I'm reading the predicate termi'u wrong
22:04 < kmir> I thought that being identifiable is an inherent property of a 'da', but maybe there's a finer meaning of 'identifiable' that i dont know. I didn't spend that long with FOPL
22:04 < ldlework> je'e sai
22:04 < durka42> yeah that's all
22:04 < ldlework> kmir: "Some cats are assholes"
22:04 < ldlework> kmir: touch on the head, the cats to which I refer
22:04 < ldlework> I'll wait :)
22:04 < kmir> oh yeah, I see
22:05 < ldlework> so some referents are discernable, others not, in a way that has nothing to do with the listener's knowledge or experience
22:05 < kmir> i da mlatu cu mabla
22:05 < kmir> je'e
22:06 < kmir> in that case, da poi ka'enai termu'i
22:07 < ldlework> yeah I can't find a satisfying predicate
22:08 < ldlework> Its a huuuuuuuuuge field of language philosophy though
22:09 < ldlework> descriptions, designations, names, identification and such
22:09  * durka42 goes back to fighting with the rust compiler
22:13 < kmir> skapata is a good fu'ivla shape
22:14 < kmir> wonder what it should mean
22:14 < ldlework> x1 is uniform in color x2
22:15 < ldlework> not very specific enough
22:15 < kmir> hm
22:15 < ldlework> since there is manfo
22:15 < ldlework> but it would be a nice metaphor for "ska" + "pa" + "ta"
22:15 < durka42> lo se skari be lo prane seljukpa ga'arpatlu
22:16 < kmir> ue
22:16 < ldlework> u'i
22:17 < ldlework> durka42: sepi'o ma sera'a la furtirse
22:18 < durka42> mi sampla lo jitro be lo ganse zmiku
22:20  * nuzba @fotono: Stardict update: selma'o dics in every language because too many experimental cmavo are NOT defined in #lojban. oisai http://guskant.github.io/lojbo/stardict.html [http://bit.ly/1CG4j4B]
22:21 < durka42> .u'i
22:22 < ldlework> lo ganse zmiku i'u nai
22:22 < durka42> lo zmiku cu no'e sampre .iku'i vasru lo so'i ganse tutci
22:24 < ldlework> "I code controller of detection automation"
22:25 < durka42> I meant "sensor machine"
22:25 < ldlework> we should promote zmiselpli
22:26 < durka42> en:zmiselpli
22:26 < mensi> [< zmiku se pilno ≈ Automatic 2nd conversion use] lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se
22:26 < mensi> tolcri
22:26 < mensi> zmiselpli[8807], zmiselpilno[10866], zmikyselpli[10937], zmikyselpilno[12996]
22:26 < durka42> ma smuni
22:26 < ldlework> zo'o nai pei
22:28 < durka42> x1 se pilno ja tutci gi'e se pilno x2 x3
22:28 < durka42> y
22:28 < durka42> sa
22:29 < durka42> x1 zmiku je tutci gi'e se pilno x2 x3
22:29 < ldlework> i'e
22:29 < ldlework> well
22:29 < ldlework> i'e
22:30 < ldlework> I like this better for machine than zmiku cuz zmiku should be really generic
22:30 < ldlework> and represent any ol automaticness
22:30 < ldlework> are there things which are automatic but not mechanical in nature?
22:30 < ldlework> mechanical in the sense of engineered construction
22:30 < ldlework> is the dawn zmiku?
22:31 < durka42> that's what I was going to bring up yeah
22:31 < durka42> things following physical principles
22:31 < ldlework> i'e pei
22:31 < durka42> ja'ai
22:34 < ldlework> durka42: my internal counter-argument voice challenged me with those little glass birds that bend over and drink water and asked what the se pilno x2 x3 would be
22:34 < ldlework> I replied "no da"
22:34 < durka42> well that one time one was used by Homer to cause a nuclear meltdown or something
22:34 < ldlework> haha
22:34 < durka42> but yeah they are pretty plicau
22:34 < durka42> arguably zmiku though
22:35 < ldlework> ie
22:35 < ldlework> terplicau pei
22:35 < durka42> zo terplicau logji xagmu .iku'i mi nelci lo nu zo plixau zo plicau sance simsysi'u
22:35 < ldlework> also, wow cau is a useful terminal rafsi
22:35 < durka42> xagmu => xagmau
22:36 < ldlework> valsi: xagcau
22:36 < valsi> no results. http://vlasisku.lojban.org/xaurcau
22:36 < ldlework> I thought it did decomp
22:36 < durka42> {plicau} should mean "has no users" though, which is a useful meaning, so yeah I should use terplicau instead
22:36 < durka42> vlaste: xagycau
22:36 < vlaste> xaurcau (components) = xamgu claxu ≈ fine without
22:37 < ldlework> ah vlaste
22:37 < durka42> wrong bot, plus you missed a hyphen :)
22:37 < ldlework> and correct morphology
22:37 < ldlework> indeed
22:37 < ldlework> heh
22:37 < durka42> bleh
22:37 < durka42> "fine" is the wrong gloss word for {xamgu}
22:37 < durka42> but there's no way to choose the "best" one for every word
22:37 < durka42> unless we changed JVS to mark the primary gloss word somehow
22:38 < ldlework> I'm sorry I failed to invent a new dictionary system :(
22:38 < ldlework> It was hard.
22:38 < durka42> eventually vlasisku will take over the world, I'm sure of it
22:39 < ldlework> I remember I kept having the experience where the model of the lexicon we were trying to create was so large that as I revisted parts of it I had to rewrap my head around how that part of the langauge worked.
22:39 < ldlework> Once I got to this point I couldn't make any progress and then my interest and motivation died.
22:39 < ldlework> I think when I started to consider conjugated glossing all will just fell apart.
22:40 < ldlework> Perfect is a mortal enemy.
22:40 < ldlework> I wonder if that means
22:40 < ldlework> the enemy is mortal
22:40 < ldlework> or it means, the enemy is such that it pertains to one's mortality
22:41 < ldlework> "is such that it pertains" is such a bullshit philosophical construction
22:42 < kmir> u'e manci tanjo
22:43 < ldlework> "He's my mortal enemy."
22:43 < ldlework> I mean, how could the expected interpretation be meaningful here.
22:43 < ldlework> As opposed to your immortal one?
22:44 < kmir> yeah that's a weird one
22:44 < kmir> also, sucks to have an immortal enemy
22:44 < ldlework> ah the internet seems to agree 'as pertaining to your own mortality'
22:44 < kmir> that sounds awful
22:45 < kmir> so like 'life-long enemy'?
22:46 < ldlework> yeah, or 'wants-you-dead enemy'
22:46 < ldlework> the internet doesn't seem to agree on which of those it is
22:46 < kmir> xm
22:50 < ldlework> durka42: xu do sanji la'ogy tis 100
22:51 < durka42> milxe
22:51 < kmir> i mi sanji
22:51 < kmir> i ku'i na certu uinai
22:53 < ldlework> mi si'ofri tau lo danfu poi farvi
22:54 < ldlework> ginske tadji
22:54 < ldlework> pei
22:55 < kmir> ieru'e
22:56 < ldlework> tugni ma
22:56 < ldlework> lu i'e ru'e li'u pei
22:57 < kmir> mi se slabu lo nu si'ofri voi ki srana lo danfu pe la'o ga TIS100
22:58 < ldlework> I'm confused about your usage of voi here
22:58 < kmir> gy*
22:58 < ldlework> since you included no sumti in your event at all
22:58 < ldlework> what is bound to ki?
22:58 < kmir> sorry, I'm winging it
22:59 < ldlework> oh fair enough
22:59 < kmir> in my mind, lo nu so'ifri
22:59 < gleki> ldlework: you have  upvotes left :P
22:59 < gleki> kmir: have you used all your upvotes on StackExchange?
22:59 < ldlework> kmir: heh fairly positive it doesnt work like that but anyway I think I get what you mean
22:59 < kmir> I have: )
22:59 < kmir> :)
22:59 < ldlework> kmir: you're familiar with evolving tis 100 solutions?
23:00 < kmir> I thought you were describing the sensation of solutions forming in your mind when you play TIS100
23:00 < kmir> something like "I intuit solutions evolving, like, genetically, you know?"
23:01 < kmir> I was trying say "yeah I kinda know what you mean"
23:01 < ldlework> I said, "I had the thought pertaining to solutions that are evolved."
23:01 < kmir> ah i see
23:01 < kmir> I dont know about evolved solutions, is this some metagame that people have come up with
23:02 < ldlework> kmir: are you familiar with genetic algorithms?
23:02 < kmir> I am, in principle
23:02 < ldlework> well that's all I mean
23:02 < ldlework> I haven't heard anyone else talking about it
23:03 < kmir> oh right
23:03 < ldlework> I saw someone wrote a tis100 emulator in C and its about 1000 times faster than the game's cpu
23:03 < ldlework> so I imagine you could, in theory, run random solutions fast enough to evolve correct ones
23:03 < kmir> xm yeah
23:04 < kmir> are you familiar with that experiment... shit what's it called
23:04 < ldlework> CoreWars, an assembly fighting game was ruined because of genetic algorithms
23:04 < kmir> not what I was thinking of but very very similar
23:04 < kmir> an instruction-level genetic simulation
23:04 < ldlework> kmir: where the agents eat plants?
23:04 < kmir> with programs and lifeforms
23:05 < ldlework> Oh
23:05 < kmir> s/and/as
23:05 < fenki> kmir meant to say: with programs as lifeforms
23:05 < kmir> yes
23:05 < ldlework> Do you mean the one that simply arranges line to make various life-form looking shapes
23:05 < ldlework> Or the one where things learned to walk?
23:05 < ldlework> Or the little cell creatures that learn to seek out food?
23:05 < kmir> no much simpler, hang on I'l see if i can dig it up
23:09 < kmir> ah, its this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avida
23:10 < ldlework> very interesting
23:10 < ldlework> kmir: I wrote one that worked a bit differently
23:10 < ldlework> imagine you have a 2D grid
23:10 < kmir> author has a video lecture about it, quite interesting
23:11 < ldlework> in the grid you have a number of agents
23:11 < ldlework> each agent contains a look-up-table that defines how it should behave
23:11 < ldlework> the way that works is, each turn, what the agent sees is used to look up what they should do
23:12 < ldlework> so for every possible combination of things the agent could see in the 4 squares around it, corresponds to an action
23:12 < ldlework> You start off with agents that completely random behavior tables
23:12 < ldlework> And you start simulating and each time an agent walks over a randomly placed "food" tile, they get a point
23:12 < ldlework> at the end of say, 500 turns, you take the top 10% scoring agents, and "breed" them by crossing their behavior tables
23:13 < ldlework> eventually the agents learn to seek out food
23:13 < ldlework> later you introduce a second species that is rewarded for eating members of the first species
23:13 < kmir> hm cool
23:13 < ldlework> thanks for showing me this
23:14 < ldlework> I'm obssesed with stuff like this
23:14 < kmir> :)
23:15 < kmir> oh I found the video. the biosignature stuff he talks about was really interesting to me https://www.ted.com/talks/christophe_adami_finding_life_we_can_t_imagine?language=en#t-2750
23:15 < ldlework> ki'e
23:15 < ldlework> kmir: are you familiar with cellular automata in general?
23:15 < kmir> not such that i've made any, but yes. game of life and so on
23:15 < ldlework> kmir: do sampre xu
23:15 < ldlework> oops
23:16 < ldlework> kmir: do sampla xu
23:16 < kmir> ie mi sampla
23:16 < kmir> ije milxe sampre zo'o
23:17 < ldlework> u'i
23:17 < ldlework> ma sambau
23:18 < kmir> traji pilno zo'u la djavaskrypt
23:18 < ldlework> je'e
23:18 < kmir> do mo
23:19 < ldlework> la'oi Python je la'oi Nim je la'oi Javascript je la'oi C#
23:19 < kmir> actually I usually use Livescript: livescript.net (a coffeescript-alike, but haskelly)
23:20 < kmir> je'e
23:21 < ldlework> kmir: can you do front-end design too?
23:21 < kmir> design not so much. I work with a designer. I have an ok eye tho
23:21 < ldlework> I guess I mean, do you do front-end web stuff, or backend node stuff
23:22 < kmir> oh, front-end is my day job, but I do node whenever I need non-web solutions in my side projects
23:22 < kmir> node's not amazing but my brain is JS-saturated so it's easy to reach for
23:23 < kmir> it's 'Rich Hickey' easy ;)
23:23 < gleki> curtis has stolen my su'ai
23:24 < ldlework> gleki: I feel like we should write up a thing describing the kinds of questions the SO is looking for
23:24 < gleki> SO?
23:24 < ldlework> stack-overflow
23:25 < gleki> StackExchange?
23:25 < ldlework> right, sorry
23:25 < gleki> you have three upvotes left
23:25 < ldlework> Like, no open-ended philosophical prompts, no polling for subjective valuations
23:25 < gleki> and you are free to add any number of new questions
23:26 < gleki> 12:59 < ldlework> I saw a gismu today
23:26 < gleki> ^ that sounded frightening :D
23:29 < ldlework> lol
23:30 < ldlework> gleki: how do you feel about people not just hypothesizing article refactors like cekitaujau but actually releasing substantial works with them
23:31 < gleki> i feel that it confuses other people not speaking lojban even more
23:31 < gleki> since they have nowhere to learn from except in chats
23:31 < gleki> and it all started with xorlo which i hate for that
23:31 < ldlework> gleki: do you prefer cll gadri
23:32 < gleki> i prefer complete specifications of language.
23:32 < ldlework> I think everyone does
23:32 < gleki> the grammatical or cognitive usefullness of xorlo is irrelevant here
23:32 < ldlework> gleki: well to be fair, its not like the cll formally specifies anything at all
23:32 < ldlework> its just a bunch of english semantic explanations
23:33 < gleki> after xorlo many people left lojban and were reluctant to learn it. it's happening even now. they shouldnt have touched anything until they were able to produce new stuff quickly
23:34 < ldlework> I don't know why I don't sympathize with that argument
23:34 < ldlework> I think the most immediately observable is the crazy number of people I've been teaching the language lately
23:34 < gleki> take shanoxilt, Wuzzy, Oz ...
23:34 < gleki> they all have points which i agree with
23:35 < ldlework> gleki: I'm not denying its true manifestation, I'm just observing I don't sympathize with its effects as outweighing some other things
23:35 < kmir> they're never been able to produce new stuff quickly tho, and still can't
23:35 < ldlework> Like, no doubt that some people has left
23:35 < gleki> yes, still they cant produce new things quickly.
23:36 < ldlework> I'm not sure what that means
23:37 < gleki> cll
23:37 < kmir> bpfk etc
23:38 < gleki> yes, integrating bpfk pages into cll
23:38 < ldlework> What does that have to do with people producing things quickly?
23:38 < gleki> publishing a dictionary that people can read and use
23:38 < ldlework> I'm confused. Do you mean new works? Or full specifications?
23:38 < gleki> i mean publishing cll when people want to buy it. i mean cll with xorlo integrated
23:38 < gleki> they cant do that but they change the language
23:38 < ldlework> gleki: haven't you guys been working on cll a lot recently?
23:39 < ldlework> and if not recently, over the last year or so
23:39 < gleki> ldlework: cll isn't ready. period
23:39 < ldlework> That's not what I asked.
23:39 < ldlework> Isn't it actively being worked on?
23:39 < gleki> they've been working
23:39 < gleki> no results
23:39 < ldlework> What more can you ask for?
23:39 < ldlework> gleki: as in the CLL hasn't changed at all since they started?
23:39 < gleki> if no results then newcomers wont be able to learn anything
23:40 < gleki> ldlework: you confuse linguistics and technical stuff.
23:40 < ldlework> gleki: isn't the WIP available online?
23:40 < ldlework> gleki: what does that mean?
23:40 < gleki> they issued xorlo reform but didnt do any technical work.
23:40 < ldlework> you mean in terms of linguistic definition
23:40 < gleki> so they created a gap between learning resources and linguistic recommendations
23:41 < gleki> people want to learn but are being said that cll is obsolete and nothing instead of it is ready.
23:41 < gleki> so xorlo reform damaged lojban
23:41 < gleki> since it invalidated the only learning resources available
23:41 < ldlework> gleki: regardless of the fact that I haven't contributed my thoughts to a patch against the CLL, what do you think about my ideas about description theory?
23:42 < gleki> i havent read them. where to read?
23:42 < ldlework> gleki: hmm well I haven't written my personal ideas down anywhere so I guess it isn't a good question
23:42 < ldlework> But I mean the 'gadganzu' gadri semantics
23:43 < gleki> exactly. the same as with xorlo
23:43 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/gadganzu ?
23:43 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article ?
23:43 < ldlework> yeah
23:44 < ldlework> gleki: the negative xorlo-effects aside, of course
23:44 < ldlework> gleki: we're trying to bring ideas of descriptions from the leading thinking on them in language philosophy today, to lojban
23:44 < gleki> i think you completely ignored {da} which solves many of your problems
23:45 < ldlework> gleki: go on
23:45 < gleki> e.g. the problem of "any"
23:45 < gleki> anaphorics is again pure {da} or {ko'a goi}
23:46 < gleki> etc.
23:46 < ldlework> gleki: so in your mind, to access an indefinite reference, all you need is da?
23:46 < gleki> {da} is mentioned nowhere
23:46 < gleki> i dont translate abstract theories on how language works. i translate what people mean, i.e. real sentences.
23:47 < ldlework> gleki: by 'indefinite reference' I mean the same thing you do when you say "any", do you agree maybe?
23:47 < gleki> i put test setnecens about "any" into that mriste thread and selpa'i translated them. i had nothing to complain about his transaltions.
23:47 < gleki> so i suppose the problem of "any" is closed.
23:47 < gleki> if no you may read Haspelmath's papers once again
23:48 < ldlework> Open and close. je'e ki'e
23:48  * ldlework yawns, okay good night
23:48 < gleki> co'o
23:48 < kmir> co'o do
--- Day changed Tue Jun 30 2015
00:37 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/selterselxeliumadbro u'i
00:37 < zipcpi> k: selterselxelumadbro
00:37 < mensi> (CU [Z:selterselxelumadbro VAU])
00:39 < niftg> .u'i ro'e zo xorxo
00:40 < gleki> seltersel- is useful though
00:41 < gleki> lo selterselcpedu be ko'e bei ko'i cu so'iva'ei cpedu ko'e ko'i
00:42 < gleki> i oi
00:42 < gleki> se'i
00:42 < gleki> i lo selterselcpedu be ko'e bei ko'i cu so'iva'ei pikci ko'e ko'i
00:42 < gleki> vau le'ainai
00:46 < zipcpi> oi nitcu lo nu da vimcu zo'oi kybu jo'u zo'oi xybu la jbovlaste
00:47 < zipcpi> .y. vybu
00:47 < zipcpi> zo'oi kybu jo'u zo'oi vybu
00:48 < gleki> en: vybu
00:48 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
00:48 < gleki> en: vy bu
00:48 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
00:48 < gleki> uanai
00:48 < gleki> i ma judri zo'ei le nabmi
00:49 < gleki> i zo nitcu i'enai ru'e i zo sarcu xu
00:50 < zipcpi> mi se malglixlu lo ka zmanei zo nitcu zo sarcu
00:55 < zipcpi> la uuzit cu facki lo me'oi hack po'u lo nu pilno mu'a zo'oi ky.bu
00:56 < gleki> tolcri
00:56 < zipcpi> ie
00:56 < gleki> zoi ly.ky.bu.ly.
00:56 < zipcpi> ku'i tolcri fi ma
00:56 < Ilmen> tersmus: ki'u su'o da broda
00:56 < tersmus> EX x1. (ki'u)(x1). broda( )
00:57 < Ilmen> tersmus: lo brodo be da cu brode
00:57 < tersmus> EX x1. brodo(c0,x1);  brode(c0)
00:57 < gleki> zipcpi: ie i zo finti mapti la'a
00:57 < Ilmen> ki'e la .tersmus.
00:57 < gleki> ija lo'u facki tu'a le'u
01:13 < ldlework> tersmus: da poi broda ku'o brode
01:13 < tersmus> EX x1:(broda(_)). brode(x1)
01:13 < ldlework> I find it strange that it expands to a form that retains the relativization semantic
01:17  * mumble jorne co'u fa la'o fa menli fa
01:20 <@Broca> I'm always thrown by "fa" as a delimiter :-)
01:20 < gleki> at least it's not {la'o}
01:21 < zipcpi> I typically use gy or zoi
01:21 < zipcpi> gy is supposed to stand for glico but sometimes I forget that lol
01:22 < ldlework> interesting
01:22 < ldlework> tersmus: da broda .i de go'i
01:22 < tersmus> EX x1. broda(x1);  EX x1. EX x2. broda(x1)
01:22 < ldlework> no assertion upon de
01:24 < ldlework> Unless it is reassigning x1 for the second sentence I suppose.
01:25 < ldlework> doesn't seem to retain anaphoric assignments over sentnece boundries
01:25 < ldlework> tersmus: da goi ko'a broda .i ko'a brode
01:25 < tersmus> EX x1. broda(x1);  brode([UNBOUND Var])
01:25 < gleki> tersmus: da broda ije de go'i
01:25 < tersmus> (EX x1. broda(x1) /\ EX x1. EX x2. broda(x1))
01:26 < ldlework> same difference
01:27 < ldlework> very strange
01:27 < ldlework> tersmus: lo broda cu brode
01:27 < tersmus> broda(c0);  brode(c0)
01:27 < ldlework> tersmus: da broda je brode
01:27 < tersmus> EX x1. <broda(_)>{je}<brode(_)>(x1)
01:28 < ldlework> very strange
01:28 < gleki> kmir left
01:28 < gleki> and i had a question 
01:29 < ldlework> I wonder why whoever wrote tersmus didn't just use standard notations and forms
01:30 < ldlework> interesting...
01:30 < ldlework> tersmus: da broda
01:30 < tersmus> EX x1. broda(x1)
01:30 < ldlework> tersmus: lo broda
01:30 < tersmus> broda(c0);  [Fragment: c0]
01:30 < ldlework> tersmus: zo'e broda
01:30 < tersmus> broda(c0)
01:30 < gleki> zugz wrtoe
01:30 < gleki> *wrote
01:31 < ldlework> gleki: looks like tersmus fundamentally disagrees with the premise that da is an indefinite and lo is some concrete thing
01:31 < ldlework> it sees da as explicitly existential and lo/zo'e as indefinite
01:32 < gleki> neither da, nor zo'e is indefinite
01:32 < ldlework> I agree
01:32 < ldlework> Lojban doesn't currently address indefinite reference in its design anywhere
01:32 < gleki> see examples translated by selpa'i
01:32 < gleki> on how to express indefiniteness
01:33 < ldlework> link?
01:33 < gleki> da is variable, zo'e is constant
01:33 < gleki> ldlework: same thread in mriste on "any"
01:33 < ldlework> gleki: no idea where that is
01:33 < gleki> with links to haspelmath's papers
01:34 < gleki> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/yh8-ChFLanM/discussion
01:39 < zipcpi> What would be a good word for "odd number" and "even number"?
01:39 < zipcpi> I could define odd number as {lo ni'ai li pa veldilcu ke'a li re} (ni'ai = mathematical poi'i)
01:41 < ldlework> gleki: I don't believe that the difference between "I'll eat this." and "I'll eat something" is the same as "This cat is meowing" and "Some cat is meowing"
01:41 < ldlework> gleki: I think that indefinites are not a quantification issue
01:41 < ldlework> I think the 'any' quantifier works equally on definites and indefinites
01:42 < ldlework> I think the aim of selpahi's conceptualization of quantification of definites is sound and I agree mostly with it
01:42 < ldlework> But I don't think it addresses indefinites whatsoever
01:44 < djunias> coi jbopre
01:44 < gleki> ldlework: make a list of test sentences and others will translate it
01:44 < gleki> enn: odd
01:44 < gleki> en:even
01:44 < mensi> 721 da se tolcri: banjevenu, bangevu'e, ji'asai, landegmei, bangevunu, bavlamvanci, bonsfe, cabvanci, da'e, fasnu, fau,
01:44 < mensi> jednze, lenu, lonu, menfau, mocfau, mu'e, nu, pimucu'o, prulamvanci, selbre, teji'o, tolja'e, tolki'u, tolmu'i, tolni'i,
01:44 < mensi> tolri'a, vanci, venfu, zemoi, zgifau, algoritma, anci, badgau, ba'ei, balkulctu, bandu, banxa, ba'o, bapli, bavlamcte,
01:44 < mensi> baxseljibri, bebna, benre, besto, bikspu, binra, binryve'u, blopofre'i, bolgrijvi, bredi, brejbi, burcu, ca'a, cabna,
01:44 < mensi> cabycte, cacryme'utcika, cacyjva, cadnfroide, cafne, caicni, ca'icru, caidji, ca'irvei, calse, ca ma, campu, camte'a,
01:44 < mensi> cancydji, canja, ca'o, cedra, certu, cfagau, cfari, cfari'i, cfipu, ciksi, cilre, cimri'a, ...
01:44 < gleki> en: landegmei
01:44 < mensi> landegmei [< lanme degji mei ≈ Sheep finger cardinal selbri] = m1 is a mass of set m2 with an even number of members m3
01:44 < mensi> |>>> see also xirdegmei |>>> phma
01:45 < gleki> zipcpi: ^
01:45 < zipcpi> That's... weird
01:45 < gleki> funny though
01:45 < zipcpi> Besides the definition involves masses and sets
01:45 < zipcpi> I just want something that says "x1 is an odd number"
01:46 < zipcpi> I could reuse that metaphor though
01:46 < zipcpi> But what a strange metaphor lol
01:46 < dutchie> i think it's quite a sensible metaphor
01:46 < zipcpi> I wonder what language it is from
01:47 < zipcpi> Well I'm just not familiar with it...
01:47 < dutchie> oh, the lojban one
01:47 < dutchie> yeah that's crazy
01:47 < dutchie> i thought you meant in english
01:47 < gleki> djunias: have u used all of your 5 upvotes on StackExchange, Lojban proposal?
01:47 < zipcpi> sheep finger = even, horse finger = odd
01:47 < zipcpi> Not sure why
01:48 < dutchie> oh, maybe sheep have an even number of fingers and horses odd?
01:48 < dutchie> toes/hooves/whatever
01:49 < djunias> Haha. Maybe it was an old in-joke that people have forgotten?
01:50 < djunias> gleki: which proposal is this?
01:50 < dutchie> https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
01:50 < gleki> area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
01:50 < gleki> djunias: login and vote up 5 questions with rating below 10
01:55 < djunias> .ua Will do.
01:56 < zipcpi> By the way your name needs to be djuniias or djuni'as
01:56 < zipcpi> Morphological rule change some time back
01:56 < djunias> Done.
01:56 < djunias> Morphological huh?
01:57 < djunias> {ia} is a possible dipthong, isn't it?
01:57 < zipcpi> It's now considered semivowel + vowel
01:57 < gleki> under my rule it's still fine
01:57 < zipcpi> And semivowels after consonants have been disallowed
01:58 < djunias> ...I thought tripthongs weren't allowed...
01:58 < zipcpi> Including after {'}
01:58 < zipcpi> No, {iau} is allowed
01:58 < gleki> djunias: what is your nick there?
01:58 < djunias> gleki: "la .djunias."
01:59 < zipcpi> Yeah tripthongs are still not allowed but {iau} is now considered a semivowel + diphthong
01:59 < djunias> @zipcpi; Strange. What prompted that?
02:00 < zipcpi> They didn't want to deal with words with uncertain syllabification, I think
02:00 < djunias> (Also, I must have been out of it for a lot longer than I thought. .u'i )
02:00 < zipcpi> Like {djunio}... where is the stress?
02:00 < djunias> First syllable. Obviously. A dipthong is a single syllable.
02:01 < djunias> Right?
02:01 < djunias> Like: JUNE-yo
02:02 < zipcpi> Can it be pronounced in a way that can be consistently distinguished from {djuniio}... and then there's the problem of {versio} possibly sounding like {verco} if said quickly
02:02 < dutchie> relatedly, i just noticed http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/cirkotci.html has "eye-ya" for {ia} and "ow-a" for {ua}
02:03 < zipcpi> uat
02:03 < dutchie> ok, so i'm not just wrong
02:03 < gleki> idk, maybe just change to "aia"?
02:03 < dutchie> or at least, not alone in being wrong
02:03 < gleki> because consonants are also "aba" etc. there
02:04 < dutchie> ah possibly
02:04 < dutchie> but that is certainly confusing
02:04 < zipcpi> Meh we perhaps need a thing with real Lojban words too
02:04 < dutchie> well there's corpus readings etc
02:05 < zipcpi> Perhaps even a little chart with pictures like the ones for children
02:05 < dutchie> perhaps just a sentence on there that says "some of the sounds have been surrounded by {a}"
02:05 < gleki> okay, changed to "aia"
02:05 < gleki> pls reload
02:06 < gleki> we need cirko to utter sofybakni sentence fo us?
02:06 < gleki> *for
02:06 < djunias> Umm. I'm not seeing a problem with versio versus verco. I mean, there will always be words that sound kinda like each other.
02:06 < zipcpi> I dunno; anyway what's done is done; the new rules are in all the current parsers and in JVS
02:08 < djunias> Hmm. So does this mean the community is making decisions properly, again? Or is the LLG still out of the loop?
02:08 < zipcpi> I think it was a BPFK decision
02:10 < zipcpi> OK {landegna'u} and {xirdegna'u} added
02:14 < djunias> So, where can I find the official changes from the last...I dunno...6 months?
02:15 < zipcpi> I don't know... does Gleki know?
02:15 < gleki> no
02:15 < gleki> just an hour ago i said that all these reforms areruning the language
02:16 < gleki> *ruining
02:16 < zipcpi> lol
02:17 < djunias> I kinda agree. I'm never gonna get proficient in this language if it changes on me every month or two.
02:18 < gleki> for me {djunias} is fine. it can be autocorrected into e.g. {djuniias}
02:18 < djunias> And I don't think these changes are particularly necessary. They might be technically correct...I dunno. I'm no linguist. But I can't see their practical value to the non-linguist.
02:19 < djunias> Maybe I just need them explained to me better. :)
02:23 < zipcpi> Well it's also... the CLL has an example like *{i,a,i,a,ion}
02:23 < zipcpi> But that is indistinguishable from {i,ia,ii,ia,ion}
02:24 < djunias> ???
02:24 < djunias> Oh, I see.
02:24 < zipcpi> In short, disyllabic vowel glides was banned as part of the change; they must be buffered by semivowels or '
02:25 < gleki> CLL has some mistakes like {bangrkorea}
02:25 < djunias> Then shouldn't we be getting rid of the comma and the apostrophe? Those seem the problem more than the vowel-glides. :/
02:26 < zipcpi> Apostrophe is fine; basically they don't want the comma to be a necessary distinguisher anymore
02:26 < djunias> I mean, they aren't audible, so there's no barrier between vowel groups.
02:27 < djunias> Ok, so ditching the comma (which I absolutely agree with), is there still an issue with the original system?
02:28 < djunias> Because the "There are no tripthongs, except these ones" sounds pretty bad for a 'solution', to me.
02:28 < zipcpi> They are not triphthongs
02:28 < djunias> They have three letters.
02:29 < zipcpi> The i and u are considered semivowels
02:29 < zipcpi> Treated more like consonants than vowels
02:29 < djunias> Make them stronger?
02:29 < zipcpi> Some people write them with breves
02:30 < zipcpi> It's also part of morphological resolution now. {ba ia} and {bi ia} won't need a pause, but {bai.ia} will
02:30 < zipcpi> Of course you can still pause if you want
02:32 < djunias> You lost me. So, whenever {i} is used in a dipthong, it becomes {ii}?
02:32 < djunias> Or at least, when it begins.
02:32 < zipcpi> ia -> ĭa
02:33 < zipcpi> ua -> ǔa
02:33 < zipcpi> Or perhaps to make this easier let me just use the unconventional assignment ĭ -> q, ǔ -> w
02:33 < djunias> Ah. I have no idea what the difference is there. Never used accents before.
02:34 < zipcpi> They are optional; some people use them as a reminder that they're considered semivowels in that context
02:34 < zipcpi> So ia -> qa; ua -> wa
02:35 < zipcpi> iau -> qau
02:35 < djunias> So {ia} sounds like {kua}, now?
02:35 < zipcpi> No, I'm just using q as a stand in for the /j/ semivowel
02:35 < djunias> Or is there a different sound for q?
02:36 < djunias> Oh. The "y" in "yes"?
02:36 < zipcpi> Yeah
02:36 < dutchie> maybe "ι" is better than q
02:36 < dutchie> but probably doesn't really matter
02:36 < zipcpi> It's an unconventional assignment dutchie; just makes it easier for me to type than breves
02:36 < dutchie> mmm
02:37 < zipcpi> I might need a keyboard configuration to enter breves and stress accents
02:38 < zipcpi> Anyway when the diphthongs ai or ei appear before ĭ, they need a pause
02:38 < zipcpi> oi too
02:38 < zipcpi> Ditto for au and ǔ
02:38 < zipcpi> Otherwise they don't
02:39 < djunias> So, if I read this correctly, then the changes mean you cannot pronounce {ii} as "eeyee", only as "yee" and {uu} is no longer "oowoo", only "woo"?
02:39 < zipcpi> Yes
02:39 < djunias> And the pauses thing, obviously. :)
02:39 < zipcpi> "eeyee" is now {i ĭi}
02:40 < djunias> Cool. Makes sense.
02:41 < djunias> I guess that's a change that has its reasons. I'll admit, I'm a bit sad at losing it, but I see why it had to go. :P
02:41 < djunias> In terms of my name, though...
02:42 < djunias> {djunias} doesn't have the {...i ia...} problem.
02:42 < djunias> or the double-i
02:42 < zipcpi> i becomes ĭ when it begins a syllable with another vowel
02:42 < zipcpi> Ditto with u and ǔ
02:43 < djunias> Ok. But I don't need to write that, do I? It's an automatic thing with pronunciation.
02:43 < zipcpi> Yep
02:43 < zipcpi> They are completely optional
02:44 < zipcpi> Just useful as a reminder sometimes, especially for some strange words like {briĭi} and {tsekuǔoĭa}
02:47 < zipcpi> The thing is that consonats before semivowels was banned outright; I'm not sure if it *had* to also include cmevla, but in the end it did
02:47 < zipcpi> I wasn't part of the decision; only describing it
02:48 < djunias> Sure. I guess that makes sense.
02:48 < djunias> ...and sorry if I sounded like I was attacking you about this. I absolutely wasn't. Just confused, is all.
02:48 < zipcpi> It's fine
02:49 < djunias> :) I think I understand why things were done. ki'esai pendo
02:50 < zipcpi> I guess maybe it was motivated with making syllabic resolution easier... {briĭi} vs *{brĭiĭi}
02:50 < zipcpi> I don't even know how to pronounce the second one
02:51 < zipcpi> Of course there is still the problem of {iĭiĭin}
02:51 < zipcpi> Theoretically that has a single resolution; but who has the time to count out those i-s lol
02:53 < djunias> Haha. I know. I think anyone forced to read that should be permitted to slap the person who wrote it.
02:53 < djunias> :P
02:54 < zipcpi> lol
02:54 < djunias> Ok, I'm off to get food. Back shortly.
02:54 < zipcpi> See ya
03:00 < gleki> 27 more questions with a score of 10 or more
03:01 < zipcpi> Still couldn't find my email
03:02 < gleki> zipcpi: just reregister with another account
03:04 < zipcpi> Oh found the verification co'e
03:04 < zipcpi> The thing I need to click for it to resend
03:05 < zipcpi> Done
03:06 < zipcpi> All my ma'udzau kantu used
03:07 < zipcpi> ro le mi ma'udzau kantu cu se xaksu
03:08 < gleki> for me ma'udzau strangely enough sounds like yakuza
03:08 < gleki> 26 more questions with a score of 10 or more
03:15 < zipcpi> OK... also defined {dilcymu'o}
03:15 < zipcpi> x1 is fully divisible by x2
04:03 < gleki> oh i wish selpahi returned and finished with tatoeba
04:05 < zipcpi> If you don't like {xoi}, maybe you'd like {gi'ei} better...
04:05 < zipcpi> I don't know though; I'm not the one who came up with the idea
04:05 < gleki> you = do'ei?
04:05 < zipcpi> No, you you
04:06 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/gi'ei
04:06 < gleki> i wanted an adverbial conuterpart to {sei}
04:06 < gleki> mensi: ko cnino
04:06 < zipcpi> Took the idea from Robin Lee Powell's blog
04:06 < zipcpi> From the same post as {ni'ai}
04:07 < gleki> ni'ai is more like poi'i
04:07 < gleki> in my views it was even simply {nu}
04:07 < zipcpi> Yes, I did note that
04:07 < gleki> with sumti lowering
04:07 < zipcpi> Eh I don't like the semantic of {nu} for that
04:07 < gleki> for me it's = su'u be zi'o
04:08 < mensi> sei ca ca'o jai gau cnino be fai lo pe mi sorcu
04:08 < zipcpi> {nu} has a useful semantic; it's a bit sad that people misuse it as {su'u} because of length
04:10 < zipcpi> "Afterthought abstraction wrapper" : Accepts gi'ei LE NU, gi'ei NU (elided LE defaults to lo), or gi'ei LOhOI. Wraps the bridi before it within an abstraction. e.g. (mi klama le zarci gi'ei nu cabna lo nu do klama) = (lo nu mi klama le zarci cu cabna lo nu do klama)
04:10 < mensi> i ba'o jai gau cnino
04:11 < gleki> {nu} is used for djica2 which it shouldnt but it does. so there are other ways of expressing {nu} semantics
04:11 < gleki> en: gi'ei
04:11 < mensi> gi'ei = [GIhEI] afterthought abstraction wrapper |>>> Accepts gi'ei LE NU, gi'ei NU (elided LE defaults to lo), or gi'ei
04:11 < mensi> LOhOI. Wraps the bridi before it within an abstraction. e.g. (mi klama le zarci gi'ei nu cabna lo nu do klama) = (lo nu
04:11 < mensi> mi klama le zarci cu cabna lo nu do klama). Also see xoi, jai'i // Grammar note: The gi'ei-group acts like a specialized
04:11 < mensi> vau, grabbing a single bridi. If you are in a sub-bridi of the bridi you wish to convert, you need to close the
04:11 < mensi> sub-bridi with vau, or use i'au to return to the top bridi of the sentence. |>>>
04:11 < mensi> spheniscine
04:11 < gleki> one more selmaho
04:11 < zipcpi> Yeah... that is a downside
04:12 < gleki> mi klama le zarci i fi'o cabna bo do klama
04:12 < gleki> ^ one syllable shorter
04:12 < zipcpi> fi'o does have that problem of having uncertain connection
04:13 < zipcpi> i.e. no {ke'a} binding like xoi
04:13 < gleki> who cares. neither {lo} has ke'a inside
04:13 < zipcpi> Well {fi'o} has the same uncertainty that tanru do
04:14 < zipcpi> So OK for general conversation, but if you care about expanding tanru you should also care about expanding fi'o
04:14 < gleki> mi klama le zarci vau noi cabna lo nu do klama
04:14 < gleki> for me fi'o doesnt have any uncertainty
04:14 < zipcpi> Does that work currently
04:14 < zipcpi> exp: mi klama le zarci vau noi cabna lo nu do klama
04:14 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "k" found.
04:14 < gleki> no, no.
04:14 < gleki> it's for alta but im lazy to implement that
04:15 < gleki> {fasnu fa lonu} is to be appended
04:16 < zipcpi> The problem is that fi'o only attaches one place; but leaves the place that the bridi should go into undefined
04:16 < gleki> i formalized  that in la bangu dictionary
04:17 < zipcpi> I'm not sure if that's possible; not all brivla you might want to attach with fi'o has an easy rule like "just dump the bridi into x2"
04:18 < gleki> give me examples, i will solve them
04:18 < zipcpi> I'm not familiar enough with fi'o to give examples
04:19 < gleki> i have no problems with fi'o. te sumti variable types are formalized, so everything is clean now
04:22 < gleki> http://www.ranker.com/list/easiest-language-to-learn/jennifer-lee?ref=rltdlsts&pos=1&a=8&ltype=l&l=1955738&g=2
04:22 < gleki> seems we got the second place
04:23 < zipcpi> I'm not sure how easy it really is; we're all somewhat biased lol
04:23 < gleki> compared to what
04:23 < gleki> easy in which part
04:23 < zipcpi> Hm good question
04:24 < gleki> in bridi math it may be much easier
04:24 < gleki> then ... even the usual Western mekso
04:24 < gleki> *than ... even the usual Western mekso
04:25 < zipcpi> Vocab is probably harder than Esperanto; sure Esperanto is Eurocentric, but I think Lojban doesn't gain much in that department from trying to blend languages together to be "culturally neutral"
04:25 < gleki> http://www.listnerd.com/list/best-conlang-off-all-time
04:25 < gleki> here we won although no E-o here
04:26 < gleki> if you mean gimste then it's not blending at all if one can call eaton's list true blending
04:26 < zipcpi> eaton ki'a
04:26 < gleki> i wish i knew what are the frames absent in English FrameNET but present in Portuguese and Japanese
04:26 < gleki> gimste was based on eaton's list
04:27 < gleki> loglan actually
04:27 < zipcpi> Loglan was based more on Latinate forms I hear, rather than using that gismu algorithm
04:27 < gleki> http://www.loglan.org/Loglan1/forward.html
04:28 < gleki> im talking about semantics
04:28 < gleki> not about sounding
04:28 < zipcpi> Ah
04:28 < gleki> it's also not fair to take semantics from one language and sounding from all
04:29 < zipcpi> Well that was basically my point; that Lojban's vocab would be more cryptic than Esperanto's... wrt fairness, I can see the point; but as is, Lojban's vocab is basically cryptic to everyone, not just Europeans. What's done is done though
04:29 < gleki> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/old_LLG_Projects
04:30 < gleki> lojbab didnt finish translating Eaton to Lojban
04:30 < gleki> gimste was meant to present more broad concepts
04:30 < gleki> it's only now that we are borrowing words with narrow sense
04:31 < gleki> or killing {tirxu}
04:31 < zipcpi> lol
04:31 < gleki> {murmura} is nice, though (although i invented it but anyway)
04:31 < zipcpi> :p
04:31 < gleki> it was selpahi who asked what would be the zi'evla for "cat" if {mlatu} didnt exist
04:32 < gleki> so i removed {da'i} from his question and invented mumura and xafxafa
04:32 < gleki> *murmura
04:32 < zipcpi> Well I also made the related zi'evla {mriiaucmo}
04:32 < zipcpi> And {xa'afcmo}
04:32 < gleki> en: mriiaucmo
04:32 < mensi> mriiaucmo = x1 meows with sound x2 |>>> See cmoni, mlatu. Onomatopoeic synonym to latcmo. |>>>
04:32 < mensi> spheniscine
04:32 < gleki> ok
04:32 < gleki> {latcmo} can cause immediate rants
04:33 < gleki> because cats produce different sounds
04:33 < zipcpi> Why?
04:33 < zipcpi> Oh
04:33 < gleki> in Ithkuil it's -rr-
04:33 < gleki> because JQ's cat utters this sound
04:33 < latro`a> given that cats learned to meow by imitating human babies, perhaps it should be krixa
04:33 < zipcpi> Maybe I should make one for purr as well. {mau'ucmo} is close, but might not be specifically a cat's purr
04:34 < gleki> sometimes cats even sing to their babies. sanga? no clue
04:35 < gleki> la cilce si latro'a di'a carmi akti
04:35 < zipcpi> Or maybe I should just build the zi'evlajvo {murmura'ycmo}
04:36 < zipcpi> A tad long though
04:36 < zipcpi> Can't elide the final vowel without making a lujvo
04:36 < gleki> en: murmura
04:36 < mensi> murmura = x1 is a pussycat, kitty, kittycat, a purring home animal treated affectionately, belongs to species x2 |>>>
04:36 < mensi> See mlatu, dalpe'o, dirba |>>> gleki
04:36 < gleki> given that murmura wasn't meant to be very serious ...
04:36 < zipcpi> Yeah I know
04:37 < gleki> sounds like {lo murmura = lo na'o me'oi purr}
04:37 < gleki> no
04:37 < gleki> it must additionally be kept at home
04:37 < gleki> and be loved
04:37 < zipcpi> You did ram several senses together, yes :p
04:38 < zipcpi> de'a jundi
04:38 < gleki> lo remna = an ape  without a tail, fir on most parts of the body, less intellecutal than bonobo due to constant wars, ...
04:38 < gleki> *агк
04:38 < gleki> *fur
04:40 < zipcpi> One last thing about Lojban vocab: Part of the problem is that the heaviest weighted is Chinese, but Chinese phonology fits neither Lojban phonology nor gismu morphology very well
04:40 < gleki> indeed, let's kill {remna} and use {presmani} instead.
04:41 < gleki> i tried to fit it https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_w-c7yM6beFUc_G-XCSLlRfrCewhQosFdQuPD1DwhuU/edit
04:42 < zipcpi> As someone with some knowledge of Mandarin, I can see the derivations of many gismu, but I can't imagine a Chinese would be able to pick up Lojban vocab as easily as a European might with Esperanto
04:42 < gleki> very seldom it matches lojban morphology like with {uencu}, {uenzi}
04:42 < gleki> even {bianfu} is now {bi'anfu}
04:42 < gleki> en: bianfu
04:42 < mensi> bianfu = x1 is a bat, flying mammal (order Chiroptera) of species x2 |>>> See mabru, vofli |>>>
04:42 < mensi> gleki
04:43 < gleki> oh
04:43 < zipcpi> OK really de'a jundi this time
05:25 < zipcpi> exp: tsali sai
05:25 < zipcpi> exp: tsali-sai
05:25 < mensi> (CU [tsali sai] VAU)
05:25 < zipcpi> exp: se-tsali
05:25 < mensi> (CU [tsalisai VAU])
05:25 < mensi> (CU [se tsali] VAU)
05:26 < zipcpi> Hm. Doesn't see hyphens as spaces
05:26 < zipcpi> Was thinking of using them as a way to visually connect brivla to cmavo
05:26 < zipcpi> Sort of like how some cmavo get clumped together just for visual connection
05:28 < ctefa`o> uicoi
05:29 < zipcpi> coi
05:31 < ctefa`o> .i coi la zìpcpi .i do mo
05:31 < zipcpi> ru'i bauspo
05:32 < zipcpi> (to xu mi ka'e gubyzu'e lo du'u lu ru'i bauspo li'u cu kampu danfu la'e lu do mo li'u iau zo'o toi)
05:33 < gleki> exp: tsali-sai
05:33 < gleki> exp: tsali sai
05:33 < mensi> (CU [tsalisai VAU])
05:33 < mensi> (CU [tsali sai] VAU)
05:34 < gleki> i can add that to preprocessor
05:35 < zipcpi> Guess that'd be nice... unless someone uses that to display rafsi in lujvo...
05:36 < zipcpi> exp: pofy/gau
05:36 < mensi> (CU [pofygau VAU])
05:36 < zipcpi> Or they could use this instead *shrugs*
05:37 < zipcpi> Yeah I have in my mind developed some hypothetical typographical conventions
05:38 < zipcpi> bold or *asterisk quotes* for ba'e, cei, or goi
05:39 < zipcpi> ~ to indicate non-phonemic vowel lengthening (e.g. xy~'y, y~~~~, ii~~~~~)
05:39 < zipcpi> comma isn't just a syllable separator, but also may be placed at the end of constructs much like natlang commas; not phonemic, merely a visual identifier
05:40 < zipcpi> Well none of these are phonemic :p
05:40 < gleki> it's vrici's problems
05:42 < zipcpi> And yeah, hyphen as an allograph for the space, but strengthening visual connection between words
05:43 < zipcpi> Angle brackets <> or guillemets « » for quoted texts or du'u equations
05:44 < gleki> exp: tsali-sai
05:44 < mensi> (CU [tsali sai] VAU)
05:44 < gleki> fxd
05:44 < zipcpi> ui ki'e
05:45 < zipcpi> du'u equation example: {lo du'u <lo broda cu brode> cu du'u <zo'e noi broda cu brode>}
05:59  * ctefa`o re turba
05:59 < ctefa`o> Ehm
06:00  * ctefa`o returns*
06:00 < ctefa`o> (to Weird autocorrect toi)
06:01 < ctefa`o> coi clìva
06:03 < cliva> coi mi'e darca
06:04 < cliva> si dàrca
06:12 < zipcpi> On po'a; maybe it should just be BAI for ponse
06:13 < zipcpi> So {le jdini be po'a mi}
06:14 < gleki> le jdini poi mi ponse
06:14 < gleki> same number of syllables
06:14 < gleki> jb: fi'e
06:14 < zipcpi> ti jdini po'a mi
06:14 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
06:15 < zipcpi> po can't even attach like a sumtcita
06:15 < gleki> i consider this {ti jdini po'a mi} extremely weird
06:15 < gleki> {jdini} is a verb
06:15 < zipcpi> Not sure how it's so different from {mi tavla bau lo jbobau}
06:16 < gleki> i'd rather say {ti poi jdini cu se ponse mi}
06:16 < zipcpi> What if you already begain {ti jdini} though?
06:16 < gleki> or if emulating english conceptualisation closer then {ti me lo jdini poi mi ponse}
06:17 < gleki> {ti jdini ije mi ponse ri}
06:18 < gleki> {ti jdini po'a mi} ~= this moneys possessively by me
06:18 < gleki> idk
06:19 < zipcpi> Doesn't seem wrong to me, save for the strained English
06:19 < gleki> 'k
06:30 < gleki> this post immediately reached top 5 https://www.reddit.com/r/lojban/comments/3bhy1v/a_true_lojban_moment/
06:35 < zipcpi> Also {poi mi ponse} is the same number of syllables, but often needs to be closed
06:36 < zipcpi> Gleki: u'i
06:36 < gleki> isolating style and fewer words is advantageous compared to multiplying entities
06:37 < zipcpi> I think wanting to attach ponse to the x1 of a bridi after the fact is common enough to deserve a BAI
06:38 < ctefa`o> exp: "faubau'yska"
06:38 < mensi> (CU [faubau'yska VAU])
06:38 < gleki> that's why i removed many BAI from la bangu vlaste retaining only most common ones or those needed to complete sets of tags
06:38 < ctefa`o> .u'i
06:38 < akmnlrse> si'a zo'u
06:38 < akmnlrse> exp: fabau'yska
06:38 < mensi> (CU [fabau'yska VAU])
06:38 < akmnlrse> exp: fafa'yska
06:38 < mensi> (CU [fafa'yska VAU])
06:38 < zipcpi> Wonder what would happen if I entered that into JVS; would it also call it a "lujvo"?
06:38 < akmnlrse> yep!
06:39 < lablanu> en: jbera
06:39 < mensi> jbera = x1 (agent) borrows/temporarily takes/assumes x2 (object) from source x3 for interval x4. |>>> Credit (=
06:39 < mensi> jernu'e); borrow/assume a property or quality as a chameleon does (= zaskai, zasysmitra, zasysmitai).  See also dejni,
06:39 < mensi> janta, zivle. |>>> officialdata
06:39 < ctefa`o> Ko zipcpi
06:39 < lablanu> Chameleons don't assume properties nor qualities.
06:40 < zipcpi> lol
06:40 < gleki> lablanu: have you upvoted 5 questions with rating below 10 here? area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
06:40 < lablanu> Indeed I have.
06:40 < gleki> all 5? okay
06:40 < lablanu> Thanks for responding to my question about plurality, btw.
06:41 < gleki> oh
06:41 < zipcpi> gleki: At least that's why I still find {po} useful even though it's much more constrained than {pe}
06:41 < gleki> looks like one could copy questions from learning resources and other would paste answers to them from the same learning resources :D
06:41 < zipcpi> gleki: {po} is in GOI though so it can only attach to sumti, which is bad for the bridi case
06:42 < gleki> goi makes sense
06:43 < zipcpi> Well pe -> do'e, po -> ???
06:43 < gleki> jinzi or whatever
06:43 < zipcpi> Nah, I use po for ponse, not jinzi
06:43 < gleki> that's po'e
06:44 < zipcpi> No, po'e is more like jinzi, but frankly I don't know what po'e is for
06:45 < zipcpi> It is defined based on "inalienable possession", a feature of certain natlangs; however they don't all agree on what inalienable possession is
06:45 < gleki> jbo: po
06:45 < mensi> po = [GOI] poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana |>>> poi; steci; srana |>>> xorxes
06:45 < gleki> jbo: po'e
06:45 < mensi> po'e = [GOI] poi ke'a se jinzi le ka ce'u se steci le ka ce'u srana |>>> poi; jinzi; steci; srana |>>>
06:45 < mensi> xorxes
06:45 < zipcpi> Furthermore the examples given in the CLL for it, all can be replaced by a convenient {be} place already in the gismu
06:46 < gleki> all cowan's bg in conlanging probably
06:46 < zipcpi> Like body parts are typically considered inalienable; cause if I chopped off someone's arm, it's still theirs
06:47 < zipcpi> But {birka} already has a place for its owner
06:47 < zipcpi> So yeah...
06:48 <@Broca> I suppose if you wanted to say something unusual it would work.
06:48 < gleki> i only used {po} for Tatoeba to avoid more verbose constructs with {po'o}
06:48 < zipcpi> I don't know when you'd want to import a concept like "inalienable possession" but not want it to be part of the place structure
06:49 <@Broca> As in, all right, so I sold my car, but I spent years refurbushing that baby. It's still "my" car.
06:49 <@Broca> *refurbishing
06:49 < zipcpi> Hm makes "some" sense, but I really don't know how you'd describe that in a predicate
06:50 < zipcpi> Or how those natlangs would handle the case of this inalienable possession. Maybe as a type of metaphor to show your strong emotional connection to it
06:51 < zipcpi> In the absense of {po'e} I might just render it {pesai}
06:52 < zipcpi> Otherwise though, {po'e} is just so rarely usable x.x
06:54 <@Broca> If you can describe the meaning of a cmavo in a predicate, is the cmavo really necessary? :-)
06:54 < gleki> there is definitely parallelism between mamta2, patfu2, bersa2. yet another frame. but po'e wont work for that due to tunba3 and similar
06:54 < zipcpi> Shorthand... I mean we can always go {mi gleki} instead of {ui} etc all the time if we like
06:55 < gleki> yes, so an adverbial similar to sei might be good
06:55 < zipcpi> Also sumtcita are pretty much all shorthand as well
06:55 < zipcpi> Although we're still figuring out how to expand some of them
06:55 < gleki> guaspi doesnt need neither rafsi, nor sumtcita, nor cnima'o
06:56 < zipcpi> And heck, even the concept of "inalienable possession" might be able to get a brivla just for metalinguistic discussion. It'd be hard to define that though, since like I said, it is a natlang concept, and they differ on how it should be used
06:57 < gleki> if we assume that {sei broda} = {sei mi broda} unless broda1 is explicitely overriden then the problem for cnima'o is solved.
06:57 < gleki> for adverbials i use {i broda noi} and {i broda poi}
06:57 < zipcpi> Question is how does {sei} work with quotes?
06:58 < gleki> selpahi has a pioint but it's superweird
06:58 < zipcpi> IIRC {sei} has a default {sa'a} attached to them
06:58 < zipcpi> This is why I really don't like using {sei}
06:58 < gleki> i'd rather extend {lu ... li'u} to cover lo'u ... le'u
06:58 < zipcpi> Because I always think that someone is hypothetically quoting me and then forgetting to attach {sa'anai}
06:59 < gleki> so no, im not going to use Alice's {sei}
06:59 < zipcpi> u'i
06:59 < gleki> when translating "Hedgehog in the mist" i used only {sei} though but without {lu}
07:00 < gleki> so it all looked like "Oh my, as Hedghog thought, what a pity, i should  do ..."
07:01 <@xalbo> My take on {po} is slightly counter to canon, but I think it helps make sense of the threefold distinction. {pe} is a nonce relationship between the two things; at the moment, they happen to be such that pointing at the one is an easy way to find the other.
07:02 <@xalbo> {po} is a far less transient relationship. Ownership is a good example, though not the only one. It's a relationship that will continue to exist until some explicit action ends it.
07:02 <@xalbo> {po'e}, then, is that taken to an extreme, where the relationship is one that can't be disavowed or dissolved, no matter what.
07:02 < zipcpi> xalbo: So in your view, {lo ckule po mi} for "the school that I go to" is acceptable?
07:03 <@xalbo> Yes, although I'd still use {lo ckule be fo mi} instead.
07:03 <@xalbo> But {lo zdani po mi} is fine for the house that I own, even if I rent it out and don't actually live there.
07:04 < zipcpi> I've always attached it to {ponse} in my head; probably cause of the way I was taught
07:04 <@xalbo> And {lo zdani po'e mi} can be the house I grew up in, because even though it was sold years ago, it's still *my* house in a real way in my mind.
07:04 < zipcpi> Yeah that's similar to that thing Broca said about the car
07:05 <@xalbo> Yeah, {ponse} and {po} have a lot of overlap, but they're not necessarily the same.
07:05 <@xalbo> I don't own my office chair, but it's been assigned to me, and it's going to stay "mine" for the foreseeable future. {le stizu po mi}
07:06 <@xalbo> But the chair that I happen to be sitting in at the moment, at this meeting, is {le stizu pe mi}
07:06 <@xalbo> And the one that was hand carved for me by my father is {lo stizu po'e mi}, even if it gets sold later.
07:07 <@xalbo> (Maybe my office chair is {ponse} for the appropriate ponse3, but I hope you can see the point.)
07:07 < zipcpi> Yeah I can see the logic... why GOI though? There is no equivalent for sumtcita :p
07:07 < zipcpi> Maybe it should be {pesai} and {pecai} :p
07:08 <@xalbo> For me it's not how tightly tied to you it is, but how permanently.
07:09 < zipcpi> pesai/pecai can mean that
07:09 <@xalbo> And what would you want a sumtcita version to do? It's for limiting the possible referents of a sumti by considering another (hopefully known) sumti.
07:09 < zipcpi> Well, it's why I invented {po'a} for {fi'o ponse}
07:10 < zipcpi> Mainly it's when you begin {ti jdini}... and realize you want to say "This is my money"
07:10 <@xalbo> je'e
07:11 < zipcpi> I've been using {do'e} as the bridi variant of {pe}
07:11 < zipcpi> There's also {foi'e}, but... come on
07:13  * nuzba @uitki: Welcome!/en - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Welcome!/en by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1LSFA28]
07:13 <@xalbo> The reason that Lojban has {po'e} is becomes some languages use very different forms for alienable and inalienable association/possession, and Lojban wanted to maintain cultural neutrality and see whether having that distinction helped people think in those terms.
07:14 < zipcpi> Ah yeah makes sense...
07:14 < zipcpi> Kinda failed though, for all the various reasons I laid out
07:15 <@xalbo> Yeah, most of the time if you want {po'e}, it's already in the place structure of what you're talking about. And most jbopre are native speakers of languages that don't have that distinction, so they don't reach for it those few times when it actually is fitting.
07:15  * zipcpi nods
07:22 < zipcpi> And yeah my opinion is that if {po} and {po'e} were only meant to represent fuzzy-ish, natlang-ish concepts of strength/permanence of relation, {pesai} and {pecai} would do the trick
07:24 < zipcpi> And avoid endless debates over what "inalienable possession" really means
07:24 < zipcpi> It means pecai shaddup :p
07:24 <@xalbo> How is {pe} itself not even fuzzier and natlangier?
07:24 < zipcpi> That's the point.
07:25 < zipcpi> pe to me is just be do'e
07:25 < zipcpi> So the relation is elliptical
07:27 <@xalbo> I'd use {pe CAI} (if I ever used it) for the strength of the relationship, which is a different variable. Again with the chair, "that chair over by you" might be only {le stizu pe ru'e do}, but the chair you're sitting in could be {le stizu pe do}.
07:33 < zipcpi> I don't see how it contradicts the examples you have given though
07:34 < zipcpi> About how you think {po} and {po'e} should be used
07:34 <@xalbo> It's just a different dimension, semantic proximity vs duration.
07:35 < zipcpi> exp: lo broda pezi mi
07:35 < mensi> ([lo {broda <pe (¹zi mi¹) GEhU>} KU] VAU)
07:35 < zipcpi> Not sure if that means the right thing though
07:35 <@xalbo> Not at all.
07:35 <@xalbo> {pe} in that case is for adding a sumtcita to a sumti, so that's very, very close to {lo broda bezi mi}
07:36 <@xalbo> (You wanted {ze'i} anyway, but the same point remains)
07:37 < zipcpi> Ah... you want {ze'i do'e}, not {do'e ze'i}
07:37 < zipcpi> Tough...
07:46  * zipcpi shrugs
07:48 < durka42> wtf, jbovlaste added <br>s in the middle of my links
07:49 < durka42> oh...
07:49 < durka42> the word wrapping happens before the link parsing
07:49 < durka42> what a stupid parser, lol
07:49 < zipcpi> "As a result, the relationship expressed between two sumti by “po” is usually called “possession”, although it does not necessarily imply ownership, legal or otherwise. The central concept is that of specificity (“steci” in Lojban)."
07:49 < gleki> btw i still i still cant add non ASCII glosswords
07:50 < zipcpi> Hmm... "the chair I'm sitting on" falls under steci to me though
07:50 < gleki> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/165
07:50 < gleki> .title
07:50 < durka42> yeah there are still some unicode issues
07:50 < fenki> [ Error while inserting some non-English glosswords · Issue #165 · lojban/jbovlaste · GitHub ]
07:50 < zipcpi> durka42: I'm having some inconsistent issues when trying to add one-letter glosses
07:50 < zipcpi> Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't
07:50 < durka42> what's it say when it doesn't work
07:50 < durka42> and why are you adding one-letter glosses...
07:50 < gleki> if tsani provided API preferably without extensive checks for morphology etc. i'd develop a new editing interface
07:51 < zipcpi> durka42: Because other lervla get one-letter glosses
07:59 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Yeah, I said that my interpretation of {po} is different from CLL. I've never gotten {steci} to feel right to me.
08:00 < zipcpi> While I associated it with {ponse}. We all have our own heresies :p
08:00 <@xalbo> In particular, I don't like the idea that my car isn't {le karce po mi} if my wife's name is also on the title.
08:00 < zipcpi> Right
08:01 < gleki> if steci then po ~= {pe po'o}
08:03 < zipcpi> gleki: On lu... li'u; you want it to also be able to quote sentence fragments that may not parse on its own, so you can easily close them to add {sei} editorial notes, right?
08:04 < zipcpi> Hmm... not sure how it should work... "try to parse, but if you can't, give up?"
08:04 < zipcpi> Or treat lu..li'u like alta does :p
08:07 < zipcpi> "add whatever is necessary to make it grammatical"
08:07 < zipcpi> Kinda tough though
08:08 < nejni-marji_> coi
08:08 < zipcpi> coi
08:08 < nejni-marji_> ma se casnu
08:09 < zipcpi> tu'a lu <lu li'u> li'u
08:13 < nejni-marji_> ua
08:13 < nejni-marji_> cinri
08:16 < nejni-marji_> .i lo re valsi cu cizra milxe
08:30  * nuzba @uitki: zipcpi: scalar modifiers - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_scalar_modifiers by Spheniscine [http://bit.ly/1T1sRyA]
08:44 < lablanu> ma se zatra'i la jbovlaste
08:45 < zipcpi> mi na djuno
08:45 < zipcpi> ju'oinai
08:46 < zipcpi> xy'y ma du le laldyrai valsi poi mi jmina
08:48 < lablanu> su'o lo nanca be li pano
08:48 < zipcpi> cu'u JyVySy zo gismu cu se jmina de'i li'ei ny 2003 ly 3 dy 3
08:48 < lablanu> ua
08:50 < lablanu> Is work being done on a newer version?
08:50 < lablanu> A complete rewrite?
08:51 < zipcpi> ju'oinai .i ka'eku lo datpre cu djuno
08:51 < durka42> mukti may have some plans
08:51 < durka42> I think eventually vlasisku should expand and swallow jbovlaste
08:52 < lablanu> ie
08:52 < zipcpi> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/datpre la samyuan cu darca
08:54 < durka42> .ei la samyuan cu jmina zo samyuan
08:55 < zipcpi> Definition: "Someone", "the god of lazy people", used when the speaker is specifically pushing responsibility to someone else unspecified
08:55 < zipcpi> pei
08:55  * la_kristan just popped in at #klingon
08:57 < zipcpi> uo http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/samyuan
08:57 < la_kristan> the channel's apparently existed since 2009, but nobody was there.
08:57  * la_kristan shrugs
08:57 < durka42> .u'i
08:59 <@xalbo> "This sounds like a job for Captain Tomorrow! Hero of the working man."
08:59 < gleki> la_kristan: mukti and i agreed that JVS 2.0 is not needed. instead we need only API for it. after tat everyone will be able to create new editing interfaces
09:00 < gleki> la_kristan: i wonder how many fluent klingon speakers are there
09:00 < gleki> oh, maybe i should ask clsn
09:00 < gleki> clsn: coi. how many fluent speakers of klingon are in the world?
09:01 < gleki> zipcpi: i suggested something more lojbanic instead of "samyuan". e.g. {das}
09:01 < gleki> zipcpi: when i find energy to update alice i wont use {sei} at all.
09:01 < la_kristan> gleki, I don't know what JVS or API or an editing interface means. You might as well be speaking Klingon, as far as my understanding is concerned.
09:02 < gleki> la_kristan: sorry, wasnt addressed to you
09:02 < la_kristan> Well, you prefaced it w my name.
09:02 < gleki> lablanu: mukti and i agreed that JVS 2.0 is not needed. instead we need only API for it. after tat everyone will be able to create new editing interfaces
09:03 < gleki> lablanu: it was autocompletion u'u
09:03 < zipcpi> Added more keywords. {ei}, {bilga}, {nitcu}, {sarcu}
09:03 < zipcpi> :p
09:03 < lablanu> A specification is better than an implementation, at least in my book.
09:03 < la_kristan> all autocompletions are obnoxious.
09:04 < la_kristan> I avoid them as much as I can.
09:04 < lablanu> Even humans have autocomplete. Tongue twisters, yknow.
09:04 < la_kristan> ki'a
09:06  * nuzba @ro_bot_: ロジバン トワ ジンコウゲンゴノヒトツ ノコトデス [http://bit.ly/1C5iAgF]
09:07 < lablanu> Tongue twisters happen because the brain tries to predict which sounds should naturally follow.
09:07 < lablanu> i.e. autocomplete.
09:08 < la_kristan> Oh. Guess I don't get into to tongue twisters much.
09:10 < la_kristan> which reminds me, I need to reinstall AnySoftKeyboard; it got lost when I reset the OS.
09:11 < lablanu> Does it allow you to use a custom mapping?
09:13 < la_kristan> there. much better.
09:14 < la_kristan> eĥoŝanĝu ĉiuĵaŭde!
09:14 < la_kristan> lablanu, I don't know.
09:15 < lablanu> Well, I wouldn't have much use for that on Android, anyway.
09:15 < la_kristan> You can install a variety of layouts, but otherwise I don't know.
09:15 < lablanu> Have you experimented with alternative keyboard mappings on the PC?
09:17 < la_kristan> No, I've only used the QWERTY layout, and the Russian layout.
09:17 < zipcpi> Hmm someone didn't like the {landegna'u} and {xirdegna'u} metaphors apparently
09:17 < zipcpi> But what else would you suggest for it?
09:17 < la_kristan> someone...
09:17 < zipcpi> On JVS
09:17 < zipcpi> They downvoted them
09:18 < zipcpi> Possibly Curtis, possibly Wuzzy... dunno
09:19 < la_kristan> twasn't me, that's all I know.
09:19 < zipcpi> I shift the blame for the metaphor to phma :p
09:19 < zipcpi> He defined {landegmei} and {xirdegmei}
09:19 <@xalbo> Where did *those* come from?
09:19 < gleki> i voted them up
09:20 < gleki> because no matter how they are  bad lujvo-ically we have no other ways
09:20 < gleki> although i would disagree with dilcymu'o
09:20 < gleki> en: integer
09:20  * la_kristan has a special fondness for three-word contractions.
09:20 < mensi> 26 da se tolcri: mulna'u, aigne, be'ei'oi, ci'ai'u, da'a'au, daigno, dei'au'o, di'ei'o'au, dilcymu'o, fancysuksa, ga'au,
09:20 < mensi> landegna'u, mulna'usle, ne'oi, ni'e'ei, ni'e'oi, nonsmitenfa, pau'ei, pi'ei'au, pi'ei'oi, tai'e'i, te'au'u, to'ei'au,
09:20 < mensi> xau'o'o, xirdegna'u, xo'ei
09:21 < zipcpi> Well I thought of {nonveldilcu} but I'm not sure what the place structure should look like there
09:21 <@xalbo> We have about 1400 other gismu that are no worse than those, so I don't see how "we have no other ways" makes any sense.
09:21 < gleki> we have no other words for "even number"
09:21 <@xalbo> I mean, we could call them {matlydegna'u} and {zajdegna'u} and not be any less obvious.
09:22 < gleki> if you have first add them to jvs
09:22 < gleki> xalbo: first do that, then downvote
09:23 < zipcpi> Wuzzy defined {reldilcymu'o} and {nalreldilcymu'o}
09:23 < dutchie> i was about to suggest something like that
09:23 < gleki> en: positive
09:23 < mensi> 51 da se tolcri: nonmau, zmana'u, cipsadytcica, ku'arkydicka'u, mardikca, ma'u, nonynalmau, anxodi, baxydinkarda,
09:23 < mensi> be'ei'oi, birti, cnemu, co'oi, daigno, di'ei'o'au, dikca, eldicka'u, ga'au, gleua, ka'o'ei, krali, kuardicka'u, mai'e'e,
09:23 < mensi> maktcaxe, ne'au, ne'oi, ni'e'ei, ni'e'oi, nifkemtemsalri, no'e'u, nonsmitenfa, nonynalme'a, no'u, pau'a'u, paulcna,
09:23 < mensi> pi'ei'oi, po'u, salri, salrixo, sei'u'e, selbirti, si'irvelne'u, su'ifa'uvu'u, su'ijavu'u, tcaxe, tcelerita, to'ei'au,
09:23 < mensi> uau, zanselja'e, zmadu, zucna
09:24 < gleki> en: zmana'u
09:24 < mensi> zmana'u [< zmadu namcu ≈ More number] = z1=n1 is a positive number relative to origin z2. |>>> Cf. ni'u, nonmecna'u,
09:24 < mensi> fatna'u, mecna'u, nonmau, ma'u. |>>> sarefo
09:24 < la_kristan> how to distinguish between an emotion perceived to be well-founded from one perceived to be irrational?
09:24 < la_kristan> by the emoter.
09:24 <@xalbo> Verbosely, as in English.
09:24 < gleki> i dont like these lujvo becase e.g. instead of {zmana'u} we already have {li ma'u}. easier to remember
09:24 < la_kristan> oh. maybe I should learn laadan.
09:25 < gleki> la_kristan: i tried to update the textbook on laadan to lojban to preserve its ideas but ... no time for that
09:25 < zipcpi> gleki: Sometimes brivla are useful. Like {li so cu zmana'u} is I think semantically more cromulent than {li so du li ma'u}
09:25 <@xalbo> .i mi na'e racli cinmo lo ka gleki
09:25 <@xalbo> Maybe something like that.
09:25 < zipcpi> Or even {li so me li ma'u}
09:26 < gleki> la_kristan: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/test1111
09:27 < gleki> i also reformatted Laadan4B into wiki format http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L%C3%A1adan_Lessons_For_Beginners
09:28 <@xalbo> Where having selbri for classes of numbers is nice is so we can say things like "all positive integers can be written as the sum of integral powers of two" or whatever.
09:30 < gleki> we still dont have brivla for numbers O_0
09:30 <@xalbo> For sheep and horses, is there some language that uses that, or is it just completely as arbitrary as it feels? Because I really see no reason to prefer that over any other two words. I mean, do even numbers have more in common with either of those than with cars, or asteroids, or "sneezes" by left-handed witches in France?
09:30 < gleki> someone pls steal that from guaspi
09:30 < gleki> xalbo: ask phma
09:30 < gleki> it has etymology
09:31 <@xalbo> phma__: Seriously, dude, WTF? http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/xirdegmei
09:31 < dutchie> my assumption is that sheep have an even number of toes, and horses have 1 (or 3, if you count vestigial ones) iirc
09:31 < la_kristan> because if you punch me in the face, I'll perceive my anger as well-founded. But if I'm just cranky because of hormonal imbalance, then I perceive my anger as irrational, but can't help feeling it anyway.
09:32 < la_kristan> dutchie: so we have to know anatomy?
09:32 <@xalbo> .i mi fengu zi'o zi'o
09:32 <@xalbo> dutchie: Hmm, with the -deg- that does make some tiny amount of sense.
09:32 < dutchie> la_kristan: i'm not defending it, just giving a likely rationale
09:32 < zipcpi> la_kristan: Hah maybe we can add a ROhA for that
09:34 < la_kristan> zipcpi, is that feasable? :-)
09:34 < zipcpi> doi xalbo do'u me'ei go'oi fengu zo'u: u'i
09:34 < dutchie> "sheep are members of the order Artiodactyla, the even-toed ungulates"
09:35 < la_kristan> Lojban's development does need more feminine input, imo
09:35 < zipcpi> la kristan: I've been treating cmavo space like a logger with a corrupt permit :p
09:35 < la_kristan> oh my!
09:35 < Ilmen> coi .artilodakti
09:35 <@Broca> zipcpi: so that's how logjam happens.
09:36 < zipcpi> logjam ki'a
09:36 < la_kristan> like logfest, only w more karaoke.
09:37 <@Broca> la_kristan: fetsi be fi ma :-)
09:37 < Ilmen> en: logfest
09:37 < mensi> jbonunsla [< lojbo nu salci ≈ Lojbanic event of celebrate] = n1 is Logfest.
09:37 < la_kristan> or is that kareoke?
09:37 < Ilmen> karaoke
09:37  * la_kristan cant spel
09:38 < Ilmen> From Japanese kara-oke
09:38 <@Broca> carrie-okie
09:38 < zipcpi> Not sure though. {nalreldilcymu'o} still doesn't say it is an integer :p
09:39 <@xalbo> ker-i-mokl-i
09:39 < zipcpi> I mean I guess it could if we go by the English definition
09:39 < zipcpi> And defined the Lojban definition that way as well
09:39 < zipcpi> But it would be an added meaning
09:41 < zipcpi> la_kristan: Perhaps if you link me to the Laadan co'e with the definition I'll see what I can do to make it usable
09:42 < Ilmen> N is even ---> li no dilcu N li re;  N is odd  ---> li pa dilcu N li re
09:42 < Ilmen> ie pei
09:42 < mensi> ba'e mi na tugni
09:42 < zipcpi> Er, you probably want veldilcu
09:42 < la_kristan> I don't have a link, I only know what I read in Arika Okrent's book.
09:42 < Ilmen> ouch, I think I wanted frinu
09:42 < zipcpi> Nope
09:43 < zipcpi> In my head, dilcu is integer division, while frinu is non-integer division
09:44 < zipcpi> I defined {dilcymu'o} already
09:44 < zipcpi> li no veldilcu x1 boi x2 .i va'i lo mulna'u cu frinu x1 boi x2
09:44 < la_kristan> and my head avoids integers and non-integers and division AMAP.
09:45 < zipcpi> lol
09:45 < la_kristan> like ASAP, pardon my making abbreviations up on the fly.
09:46 < zipcpi> Yeah took me a while to figure it out but I did
09:46 < zipcpi> Well what we were talking about is how to express "odd number" and "even number"
09:46 < Ilmen> I always mix up frinu and dilcu, gotta get them right
09:47 < zipcpi> Right now we have two competing ideas; one shorter but more metaphorical, {xirdegna'u} vs {landegna'u}, and one longer (and has semantic shakiness with "odd number") but more transparent etymologically: {reldilcymu'o} and {nalreldilcymu'o}
09:47 < Ilmen> I'm also unsure about the difference between frinu and parbi
09:48 < zipcpi> me'o? REALLY?
09:49 < zipcpi> Not to mention there isn't a "ratio" counterpart to {fi'u} now I think about it... semantically there might be a difference though
09:49 < la_kristan> all an even number is, is a number evenly divisible by 2. should there be a word for numbers evenly divisible by 3, while we're at it?
09:49 < zipcpi> A "ratio" is more about comparing one number to another
09:49 < la_kristan> what's so special about 2?
09:50 < Ilmen> jbofihe: ybu
09:50 < mensi> O_0
09:50 < Ilmen> jbofihe: y bu
09:50 < mensi> (0[{y bu BOI} VAU])0
09:50 < zipcpi> They're the most common segregation of integers? Like streets often follow some sort of odd/even convention
09:51 < Ilmen> co'o ro do
09:51 < la_kristan> but maybe other cultures prefer to segregate them by divisibility by 3?
09:51 < dutchie> pe'i even-ness is special for the same reason base-2 is special
09:52 < dutchie> it's the smallest "non-trivial" integer
09:52 < zipcpi> We can't sit in our ivory towers thinking about what are the most objectively neutral concepts
09:52 < dutchie> well, natural number
09:52 < zipcpi> While not having words for things we want to talk about right now
09:52 < la_kristan> I can.
09:52 < zipcpi> If there are other cultures that think base 3 is more important, they can add them themselves
09:53 < zipcpi> I just don't approach Lojban that way
09:53 < la_kristan> why not?
09:53 < zipcpi> Because I believe Lojban is meant to be used
09:54 < zipcpi> This "if it's not perfectly culturally neutral, then it shouldn't be a word" is dog-in-the-manger thinking
09:55 < dutchie> "dog-in-the-manger" ki'a
09:55 < dutchie> ua aesop
09:55 < zipcpi> Hampering our usage just because some imaginary culture might categorize things differently
09:56 < la_kristan> well, couldn't there be a word for even number that maybe involves the number two, and thus can be generalised to other numbers?
09:56 < zipcpi> Well we have {reldilcymu'o} right now
09:57 < zipcpi> I was just complaining that {nalreldilcymu'o} doesn't imply integerity
09:57 < la_kristan> it might be useful! who knows?
09:57 < la_kristan> srry my typing is slow.
09:57 < zipcpi> {dilcymu'o} just means "X1 is fully divisible by X2"
09:57 < zipcpi> So yes, you can express "evenly divisible by N", for any N
09:59 < zipcpi> I didn't leave that hole unclosed
10:00 < la_kristan> not that I ever need to. I'm not much into math anyway.
10:02 < la_kristan> just like I don't care much about rational and irrational numbers.
10:03 < la_kristan> but I do care about rational and irrational emotions.
10:04 < zipcpi> en: racli
10:04 < mensi> racli = x1 (action/activity/behavior) is sane/rational by standard x2. |>>> See also fenki. |>>>
10:04 < mensi> officialdata
10:04 < la_kristan> en: fenki
10:04 < mensi> fenki = x1 (action/event) is crazy/insane/mad/frantic/in a frenzy (one sense) by standard x2. |>>> See also bebna, racli,
10:04 < mensi> xajmi. |>>> officialdata
10:05 < la_kristan> so, people aren't fenki then?
10:06 < zipcpi> I dunno. I get these sumti-raising / lowering thing wrong sometimes
10:06 < zipcpi> You're supposed to be able to "fix" these by using {mi jai racli} or {mi jai fenki}
10:07 < zipcpi> Then you can use the {fai} place to explain exactly what you're doing that is rational or insane
10:07 < la_kristan> .i tu'a mi cu fenki
10:07 < la_kristan> ?
10:07 < zipcpi> There's also the lujvo {fekpre}
10:07 < zipcpi> Yeah tu'a works too, but I prefer jai for agents
10:08 < zipcpi> Mainly because the {fai} place allows you to explain the aspect when I use {jai}
10:08 < la_kristan> I still don't fully understand jai and fai.
10:08 < zipcpi> jai serves two purposes
10:08 < zipcpi> The purpose I'm using here
10:08 < zipcpi> Is to split the x1 abstraction place
10:08 < zipcpi> to an agent place, and a ka-abstraction place
10:09 < la_kristan> .i tu'a le mi bruna cu fanza mi
10:09 < zipcpi> OK take for example
10:09 < zipcpi> "I annoy you by speaking loudly"
10:09 < la_kristan> true
10:09 < la_kristan> :-P
10:10 < zipcpi> {lo nu mi cladu bacru cu fanza do} = The event of me speaking loudly annoys you
10:10 < zipcpi> So using {jai}, we can split that x1 up
10:10 < ctefa`o> I can explain jai but people will just be angry with me if I do:)
10:10 < la_kristan> grrr!
10:10 < la_kristan> lol
10:10 < zipcpi> {mi jai fanza do fai lo ka ce'u cladu bacru} = I annoy you by speaking loudly
10:11 < ctefa`o> zipcpi: ko expandoni
10:11 < zipcpi> So this is what jai does; split the x1 to an agent place and a fai place for everything else that was dropped
10:12 < zipcpi> Specifically, nu-event or du'u-proposition, becomes an agent, and a ka-property belonging to that agent
10:13 < zipcpi> Of course like I said, the lujvo {fekpre} is to describe someone as "a crazy person" without making any reference to what they do, so that's covered too
10:14 < zipcpi> But anyway, the {fai} is an extra place like any other, and can be dropped. So {mi jai fanza do} = I annoy you (in some manner)
10:15 < la_kristan> mi jai fenki fai lo nu mi tavla fo la .tokiponas.
10:15 < ldlework> does fai take a property that describes the jai interaction?
10:15 < la_kristan> or what?
10:15 < zipcpi> I would just use {lo ka [ce'u] tavla fo la .tokiponas.}
10:16 < ldlework> oh you just explained it above
10:16 < ldlework> u'u
10:16 < ldlework> I have never used jai/fai
10:16 < zipcpi> I mean, that's acceptable too, but I find {ka} handy for jai/fai, simply because there is a nice connection between the x1 place and the property
10:17 < ldlework> does it only work on the x1?
10:17 < zipcpi> Yes, though you can always SE the brivla to move whatever you need to the x1
10:17 < ldlework> zipcpi: does it have any 'bridi-tail initiation' properties?
10:17 < zipcpi> No
10:17 < ldlework> Oh I guess it would probably tanru
10:17 < ldlework> is jai ever useful outside of starting a bridi tail?
10:18 < zipcpi> It's not a sumtcita; but a selbrisle modifier
10:18 < ldlework> like
10:18 < ldlework> broda jai brode
10:18 < zipcpi> Yeah that's a tanru
10:18 < ldlework> yeah but what does it mean and does anyone ever use it that way?
10:18 < zipcpi> broda type-of jai-brode
10:19 < zipcpi> Place structure would be that of jai-brode
10:19 < ldlework> so the jai would still be active?
10:19 < ldlework> okay so what about
10:19 < ldlework> jai broda brode
10:19 < zipcpi> jai-broda type-of brode
10:19 < ldlework> is the jai active?
10:19 < ctefa`o> la ctefa'o claims jai creates an abstraction and throws everything but the x1 of jai into it
10:19 < ldlework> if jai doesn't add any semantics it seems like dead weight there
10:19 < zipcpi> Place structure would be that of brode
10:19 < ctefa`o> but la ctefa'o is considered nuts so no one has to believe that
10:19 < ldlework> zipcpi: so jai never makes sense anywhere but infront of a the seltau or whatever
10:20 < ldlework> tertau
10:20 < zipcpi> ldlework: I dunno, it's a bit like any SE in front of seltau
10:20 < gleki> ia suggest that {jai broda [fai]} splits broda1 abstraction into broda1's main level sumti and the rest of this brod1 using fai
10:20 < ldlework> since it adds no semantics it seems like dead-weight outside of the tertau
10:20 < ldlework> since it performs only a grammatical function, that goes unused in a seltau
10:21 < dutchie> i would say that it emphasises the agent of the abstraction rather than the abstraction
10:21 < ldlework> seems like it would make a ton more sense as a selbritcita
10:21 < gleki> so {lo nu ko'a brodi cu broda} is {ko'a jai broda fai lo ka brodi}
10:21 < dutchie> but that's probably fairly minor in the seltau
10:21 < zipcpi> Well it, if you might pardon my malbauske, makes something "agentive" where it wasn't before
10:21 < zipcpi> So there might be some kind of semantic difference there
10:21 < ldlework> I don't see why it has to be agentitive at all
10:22 < ctefa`o> there is no gasnu in jai
10:22 < ldlework> It seems like a pure grammatical transformation like tu'a
10:22 < ctefa`o> Some only wants it so because my idea of jai always having a ke'a breaks their precious ke'a subscripting
10:22 < zipcpi> Well that's how it tends to be used, because fitting {gasnu} into {fenki} is somewhat awkward
10:23 < gleki> where is jai can have ke'a?
10:23 < ldlework> lo ckafi ku jai se djica mi lo ka mi jukpa ke'a
10:23 < gleki> maybe ce'u, no?
10:23 < gleki> ldlework: na smudra
10:24 < ldlework> ma krinu
10:24 < zipcpi> gleki: I dunno. It's ctefa'os idea that I don't support because it only works in one very specific type of usage of {jai}, and breaks ke'a indexing
10:24 < ldlework> I forgot the fai
10:24 < gleki> lo ckafi cu jai se djica mi fai lo ka ce'u se jukpa
10:24 < ldlework> Why is it ce'u?
10:24 < zipcpi> ce'u works with ka
10:24 < gleki> because ka
10:24 < ctefa`o> It works for any usage of jai and does not break ke'a subscripting
10:25 < ldlework> I thought ke'a was the variable in ka
10:25 < ldlework> oh
10:25 < ctefa`o> But my insights mostly seem to fall on deaf hears so I am turning back to sumtcita'a again
10:25  * ldlework rubs his eyes
10:25 < ctefa`o> yeah ke'a vs ce'u
10:25 < zipcpi> ke'a was not associated with jai before and now you want it to be, so how can it not break indexing
10:25 < ctefa`o> You just add 1 to the subscript
10:25 < ldlework> It'd be cool if you could somehow incorporate tags with fai
10:26 < ctefa`o> I claim you can
10:26 < ctefa`o> But then you have to accept at least half of my crazy shit:)
10:26 < zipcpi> ctefa'o: And for what? It only works with {jai NU}, and I've already obviated that need with {jai'i}
10:26 < durka42> coi
10:26  * la_kristan cu nelci le rusko se lerfu
10:26 < zipcpi> And {jai'i} has some advantages over {jai NU} even
10:27 < durka42> what craziness is going on here today :)
10:27 < la_kristan> lo ka mutce fenki
10:27 < zipcpi> ctefa'o is trying to push the ke'a-jai idea again
10:27 < ctefa`o> zipcpi yeah it *only* works with jai NU
10:27 < ldlework> lo ckafi ku jai se djica mi fai tezu'e lo ka mi desku sisti
10:27 < durka42> I'm not familiar with that idea
10:27 < ctefa`o> And you know what I think about NU
10:27 < ctefa`o> and NA
10:28 < ctefa`o> coi durka42
10:28 < durka42> coi
10:28 < durka42> mi so'iroi jai nu cusku lo'u jai nu le'u
10:28 < durka42> ma galfi ma
10:28 < ctefa`o> I don't even want to look at your jai'i zipcpi
10:28 < la_kristan> it's my fault...
10:29 < la_kristan> i started this discussion.
10:29  * durka42 just wants to know what the idea is
10:29 < zipcpi> Nah it's already been going on
10:29 < durka42> but for someone reason nobody ever answers when I ask that :)
10:29 < durka42> s/someone/some
10:29 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: but for some reason nobody ever answers when I ask that :)
10:29 < la_kristan> not today, afaik
10:29 < zipcpi> He wants: mi so'iroi jai *ke'a* nu cusku lo'u jai nu le'u
10:29 < ctefa`o> durka: jai creates "abstractions" and throws stuff into it
10:29 < zipcpi> Er
10:29 < durka42> eh?
10:29 < durka42> that ain't the grammar of {jai}
10:29 < zipcpi> mi so'iroi jai nu *ke'a* cusku lo'u jai nu le'u
10:29 < zipcpi> sorry
10:30 < durka42> ah
10:30 < ctefa`o> That's how I claim it expands
10:30 < ldlework> just create a simple expansion
10:30 < durka42> wait what does ke'a refer to there
10:30 < zipcpi> mi, the x1
10:31 < durka42> hmmmm
10:31 < la_kristan> jan ala li sona. jan ali li nasa.
10:31 < ldlework> ko'a jai broda fai lo ka ce'u brode => ???
10:31 < ctefa`o> You guys can either ditch the NU distinctions completely or expand stuff properly with NU in consideration
10:31 < durka42> it does seem strange for {jai} to be able to reach into the selbri like that
10:31 < durka42> {nu <bridi>} is just a regular selbri
10:31 < durka42> on the other hand, what's the harm
10:31 < ctefa`o> but I guess I will have to save my formal expander for STT lojban
10:32 < zipcpi> durka42: Well my worry is that it might break ke'a-indexing
10:32 < zipcpi> Cause before, ke'a isn't associated with jai
10:32 < zipcpi> While after this, it will
10:32 < durka42> like if you had {da poi de jai nu co'e}
10:33 < la_kristan> ZZZzzz
10:33 < zipcpi> Secondly, I'm not too fond of the grammar of {jai NU}. It hides the rest of the bridi from {le se go'i} etc
10:33 < ctefa`o> sorry kristan I should have stayed quiet:)
10:33 < durka42> zipcpi: well then why do you care :)
10:33 < durka42> honestly I don't see a lot of harm from breaking {da poi de jai nu co'e}
10:33 < durka42> but I've never seen a proposal to associate {jai} with {ke'a}
10:34 < durka42> it'd be interesting to see what some non-irci prenu think about that
10:34 < ldlework> pe'u simple expansion of the minimal jai-fai sentence
10:34 < la_kristan> ilo toki mi li wile lape.
10:34 < ldlework> ko'a jai broda fai lo ka ce'u brode => ???
10:34 < durka42> => lo nu ko'a brode cu brode
10:34 < ldlework> sampu za'a
10:34 < zipcpi> *lo nu ko'a brode cu broda
10:35 < durka42> oops yes
10:35 < ldlework> really?
10:35 < durka42> maybe su'u instead of nu if you want to get persnickety
10:35 < zipcpi> Yeah
10:35 < ldlework> So
10:35 < ldlework> ko'a is not broda'ing at all
10:35 < gleki> that's the basic functionality of {jai}
10:35 < durka42> an abstraction involving ko'a is broda-ing
10:36 < gleki> there are two {jai} if that confuses anyone. la bangu dictionary lists them in separate nests
10:36 < gleki> jb: jai 
10:36 < mensi> jai = jai [1st meaning] — Splits a clause into 'some noun + cu jai' and 'fai lo ka+the rest of the
10:36 < mensi> clause'
10:36 < mensi> :lei ckiku cu jai nandu fai lo ka se tolcri — The keys are hard to find.
10:36 < mensi> :va'i lo nu tolcri lei ckiku cu nandu — In other words, to find the keys is difficult.
10:36 < ldlework> Why is the form "brode fa lo nu ko'a broda" so bad it nees this strange transformation?
10:36 < la_kristan> .uanai
10:36 < gleki> dont ask me how to query the second meaning :)
10:36 < durka42> it's just another way to say it
10:37 < durka42> fronting, emphasis, syllables, etc
10:37 < zipcpi> Sometimes you want to place the focus on one specific object by putting it in the x1
10:37 < gleki> ldlework: examples in la bangu say all
10:37 < zipcpi> Same reason we have SE, FA, and all that
10:37 < gleki> english has it
10:37 < ldlework> Well those actually have important grammatical function
10:37 < ldlework> IE, parts of the language would be inaccessible without them
10:37 < ldlework> they are not merely convienent transformations
10:38 < zipcpi> Not really
10:38 < durka42> it can affect scope too
10:38  * durka42 runs
10:38 < ldlework> zipcpi: how do I refer to a buyer without se?
10:38 < ldlework> SE*
10:38 < zipcpi> durka42: That can be fixed with prenexes :p
10:38 < durka42> well yes everything can be fixed with prenexes, but ain't nobody got time to say that
10:38 < la_kristan> ookie, well i gonna make like a plane and take off.
10:38 < durka42> s/time/the forethought
10:38 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: well yes everything can be fixed with prenexes, but ain't nobody got the forethought to say that
10:39 < zipcpi> Of course. It's just as great an idea as ditching SE, FA, and jai :p
10:39 < durka42> how do you refer to the place of purchase without {jai bu'u} :)
10:39 < durka42> also, buyer = {lo poi'i vecnu fi ke'a}
10:39 < ldlework> zo'o pei
10:39 < zipcpi> Forethought and putting bu'u in the first place.
10:40  * la_kristan cu cliva
10:40 < la_kristan> co'o rodo
10:40 < zipcpi> Awr, sorry x.x
10:40 < gleki> just dont say "buyer". that's all. toki pona doesnt use any SE
10:40 < xunlohu> Hah, I highlighted from <la_kristan> jan ala li sona. jan ali li nasa.
10:40 < la_kristan> toki pona is also very ambiguous.
10:41 < gleki> xunlohu: please login and upvote 5 questions with rating below 10 area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
10:41 < durka42> it's dangerous to show up in #lojban these days. gleki will attack from the shadows
10:41 < ldlework> Its interesting, veridicality could be modeled over poi'i and voi'i
10:42 < la_kristan> co'o
10:42 < zipcpi> jai is not *truly* needed, but it helps avoid having to put tu'a in the x1 place, or wrapping it up into an abstraction
10:42 < ldlework> zipcpi: I think I understand. I wasn't against it, I was just trying to understand.
10:42 < ldlework> ki'e rodo
10:42 < gleki> i have a secret channel where i list everyone who voted and who didnt. Watch out, those who are not on the list!
10:42 < zipcpi> It's a fronting and forethought-vs-afterthought thing
10:44 < zipcpi> Also {lo jai fenki} is different from {lo fenki}
10:44 < zipcpi> It's a lot like SE there
10:45 < durka42> lo jai fenki = lo poi'i tu'a ke'a fenki
10:45 < zipcpi> Mhm
10:48 < xunlohu> gleki: what is that?
10:49 < zipcpi> Foxksssss
10:49 < xunlohu> Oh, I see now
10:50 < xunlohu> I'll have to do that when I have better internet
10:52 < zipcpi> ldlework: Ah sorry, {voi'i} is already taken, and it doesn't work like {poi'i}
10:53 < zipcpi> I assigned {voi'i} to gadganzu-{voi}, partly due to CKTJ, partly due to intentionality issues
10:53 < gleki> en: voi'i
10:53 < mensi> voi'i = [NOI] titular relative clause: gives a title/name in the form of a relative clause, e.g. "Alexander the Great"
10:53 < mensi> or "Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds" |>>> See comments for dialectal/proposal-related notes. For a bare title without a name
10:53 < mensi> or a descriptor, use la poi'i. |>>> spheniscine
10:53 < ldlework> lo poi'i broda = one such that it brodas
10:53 < ldlework> lo voi'i broda = one such that it is named broda
10:53 < zipcpi> Nope, voi'i is in NOI, not NU
10:54 < zipcpi> It could be la poi'i broda though
10:54 < durka42> or... le poi'i broda
10:54 < zipcpi> Nah, la is good for names
10:54 < durka42> yes
10:54 < zipcpi> Which is what I defined voi'i for
10:54 < ldlework> I was talking about gadri-neutral expansions
10:54 < ldlework> and yes, I realize voi'i is not NU like poi'i I was just saying
10:55 < zipcpi> Well kinda too late for that, also there isn't a real need to book cmavo space for non-veridicality anymore
10:55 < ldlework> lo is being used here to avoid a full logical expansion, and to avoid semantics introduced by the gadri
10:55 < ldlework> I was _just saying_
10:55 < zipcpi> Well, la has an expension involving cmene
10:55 < ldlework> yes, I'm sure everything has nice semantic expansions
10:56 < ldlework> forget what I said
10:56 < ldlework> And I didn't mean Proper Name
10:57 < ldlework> I meant non-assertive referring description
10:57 < ldlework> IE, a non-veridical reference
10:57 < zipcpi> Veridicality vs non-veridicality is dead now, and {ju'acu'i} and {sei'i} are the nails in the coffin
10:57 < ldlework> of any kind
10:57 < gleki> en: sei'i
10:57 < mensi> sei'i = [UI2] evidential: stereotypically... |>>> See sei'inai, lemkai, kesri, ka'u, su'a, le'e |>>>
10:57 < mensi> spheniscine
10:57 < ldlework> non-veridicality has nothing to do with sterotypicalness so you should change the definition
10:58 < zipcpi> No that's a different thing
10:58 < zipcpi> sei'i is to solve the problem of CLL-lo'e vs CLL-le'e
10:58 < zipcpi> Which is kinda-sorta like veridicality
10:59 < zipcpi> "No that's a different thing" -- na'i, I mean
11:00 < zipcpi> Not exactly veridicality, but has a similar intentionality issue as veridicality
11:00 < zipcpi> In fact there is a reason one is assigned to a lo'V and one to a le'V
11:01 < zipcpi> So yeah, ju'acu'i and sei'i are the last nails in the coffin of CLL-leV
11:02 < ldlework> zipcpi: I worry about things like indefinite names.
11:02 < zipcpi> lo'e me la?
11:02 < ldlework> "The Earl of Lojbanistan would be cool job."
11:03 < zipcpi> That won't be a name in Lojban
11:03 < ldlework> It is a name though.
11:03 < ldlework> Its not important that the job doesn't exist, that's not the interesting bit.
11:04 < ldlework> "The President of the United States is always hated by some."
11:04 < zipcpi> No, say we have a word for $x_1$ is the earl over governance $x_2$ or something
11:04 < zipcpi> Capitalization does not necessarily = {la}
11:04 < ldlework> zipcpi: you're hand-waving away an entire part of speech, but okay if you say so
11:05 < zipcpi> We capitalize it to indicate a position, which is completely predicatable, and isn't really a "name"
11:06 < ldlework> I have yet to read the writings of a linguist who agrees with you.
11:06 < ldlework> Indefinite names being a classically central topic of debate in description theory and basically the primary mechanism for introducing implications indefinite reference.
11:07 < gleki> loglan: le
11:07 < mensi> le = the (one or more things I mean which seem to be)..., the general descriptive operator. (see lee and
11:07 < mensi> laa)
11:07 < gleki> loglan: lee
11:07 < mensi> lee = the (one or more things I mean which actually are)..., if there is such, otherwise the empty set (see le and
11:07 < mensi> laa)
11:07 < ldlework> s/implications/implications of
11:07 < fenki> ldlework meant to say: Indefinite names being a classically central topic of debate in description theory and basically the primary mechanism for introducing implications of indefinite reference.
11:08 < zipcpi> Well, if you want to say something like "A Baudelaire always keeps their word", there's {lo'e me la} / gg-{lo'i me la}
11:08 < ldlework> zipcpi: Right I see this as a fundamental inconsistency with the gadganzu system
11:08 < zipcpi> ldlework: What else would you suggest we do? Have a whole bunch of la-based cmavo?
11:09 < ldlework> a whole bunch?
11:09 < zipcpi> Oh OK just la'o'e la'o'i then
11:09 < ldlework> you basically need two gadri for each desgination type, with the assumptions we've made, to be consistent
11:09 < zipcpi> With their equivalent mass gadri
11:09 < Lojban> Sorry if I'm interrupting something, but I have a question. How has Lojban benefitted you in your daily life?
11:09 < zipcpi> Oh but names aren't even just la
11:09 < zipcpi> There's also la'o
11:09 < gleki> lo'e se cmene be zo ...
11:09 < zipcpi> li'ai
11:09 < zipcpi> la'au
11:09 < zipcpi> la'oi
11:10 < zipcpi> Are we gonna have indefinite variants for all those too?
11:10 < gleki> Lojban: it helped me understand how other languages work. in some ways in improved my logical reasoning
11:10 < ldlework> zipcpi: I'm trying to find out what makes sense to reach of the goal of having lojban's description system reflect modern description theory
11:11 < ldlework> If you want to characterize the implications with silliness that's fine, but it doesn't help.
11:11 <@xalbo> Lojban: For me, it's helped me question a lot of the assumptions that are baked into my native language (English). In Lojban, for instance, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is almost untranslatable, because the word {melbi} has a place for the beholder already in it.
11:11 < zipcpi> What's wrong with {me}? I am making a point, that sometimes there are too many combinatorial factors, and we must rely on cmavo clusters
11:11 <@xalbo> Likewise, being able to translate something like "should" involves asking yourself what you *actually mean*, which is invaluable.
11:12 < ldlework> zipcpi: it changes the logical expansion. The whole point is that the gadri don't require varying logical expansions because they only add semantics
11:12 < ldlework> Its not consistent
11:12 < ldlework> Its a hack
11:12 < zipcpi> There are too many combinatorial factors
11:12 < ldlework> I endevor to imagine an internally consistent system
11:13 < zipcpi> Lojban already has too many ways to quote names based on grammaticality
11:13 < zipcpi> We can't have a single solution for all of them
11:13 <@xalbo> ldlework: So far, it sounds like all of the indefinite names you've mentioned don't sound like names at all to me, they sound like titles (which are just descriptions). Do you have an example that feels more intuitively name-ish, or am I misunderstanding?
11:13 < ldlework> zipcpi: There is the fundamental question whether all these other gadri even make sense under a unified system
11:13 < ldlework> xalbo: google "indefinite names" and just start reading
11:13 < ldlework> being a central theme since even russel you will have no shortage of content to consume
11:14 < ldlework> zipcpi: If I reconsider what the actual purpose of gadri articles are, maybe denoting "an otherwise lojbanic name" isn't the right purpose for a gadri
11:14 < Ilmen> coi
11:14 < zipcpi> Heck we don't even have a mass-variant for these other things
11:15 < ldlework> Maybe the purpose of gadri are not "add an arbitrary semantic based on literally any metric whatsoever"
11:15 <@xalbo> I'm not afraid of there being a shortage of content, I'm afraid of there being a surfeit of content. A summary of what *you* mean by it, instead of "read 50 books that all disagree with each other" would be nice.
11:15 < ldlework> xalbo: sorry, I'm not interested
11:15 < ldlework> I can already detect the tone
11:16 < ldlework> zipcpi: if that's the conclusion I come to, maybe la'ai's semantic isn't fundamental to desgination types that it doesn't deserve its own stand-alone gadri, and therfore referentiality varaints
11:19 < ldlework> I'm really starting to like the idea of a foundation of referentiality built upon the back of da and zo'e
11:21 < ldlework> Its easier to understand the division of lo if you contemplate that it may expand to the same logical expansion involving either da or zo'e
11:22 < ldlework> Depending on the kind of referentiality involved
11:22 < zipcpi> "you basically need two gadri for each desgination type, with the assumptions we've made, to be consistent" Even that is bad enough. Do we need {la'e'e} and {la'e'i} too?
11:22 < ldlework> zipcpi: It also changes what is required to justify being a gadri
11:22 < ldlework> I'll assume that you've heard me this time
11:23 < zipcpi> What are you saying? Cause to me it seems like you are saying that since we don't have a solution for names except with {me}, we must throw out the whole bunch
11:23 < ldlework> And LAhE are not nessarily description designators
11:24 < ldlework> We're basically only talking about LE
11:24 < zipcpi> Just because {me} doesn't work for some reason I don't understand, and because coming up with cmavo for each gadri for names would be too cumbersome
11:25 < ldlework> zipcpi: I guess you didn't hear me
11:25 < zipcpi> I have no idea what you are talking about
11:25 < ldlework> Okay, sorry!
11:26 < gleki> oh my so many pages in lmw to fix
11:26 < gleki> in formatting
11:26 < ldlework> zipcpi: if at somepoint you'd like to try, I can explain again
11:27 < zipcpi> Look I'm trying my best, but whatever I say, you say that that's not what you said
11:27 < ldlework> zipcpi: you keep saying "But there are all these gadri!"
11:27 < zipcpi> So obviously there is a communication issue somewhere
11:27 < ldlework> and I keep saying "If we start from a different fundamental justification for what gadri do, maybe we don't need all those"
11:27 < ldlework> and you say "So you're saying you want variants of all the name gadri, that's ridiculous!"
11:27 < zipcpi> You want to change the entire system again?
11:27 < ldlework> I can't elucidate any further.
11:28 < ldlework> zipcpi: All I have ever wanted to do, is think about how a unified gadri system that represents the actual thinking in description theory
11:28 < ldlework> Whether practical or not
11:28 < ldlework> Whether it ends up in a CLL or not
11:29 < ldlework> Whether it throws out existing gadri or reworks them, or reconsiders them under new thinking or whatever
11:29 < ldlework> I'm starting with the premise that the wider audience of language philosophy knows more about language philosophy than lojban's history
11:29 < zipcpi> OK. But I can't follow you there. I've not read those books
11:30 < ldlework> Except you followed me all the while I used the same reasoning to arrive at the gadri you liked.
11:30 < ldlework> We have been in great agreement as long as the conclusions led to the gadri you agree with. I have not learned any new language philosophy. I'm not using any new ideas or anything.
11:31 < ldlework> I'm simply drilling down even further to justify the original thinking that got us the gadganzu gadri, more fully
11:31 < ldlework> How to justify their expansions and formalism
11:31 < ldlework> That leads me to da and zo'e
11:31 < gleki> i'e
11:31 < zipcpi> Well for your help there I sincerely thank you, but if you really want me to talk about the first-principles and whatnot, I can't do that
11:31 < ldlework> If I -start- from da and zo'e as representing the two most fundamental divsions in description theory, its definite and indefinite
11:31 < ldlework> Something you must fully understand since your own gadganzu system makes this same distinction
11:32 < ldlework> So it seems bizare you can use this philosophy to drive a division in your gadri but you can't follow it to their expansions
11:32 < gleki> wait, both da and zo'e can mean "any". but what does "definite" mean?
11:33 < ldlework> The division we've made in the gadganzu specific gadri, ignoring all the gadri we didn't address, there indeed exists this division
11:33 < ldlework> IF we follow it down to their expansions, I at least, reason a division in the existential quantification
11:33 < zipcpi> ldlework: The problem is, I have a good idea of what I want GG-gadri to do, but I can't defend the whole definite/indefinite thing myself. All I could do is point to various situations I want to use each for
11:34 < ldlework> if I then throw away everything
11:34 < ldlework> And -start- with that division at the bottom
11:34 < ldlework> and rebuild upwards to the gadri
11:34 < ldlework> a lot of the "arbitrary semantic" gadri cease to make any justified sense
11:34 < ldlework> that's all that has happened here
11:34 < zipcpi> Which ones do you consider arbitrary then?
11:34 < ldlework> I'm not actually suggesting we throw out a ton of gadri or invent a bunch of variants
11:35 < ldlework> zipcpi: that's up for debate, I've only just begun thinking about the consequences of gadri unified under da and zo'e
11:35 <@xalbo> ldlework: If I had to guess, I would guess that zipcpi has been using z's own understanding of what "definite" and "indefinite" mean. You, having read many books about deep theory, seem to have come to a different, or at least differently grounded (possibly better grounded) understanding. But z (and I) lack that understanding.
11:35 < ldlework> and you're hand waiving me away not giving the philosophy a chance
11:35 < gleki> if you mean that zipcpi's page in the wiki  icant see any "definite/indefinite" division explained
11:35 < ldlework> I just want to talk
11:35 < zipcpi> gleki: It's sort of the difference between gg-loV and gg-leV
11:35 <@xalbo> zipcpi: If what I just said is wrong, correct me.
11:36 < gleki> zipcpi: which page to look at?
11:36 < zipcpi> gleki: I didn't actually describe the division; merely described each gadri, and put them into a spectrum
11:36 < zipcpi> But I didn't bother to actually explain the spectrum; to me it's just meant to be an intuitive sense
11:37 <@xalbo> ldlework: It's hard to give the philosophy a chance when you won't elaborate what it is, other than to tell us to read a bunch of books.
11:37 < gleki> zipcpi: for me it simply doesnt exist. i think you need to try to explain it
11:37 < ldlework> xalbo: zipcpi and I have talked at length about this, there's context you're not privy to and you're doing that thing where you trample on me based on context you don't have
11:37 < ldlework> xalbo: I'm not looking to address my conversation with zipcpi through you as an adjuct
11:37 < gleki> maybe you are malgli-izing English a/the distinction?
11:37 < ldlework> but thanks
11:37 < zipcpi> gleki: The problem is that the gadri aren't defined based on the spectrum. The specturm are merely a mnemonic
11:38 < gleki> zipcpi: so unless someone explains what definite means i can't comment.
11:38 < zipcpi> gleki: I've tried, but... obviously I don't know the magic words or the logical formalism
11:38 < ldlework> definite and indefinites have to do with identification, in a sense that has nothing to do with the knowledge, experience or tools available to the listener
11:39 < gleki> O_0
11:39 < zipcpi> We've been through this many many times. The whole thing over what itca means
11:39 < gleki> O_0
11:39 < zipcpi> The difference between "Give me the two apples" and "Give me any two apples"
11:39 < gleki> so you embedded itca into these gadri?
11:39 < zipcpi> I simply have no idea how I can get you to understand
11:39 < zipcpi> {le}, at least
11:40 < ldlework> zipcpi: Don't feel bad, its a hugely abstract topic
11:40 <@xalbo> It sounds to me as though ldlework is interested in exploring the philosophy of reference, possibly using Lojban as an inspiration or a metalanguage or something else, but mostly as an intellectual exercise. And it sounds to me like zipcpi is attempting to construct a set of gadri to replace the ones in Lojban, as an actual practical thing.
11:40 < gleki> for me it's simply co'ephorics vs. {lo}
11:40 <@xalbo> Am I mis-characterizing either of your goals?
11:41 < ldlework> xalbo: Well if I can actually embetter lojban with actual thinking from the field we're addressing with Lojban that's ideal
11:41 < ldlework> But I'm backing away from the idea of actually expressing these ideas as practical because zipcpi became all handwavy and started to characterize my ideas in the extreme of inpracticality
11:41 <@xalbo> So your goal is to *first* understand the topic, and only *then* see whether that understanding can be used to improve lojban?
11:41 < ldlework> not wanting to argue about whether we go make patches to the CLL right now, to reflect this thinking, I backed off
11:42 < ldlework> Everything I contriubted to gadganzu was based on the thinking I'm expressing now, no different.
11:42 < ldlework> I merely pointed out an inconsistency in the gadganzu system in that it does not diffuse its principles to the whole set of gadri just a few central ones
11:42 < ldlework> A great and exceedingly welcome improvement but not ideal in the sense of ultimate elegant idealism
11:42 < ldlework> There's nuance everywhere, I'm just talking.
11:44  * nuzba @uitki: names of Computer Languages - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/names_of_Computer_Languages by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1LTcgbS]
11:45 < zipcpi> maybe you are malgli-izing English a/the distinction? - Maybe, but I've taken great care not to say "This is English "the", kthxbai"
11:45 < ldlework> In identifying the inconsistency I thought "What if we take the principle driving gadganzu to the bottom of the formalities what does it look like?" "Okay, now that we know what it looks like, what kind of gadri system do we get if we start at the bottom with this distinction, what kind of gadri set arises naturally from those assumptions"
11:46 < ldlework> Nothing I've addressed today has anything to do at all with a feature of language.
11:46 < ldlework> feature of English
11:46 < gleki> zipcpi: so "the" is basically {da}, i.e. something scoped.
11:46 < ldlework> English is the language in which most language philosophy that I can read is written.
11:46 < gleki> in one of its first meanings
11:46 < zipcpi> {da} means "there exists"
11:46 < ldlework> If you can't divorce abstract concepts from their incidental manifestations, that's a problem but not with me malgli-izing anything
11:46 < gleki> Ofc. im not talking about "the" in "The United States" :D
11:47 < gleki> zipcpi: {da} means that  scope is enabled. it's a local variable.
11:47 < ldlework> zipcpi: ie
11:47 < zipcpi> I'm not sure how that says whether it points to a specific referent or not
11:47 < ldlework> da is just "something" but not "anything"
11:47 < ldlework> "anything" is a quantification
11:48 < gleki> "anything" is polysemous in English
11:48 < ldlework> As in "Give me any apple"
11:49 < ldlework> da is thing which youre descriptions refer
11:49 < ldlework> You create descriptions to help your listener identify what is inside the da
11:50 < ldlework> Consider that zo'e has nothing inside of it, but is still logically predicated the same way
11:50 < ldlework> Its the same shell as da, but never contains anything
11:50 < gleki> 11:48 < ldlework> As in "Give me any apple" <-- {lo}
11:50 < ldlework> da and zo'e are the same precise grammatical construct, but one can never actually refer to anything
11:50 <@xalbo> I don't understand what you mean by {zo'e} doesn't have anything in it.
11:50 < durka42> zo'e has nothing inside of it?
11:50 < ldlework> xalbo: its a nonce understanding
11:51 < durka42> zo'e has referents inside of it :p
11:51 < zipcpi> Heck I've even used lo vs le when trying to define mathematical descriptions with {ni'ai}.... {le ni'ai} = A specific number; probably means I expect only one answer to fit. {lo ni'ai} on the other hand, I use when there might be more than one answer
11:51 < gleki> zo'e means constant, i.e. no scoping, ~= no definiteness
11:51 < ldlework> Consider the semantic we give zo'e normally
11:52 < ldlework> "Its something but the speaker isn't indicating at all what it is"
11:52 < ldlework> We use it as a sumti-stand in for ambiguity
11:52 < ldlework> But try, just try, as a novel thought experiment to see zo'e as the same grammatical construct as da
11:52 < ldlework> The idea is that all the LE gadri wrap up a da expansion for convenience
11:52 < latro`a> nothing is ever in the da
11:52 < ldlework> But each time we use a LE description, we really are uttering some logical form
11:53 < ldlework> But we know that from language philosophy (not logic) that there are really two kinds of referring descriptions
11:53 < ldlework> Where logic only addresses one
11:53 < latro`a> the ENTIRE POINT of xorlo is that lo no longer binds up a da unless it is outer quantified
11:53 < latro`a> the same is true of le, now
11:53 < ldlework> The problem langauge philosophy has faced traditionally is that there is no sensible logical formalization of indefinite descriptions
11:54 < ldlework> (I'll assume you are all ignoring latro`a in terms of what I'm saying and understand he's missing the context that got us here and we're not discussing xorlo or the cll)
11:54 < ldlework> (and therefore are still following my train of thought, so I'll continue)
11:54 < ldlework> The problem with indefinite descriptions when you try to formalize them, is they have hard to understand consequences for scope and largely break a lot of our assumptions
11:54 < latro`a> even if you're not talking about lojban as it exists now, you're contesting the philosophy behind xorlo, and responding to that is relevant to the discussion
11:54 < gleki> i dont understand what you mean by indefinite description. zipcpi says it's intuitive. huh?
11:55 <@xalbo> Ok, I think I'm confused, because it seems like indefinite descriptions are exactly what logic is really good at. "I see a dog" means "there's some x such that x is a dog and I see x". You mean something else by indefinite?
11:55 < ldlework> In fact the solutions for logicially formalizing indefinite descriptions are very strange and exotic
11:55 < ldlework> xalbo: all the logic says is that something exists, indefiniteness has nothing to do with existentialism but identifiability
11:55 < zipcpi> "Cats have four legs" / "To err is human"
11:55 < latro`a> seeing as the lojban community has rather thoroughly agreed that LE constructs do NOT wrap up a da expansion
11:56 < gleki> zipcpi: {lo}
11:56 < zipcpi> ... yeah you see the problem. I have gained a phobia of {da}
11:56 < latro`a> I would say that your very premise warrants discussion, and that you shouldn't continue talking under that premise until we're done dealing with that premise
11:56 < gleki> zipcpi: but definitely not {da} unless you specify all possible {da}
11:56 < ldlework> latro`a: I am *trying to explain the premise itself*
11:56 < latro`a> why?
11:56 < zipcpi> Cause I have no idea how to avoid any scoping issues whenever I want to talk about {da} vs {zo'e}
11:56 < ldlework> what?!
11:56 < latro`a> why work with that premise when we have 20 years to tell us that it doesn't work
11:57 < ldlework> latro`a: you have successfully killed this discussion, carry on with the demand of it you now have to lead us to your own agenda
11:57 < gleki> zipcpi: the whole point of {da} is to create scope, i.e. to continuereferring for things that you've chosen.
11:57 < zipcpi> And I don't know exactly why xorlo works; I only want to keep its magic, while giving more semantic tools for us to use
11:57 < gleki> so i suppose it might be that the lack of using {da} which these zipcpi's pages are notorious for may be the cause of these proposals
11:58 < latro`a> to me I'd rather discuss how xorlo functions and its deficiiencies, rather than going back to a premise which is fundamentally rooted in CLL-lo, whose practical merits have been shown to be very few through years of usage
11:58 <@xalbo> Everyone is at cross purposes. Everyone is attempting to do something different, and many don't even realize they're talking about different things.
11:58 < zipcpi> Oh I do use {da}, sparingly
11:59 < zipcpi> It's just if you ask me to expand everything in terms of {da} and {zo'e}?
11:59 < zipcpi> I feel like being somewhere else really bad
12:00 < zipcpi> Cause the scoping issues of multiple use of {da}, and about why it breaks xorlo in this way or that, is just beyond me
12:00 < latro`a> in particular, ldlework, da fundamentally creates a scope by its very nature, which means that {ro prenu cu se ninmu lo mamta} would create a function mapping people to their mothers
12:00 < latro`a> under an old-lo-like system
12:00 < akmnlrse> Ilmen: gleki: https://github.com/Ilmen-vodhr/ilmentufa/pull/121
12:01 < durka42> I think you switched {ninmu} and {mamta}, .u'i
12:01 < ldlework> latro`a: I fundamentally agree with the idea that da creates scope
12:01 < latro`a> er, se ninmu lo mamta
12:01 < ldlework> This observation is fundamental to my observations elsewhere
12:01 < latro`a> then you don't understand logic
12:02 < zipcpi> latro'a - As far as I know, my foundation *is* xorlo. {lo} is xorlo-lo
12:02 < latro`a> err...dammit, se mamta lo ninmu
12:02 < zipcpi> All I did was to create a system of semantics for the gadri *other* than {lo}
12:02 < latro`a> zipcpi had it right
12:02 < latro`a> oh sorry, ldlework, I saw "disagree"
12:03 < zipcpi> Essentially, we are trying to make a "Big Bang" to follow xorlo's "Big Crunch"
12:03 < latro`a> you see though, if you want scoping, you know where to find it
12:03 < ldlework> latro`a: whatever
12:03 < zipcpi> xorlo said, well, CLL-gadri system is useless, let's throw out the whole lot, and use {lo} instead
12:03 < latro`a> {su'o lo} gets that done
12:04 < zipcpi> While gadganzu says, let's try to make the gadri mean something useful this time
12:04 < latro`a> though I scrolled up a bit and I see that you're trying to talk about language philosophy; IMO this is sufficiently far astray from lojban that it's outright off-topic
12:04 < ldlework> I love how zipcpi has it right, even though his system is based philosophy I brought to the table
12:04 < ldlework> and rather, zipcpi seems to have intuitited on his own vaguely before I even arrived
12:05 < latro`a> was there a proposal (not necessarily fully specified, perhaps just a big picture of a proposal) further up?
12:06 < latro`a> I read back to about 25 minutes ago
12:06 < zipcpi> Sorry, I'll link you
12:06 < ldlework> latro`a: maybe we should have addressed this before shouting people down and telling them they don't know anything
12:06 < zipcpi> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_Yet_another_gadri_article
12:06 < ldlework> And using your own opinions on what we should talk about to disrupt conveersations you arrived at midway?
12:06 < ldlework> latro`a: I admit my frustration here.
12:07 < ldlework> I was having a conversation and was mid-thought in explanation to interlocutors who seemd to agree to listen to what I was saying.
12:07 < latro`a> I dunno, I have some of gleki's "I'm getting tired of theory and would rather stay grounded in concrete suggestions about modifications of lojban" in me
12:07 < zipcpi> Maybe read this first; it's a lot shorter: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_The_case_against_%22lo%22
12:07 < ldlework> latro`a: Yes because I've made none of those
12:08 < ldlework> latro`a: also nice how you can characterize my agenda and the character of how I've executed it without having the whole context
12:08 < latro`a> I thought I had enough context because of the fact that you were using lojban jargon to characterize your (apparently non-lojban) ideas
12:08 < latro`a> I admit I was mistaken in that, though I stand by the claim that this is pretty off-topic
12:09 < ldlework> latro`a: you don't get to decide what is on topic, if I'm discussing lojban directly
12:09 < ldlework> seriously, come off it
12:09 < latro`a> you're not
12:09 < ldlework> latro`a: that's a subjective valuation
12:09 < ldlework> one that you're using to disrupt cromluent discourse that didn't involve you
12:09 < ldlework> Its not acceptable
12:09 < gleki> im just waiting for a bunch of sentences to translate. last time i did it two times and solved everything i needed: i collected all examples for subjunctives from different languages 2. i collected all meanings of 'some' and 'any' in examples. then there were translations to lojban
12:10 < gleki> here i can only see weird theories of definite descriptions which doesnt mean anything to me
12:10 < zipcpi> gleki: The point is not how many circumlocutions you can make, or how much semantics you can add to give King Context more to work with
12:10 < gleki> create a list of sentences on tatoeba and translate them
12:11 < zipcpi> Because frankly gleki, not all of us are that creative
12:11 < ldlework>  Also, translating something and saying "This is how you translate that meaning" is arbitrary
12:11 < ldlework> Rather than justifying the translation with gramatical and semantic primitives
12:11 <@xalbo> latro`a: I think ldlework is trying to first approach the entire idea of reference from scratch, and then recreate thorough system of gadri, and *then* see how that fits with Lojban. But he keeps using lojban words (like {da} and {zo'e}) without clearly marking whether he's using a nonce-meaning, the zipcpi proposed meaning, the cll meaning, or something else.
12:12 < zipcpi> I'm not touching da or zo'e
12:12  * zipcpi hides
12:12 < ldlework> I have explicitly explained my da and zo'e so this isn't fair though I appreciate the couching on my behalf
12:12 <@xalbo> zipcpi: You're right, sorry about that.
12:12 < latro`a> if there's context from more than half an hour ago on how you're using these terms, I'd appreciate it
12:13 <@xalbo> ldlework: When you first said that {zo'e} was empty and had no referents, I really did think you were talking about some existing {zo'e}, not making up a new meaning for it on the spot. You really need to be more careful about that.
12:13 < ldlework> latro`a: so do dilligence and start scrolling backwardsd before jumping in and telling people to shut up as if you have some objective qualifications for doing so.
12:13 < ldlework> xalbo: yep and then I went on to explain what I meant
12:13 < latro`a> as of when?
12:13 < gleki> zipcpi: if you fail to create examples of sentences then your theory is just abstract theory not relevant to real usage of real language. im fighting that actually with my muplis, CC etc.
12:13 < gleki> although ofc. muplis is not mine
12:13 < latro`a> I didn't see a followup explanation that you meant some other zo'e-like-thing that isn't what we call zo'e
12:13 < gleki> i mean its db
12:13 < zipcpi> I do have examples. Right on the page
12:14 < ldlework> Since the context of "we're talking about something completely novel built up from new first principles" wasn't enough context to demonstrate to you that some things might be nonce.
12:14 < gleki> zipcpi: are those examples final?
12:14 < zipcpi> Also I even explicitly made one [jo'au gadganzu] on Tatoeba, to the consternation of the ruleniks there
12:14 < ldlework> latro`a: feel free to wallow in your qualitative pedantry, it wont help you get what you want
12:14 <@xalbo> latro`a: If you haven't read exactly the right things already, then ldlework will refuse to engage with you already. You're hopelessly out of touch, too bad, so sad.
12:14 < ldlework> I don't mind questions of what I mean
12:14 < latro`a> seriously, a short quote from when this was discussed would be great
12:14 < ldlework> What I mind is "That's wrong, shut up its off topic"
12:15 < latro`a> so that I can ctrl+F
12:15 < zipcpi> Heck maybe I just need to add {ko dunda mi re xe'e plise} somewhere there
12:15 < latro`a> your thing in quotes wasn't one of those
12:15 < ldlework> So I don't feel super responsible for helping someone who doesn't even start with due dilligence.
12:15 < latro`a> (I checked already)
12:15 < latro`a> and again, I did read back like 10 minutes and didn't see anything suggesting that this was about theory
12:15 < Ilmen> Do you want logs?
12:15 < ldlework> Or that the subseqeuent discussion will be profitable anyway even if I reexplain everything
12:15 < latro`a> I have some logs, I don't want to go through my whole scrollback
12:15 < Ilmen> I have logs from about 1h15 ago
12:15 < ldlework> If my interlocutor started off by telling me to shut up
12:15 < Ilmen> (coi)
12:16 < gleki> i have logs from about 3 years :P
12:16 < ldlework> So be surprised when I disengage just like you asked si demanded me to do.
12:16 < latro`a> I didn't, actually; I started off by saying you were saying factually incorrect statements, because what you were doing was the equivalent of referring to fish as "dogs"
12:17 < Ilmen> le gerku noi finpe .u'e
12:17 < ldlework> latro`a: if you say so, that's all that matters
12:17 < latro`a> where you established more than half an hour prior that you were going to call fish dogs
12:17 < ldlework> thank god we avoided returning to CLL
12:17 < zipcpi> gleki: The thing is that I have given you lots of examples. But all you did was just use things like {na'oku} etc. I explained that that doesn't solve the fundamental problem of referents vs no referents.
12:17 < ldlework> you saved us, and you're the good guy, so lets just return to those assumptions and move on, never understanding what I had to say
12:17 < zipcpi> Merely give King Context more to work with
12:17 <@xalbo> latro`a: No, where he started half an hour ago using the word "fish" and hoping we'd understand that he meant "dogs".
12:18 < zipcpi> To make us *more confident* about whether there is a referent or not
12:18 <@xalbo> (vice versa)
12:18 < zipcpi> But doesn't actually solve the problem directly
12:18 < ldlework> Yep context doesn't have any effect on anything.
12:18 <@xalbo> and after many times of us saying "but dogs don't have gills" and such, he said "sheesh, I'm redefining a word, work with me here"
12:18 < ldlework> Start a dialogue with, I'm going to start with completely novel assumptions
12:18 < ldlework> And it has no effect on your listener's ability to designate descriptions going forward
12:18 < ldlework> za'a
12:19 < ldlework> When you express confusion and they elucidate on what they mean
12:19 < gleki> zipcpi: pls put of all those examples into one page so i can  see "fundamental" issue as you say.
12:19 < ldlework> Make sure to ignore then and continue to characterize them as being utterly uncooperative
12:19 < zipcpi> I already did: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zipcpi:_The_case_against_%22lo%22
12:19 < ldlework> So you can be cool to your buddy in the channel
12:20 < gleki> zipcpi: oh okay. then i'll translate those.
12:21 < zipcpi> I just don't see how this would help, gleki. Like I keep saying, not all of us are as creative as you
12:21 < zipcpi> Everytime we throw out example sentences, you simply add more semantics to them
12:21 < zipcpi> And I'd be forced to agree that "yeah if you said that to me on the street, I won't misunderstand you"
12:22 < zipcpi> But that's not the point
12:22 < ldlework> zipcpi: and more fundamentally, even if you can solve everything with UI it doesn't really address that we have this core part of langauage and we have this core part of lojban and we're just trying to match them up properly.
12:23 < ldlework> The problem is that we must provide different semantics of the same class, with different grammatical constructs in lojban.
12:23 <@xalbo> zipcpi: Reading your case against lo, I agree somewhat, but also disagree somewhat. In particular, the definitional/essentialistic case doesn't sound to me like it needs to be a gadri.
12:23 < zipcpi> xalbo: I find I do resort to it a lot when talking about what specific Lojban words mean
12:23 < zipcpi> Like {xu lo'i remna cu danlu}
12:24 < ldlework> xalbo: the various semantics that the gadganznu gadri desginate all at least have to do with different kinds of desgination
12:24 < ldlework> Whether there is a strong enough designation distinction between the generalization and the essentialistic demonstration is debatable by reasonable people
12:24 <@xalbo> That sounds to me like a shorthand for something like {xu lo ka [ce'u] remna cu (nibli lo) ka [ce'u] danlu}
12:25 < ldlework> Afterall, it is this very distinction which is indeed debated in writings about designation types
12:25 < ldlework> When talking about indefinite desginations
12:25 < ldlework> specifically debating truth-conditions
12:25 < zipcpi> xalbo: Perhaps so. Anyway just so I can use that semantic without having to commit to {jo'au gadganzu}, I have defined {kairpau} and {kai'a}
12:26 < ldlework> Are statements expressing internal modeling false?
12:26 < zipcpi> {kairpau} is a lot like how you used {nibli}, except the arguments reversed
12:27 < ldlework> If we understand all indefinite descriptions to be free-variables (only a single proposed solution for something that has never been adequeately formalized anywhere) then we can just say that none of them have truth values
12:27 < zipcpi> So {xu lo ka ce'u danlu cu kairpau lo ka ce'u remna}
12:27 < ldlework> But there are other (more exotic) logical formulations of indefinite references (which haven't yet been dismissed wholesale) which would allow truth consideration of indefinite statements
12:28 < ldlework> But as we learned today, language philosophy has nothing to do with logic and therefore is off-topic with regards to lojban
12:28 < zipcpi> {kai'a} might also find use even with GG, as a discursive. "By definition..."
12:28 < gleki> indefinite descriptions are definitely variables but in completely another sense. i mean {goi ko'a} ofc. they have no local scope. and probably i mean something else by "indefinite" here
12:28 < gleki> en: kairpau
12:28 < mensi> kairpau [< ckaji pagbu ≈ Feature part] = being x1 (ka) is part of being x2 (ka) |>>> Or "x2 implies x1", but stronger
12:28 < mensi> than the logical sense; this word is definitional or essentialistic, and implies that if something stopped being x1,
12:28 < mensi> it'd stop being x2. See kai'a, bi'ai, nibli, jinzi |>>> spheniscine
12:28 < latro`a> sorry to poke in about zipcpi's proposal: I like what's there, but the lo'i thing can be done with {lo ka} and some circumlocution
12:28 < ldlework> By whatever mechanism language philosophy and predicate logic are mutually exclusive.
12:28 < zipcpi> I find I want to say that a lot, and {ca'e} is just wrong
12:29 < latro`a> ldlework, I actually didn't mean that language philosophy is separate from logic; just logic itself would be off-topic from lojban too
12:29 < zipcpi> latro'a: Yes I am completely aware of that, and I've even defined {kairpau} and {kai'a} simply so that I don't *have* to rely on GG-code-switch
12:29 < gleki> why {kairpau} is even needed? in order not to rant whether {pagbu1} can be a property?
12:29 <@xalbo> latro`a: Interestingly, I *just* said that within the last few minutes :)
12:30 < zipcpi> gleki: You *can* say that
12:30 < ldlework> All the semantics introduced by the GG have alternative semantic expansions
12:30 < ldlework> That's hardly the point whatsoever
12:30 < latro`a> semantic expansions to...what? pre-GG jbo?
12:31 < latro`a> (serious question, not a refutation)
12:32 < ldlework> I don't know what effect GG would even have on a semantic expansion and why you'd need to distinguish it beyond normal lojban
12:32 < ldlework> Since you'd be expanding the GG additions away (that's the point here), all that's left is whatever GG didn't introduce
12:32 < latro`a> fair point
12:32 < Ilmen> What is GG?
12:32 < ldlework> Gadganzu Gadri
12:32 < Ilmen> je'e
12:32 < latro`a> but how does one expand, say, GG-le
12:32 < ldlework> It depends on whether you will attack me
12:33 < ldlework> And insult my understanding of lojban or anything else
12:33 < latro`a> nah
12:33 < zipcpi> {le} is probably the one I have most trouble with. Cause I built it all on this one little word. {itca}
12:33 < zipcpi> Selpa'i defined it
12:33 < ldlework> In my opinon all gadri are encapsulations of a logical form
12:33 < ldlework> lo is the gadri which encapsulates the logical form without adding any semantic
12:33 < ldlework> so IN MY MODEL, you have
12:34 < Ilmen> Just defines le broda = lo le'elkai be lo ka broda, and then leave defining le'elkai for when you come up with a more precise definition :p
12:34 < ldlework> lo broda : da/zo'e poi broda
12:34 < ldlework> so le is merely
12:34 < zipcpi> ilmen: lol
12:34 < ldlework> le broda : da poi broda
12:34 < ldlework> and lo'e simply
12:34 < ldlework> lo'e : zo'e poi broda
12:34 < zipcpi> Ilmen: But I do believe {itca} has what I need
12:34 < Ilmen> en: le'elkai
12:34 < mensi> le'elkai = x1 is/are the thing(s) described/named with property x2 by the speaker, who thinks this is contextually
12:34 < mensi> enough information for the listener to understand what are x1's referent(s) |>>> This predicate is intended to be the
12:34 < mensi> predicate equivalent of le (or at least to one of the interpretations thereof), so that «lo [this predicate] (be ...)»
12:34 < mensi> is equivalent to «le ckaji (be ...)». See also le, lemkai. |>>> Ilmen
12:34 < ldlework> zipcpi is encodifying the fundamental primitive in itca
12:34 < Ilmen> xD dai
12:34 < zipcpi> {lol
12:34 < latro`a> ...that's so far removed from how I understand da/zo'e that I don't see how it achieves the goal
12:34 < latro`a> again not a criticism, just "what?"
12:35 < ldlework> latro`a: and what is the goal? my goal to unify lojban's description system to match modern description theory?
12:35 < zipcpi> Ilmen: Yeah I think that's about right
12:35 < ldlework> latro`a: or your goal of me saying things that you expect me to say
12:35 < latro`a> the goal of matching up with the english definitions written in the article
12:35 < ldlework> It certainly serves the former goal
12:35 < ldlework> latro`a: zipcpi's work is loosely based on the justifications I provide
12:36 < zipcpi> le broda -> lo le'elkai be lo ka broda
12:36 < ldlework> He has not formalized his ideas beyond magical predicates since he refused to think about the logical consequence for his semantic additions
12:36 <@xalbo> Those look almost exactly the opposite of what I would expect them to look like, even given that page.
12:36 < ldlework> Which is totally fine
12:36 < latro`a> er, that's fine; I'm asking about the da zo'e stuff, and what the hell those da/zo'e mean
12:36 < ldlework> da means something exists
12:36 < latro`a> in...what?
12:36 < ldlework> da and zo'e are just logical variables
12:36 < latro`a> that's the key issue that I've raised repeatedly over many many years
12:37 < latro`a> existence is all relative to a universe of discourse, and in human communication no one wants to say what that is
12:37 < ldlework> In fact divorced from language, they merely represent x
12:37 < ldlework> in Ex exactly the same
12:37 < zipcpi> "He has not formalized his ideas beyond magical predicates since he refused to think about the logical consequence for his semantic additions" i'asai, simply because I'm tired of the whole "But your da doesn't scope right!" arguments. I can't defend them
12:37 < ldlework> They are distingusihed in the context of the consequences of logic in language
12:38 < gleki> {da} is like "da" in "function(){var da;}"
12:38 < ldlework> zipcpi: yeah, I'm not saying you haven't gone far enough for your personal goals, it wasn't a dig on you I swear
12:38 < ldlework> gleki: exactly. It doesn't actually say anything exists.
12:38 < ldlework> It merely creates a target for subsequent predication
12:38 < ldlework> And quantification
12:38 < gleki> "exists" are all English approximations
12:38 < latro`a> can you maybe not use those words then?
12:38 < ldlework> "exists in so far, we have a variable we didn't before"
12:38 <@xalbo> Oh, I had forgotten, for ldlework {da poi draci cu se nelci mi} and {su'o da poi draci cu se nelci mi} are different, aren't they?
12:39 < gleki> i think proglangs are better here. i have nothing against this js-like code above.
12:39 < latro`a> because at this point what you're describing really does resemble jbo-da as much as fish resemble dogs
12:39 < ldlework> xalbo: well its more that I see da as a raw unquantified thing
12:39 < Ilmen> "PA da" is a counting device, it counts how many things satisfy a property in the universe of discourse
12:39 < ldlework> xalbo: su'o da may very well be a useful default after all the more fundamental modeling is given consideration
12:40 < ldlework> There is a fine line between a raw FOPL formulation, and anything that could be used to communicate upon the basis of language.
12:40 < ldlework> That line is introduces where FOPL merely has the variable
12:40 <@xalbo> The thing is, {su'o da poi draci cu se nelci mi} is true if there is any play that I like. {le draci cu se nelci mi} is true if the specific play we're talking about is beliked by me.
12:40 < ldlework> And language has the reference
12:40 <@xalbo> You seem to be saying that {da poi draci cu se nelci mi} is the latter; am I misunderstanding?
12:40 < ldlework> xalbo: right, when you introduce a quantifier you introduce consequences of entailment
12:41 < latro`a> ...so your da is xorlo's zo'e
12:41 < latro`a> if no quantifier is on it
12:41 < ldlework> xalbo: I'm saying, without a quantifier, its a free variable and you can't yet talk about entailment
12:41 < latro`a> oh
12:41 < latro`a> nvm, your da is something lojban has never had: an unbound variable
12:41 < latro`a> *bare da
12:41 < latro`a> well...ko'a without a goi, I guess
12:41 < ldlework> if we take away the default quantifier from da/zo'e its "just" the thing that exists in what you get in FOPL
12:42 < latro`a> does bare da create a scope then?
12:42 <@xalbo> Are you backing away from "<ldlework> le broda : da poi broda", or are you redefining {le} or {da} or both?
12:42 < ldlework> Not in this extremist-we're-not-giving-da-a-default-quantifier-like-su'o temporary model
12:42 <@xalbo> ua nai sai
12:42 < ldlework> This model is only useful for explaining the actual model where su'o is probably a reasonable default
12:43 < ldlework> brb I have to pee
12:43 < gleki> xalbo: in your example with {draci} there is a third option where {da} was mentioned several times before that phrase is uttered
12:43 < latro`a> not in unmodified jbo
12:43 < ldlework> I'm trying to illuminate how the underlying FOPL -becomes language- in a way that language philosophy can justify without any magic
12:43 <@xalbo> I'm strongly assuming that this is {da xi gensym}, really.
12:43 < latro`a> you'd need ijeks to pass scope along
12:44 < latro`a> the thing is, FOPL only does anything on a domain
12:44 < ldlework> Anyway, I think actually I'll just leave it for now
12:45 < ldlework> We can change topics for real if anyone wishes
12:47 < zipcpi> Heck maybe define {lo'ilkai} as well. I don't think anyone cares about what we do with {le'e} or {le'i} though
12:47 < Ilmen> en: ri'oirkai
12:47 < mensi> ri'oirkai = x1 is/are the referent(s) of the most recent complete sumti that satisfies the property x2 |>>> See also
12:47 < mensi> ri'oi. |>>> Ilmen
12:47 < zipcpi> lol
12:47 < Ilmen> dai
12:48 < zipcpi> GG-le'e is just {lo bi'unai}, no more, no less
12:48 < zipcpi> GG-le'i is {lo metije}, {lo metaje}, or {lo metuje}
12:49 < zipcpi> So yeah, fairly uncontroversial there, and no one cares about those old gadri anyway
12:49 < Ilmen> lo dei broda?
12:49 < latro`a> err...did you want me?
12:49 < latro`a> because me extracts referents now
12:50 < latro`a> *{me}
12:50 < zipcpi> Yes I know
12:50 < latro`a> ok
12:50 < latro`a> just making sure
12:50  * Ilmen was confused by this unbracketed me
12:50 < latro`a> I can see how that would happen
12:50 < latro`a> I was pronouncing in my head, so there was no confusion, then I caught that there would be
12:51 < ldlework> I may go forward using ko'a to represent unquantified da, thanks
12:51 < zipcpi> It's {le} and {lo'i} that has everyone up in arms
12:52 < zipcpi> Oh yeah and {xe'e} too, which should probably just be added to the GG page
12:52 < zipcpi> Even though it's not a gadri, it's become kindof important
12:52 < zipcpi> Because it contrasts with {le}
12:53 < ldlework> Yeah its a good way to distinguish between indefinite and unspecified
12:53 < ldlework> Where some would want to use mere "any" quantification to wave away the entire domain of indefinite reference
12:56  * ctefa`o peeks in, first thing he sees is {le}, runs away
13:23 < ghhtzt> coi
13:24 < durka42> coi
13:25 < ghhtzt> I see people arguing.
13:25 < durka42> that happens in here sometimes
13:26 < durka42> they seem to have stopped
13:26 < durka42> maybe if we back away slowly and avoid tapping on the glass, they won't be spooked
13:26 < ctefa`o> ALL BRIDI HAVE A DEFAULT JA'A
13:26  * ctefa`o ruuuuuns
13:27 < ldlework> ctefa`o: sure, since the default speech act is assertive
13:27 < ldlework> Doesn't seem controversial
13:27 < ctefa`o> Thank you ldlework
13:27 < durka42> ja'a isn't assertion, it's truth
13:27  * durka42 runs in a different direction from ctefa`o 
13:27 < ctefa`o> No only occuring to about anyone bit you ld
13:28 < ctefa`o> ...I hate phone keypad
13:28 < ldlework> ctefa`o: or anyone who has read back to even PF Strawson
13:28 < ctefa`o> je'u is truth durka42
13:28 < durka42> this is also true
13:28 < ctefa`o> according*
13:29  * durka42 runs to a meeting
13:29 < Ilmen> And ce'a is false
13:29 < Ilmen> zo'o
13:30 < Ilmen> camxes: +exp ku'i lo remna na ro me lo cizra
13:30 < camxes> (ku'i [{lo remna KU} {na KU} {ro BOI} {me <lo cizra KU> MEhU} KU] VAU)
13:32 < ghhtzt> ro mei lo cizra
13:32 < Ilmen> ua
13:32 < ctefa`o> Well I have had about 5 people stare at me for suggesting ja'a as a default NA like I had told them to go study esperanto or something
13:32 < ldlework> ctefa`o: are you researching language philosophy?
13:32 < Ilmen> ki'e gasnu be lo nu lo mi gustci co'a te gusni
13:33 < ctefa`o> Nah just trying to get my head around jbobau
13:33 < ldlework> ctefa`o: in lojban a lot of the time, instead of saying there's a default we say that its merely unspecified
13:33 < ldlework> so its possibly cromulent to say that there is no default and if no NA is provided its potentially any NAa
13:34 < ctefa`o> Yeah one could
13:34 < ldlework> Of course there is a reason why LPs have chosen ja'a as the default
13:34 < ctefa`o> {. mi klama} - I may or may not go
13:34 < ldlework> right
13:34 < zipcpi> Meh I'm not going to argue with that anymore; I'm fine with ja'a over na... when he told me this I merely just confused it over the veridicality thing again
13:34 < ldlework> not very useful
13:34 < ctefa`o> But we can fix it by always putting in the ja'a:)
13:35 < ctefa`o> I mean 2 syllables for every bridi isn't much is it
13:35 < Ilmen> Adding da'i for the case you don't want to assert the main bridi seems more optimal
13:35 <@xalbo> {ja'a} as default is the only sensible way to go. {da'i} and {ca'a} have at least a little wiggle room for sufficiently strong contexts overriding them.
13:36 < Ilmen> provided that much of the time people actually assert what they say
13:36 < zipcpi> Ilmen: {ju'acu'i} is also another useful option, with a different semantic
13:36 <@xalbo> What do UI2 do with NAI and CAI?
13:37 < Ilmen> coi la .lojban.
13:37 < ctefa`o> Did anyone btw make a brivla for ca'a
13:37 < Ilmen> li'a go'i
13:37 < Ilmen> en: cazyfau
13:37 < mensi> cazyfau [< ca'a fasnu ≈ Actually is event] = f1 is actual (existing in act or reality, not just potentially). |>>> See
13:37 < mensi> also ca'a, fasnu, jetnu, pusfau, faurnu'o. |>>> tijlan
13:38 < Ilmen> I've made brivla forms for almost any cmavo that came nearby me
13:38 < ctefa`o> So no x2 then
13:39 < ctefa`o> I was thinking what would be that which you put into a CAhA tag
13:39 < Ilmen> ctefa'o: When I don't know, I put as few sumti slots as possible, so that one can add additional ones later if deemed necessary
13:39 < ctefa`o> If grsmmar still allows that
13:39 < ctefa`o> je'e
13:39 < Ilmen> en: zonkai
13:39 < mensi> zonkai [< zo'a ckaji ≈ Tangential to feature] = x1 is alongside of x2 |>>> Predicate form of zo'a; it means whatever
13:39 < mensi> zo'a means. See also zo'a. |>>> Ilmen
13:39 < Ilmen> xD
13:40 < ctefa`o> Well I want to formalize all the sumtcita to xoi and then they would need an x2 for CAhA zo'e
13:40 < ctefa`o> .u'i
13:40 < Ilmen> The role of X in {CAhA X} is clearly explained on the relevant BPFK page, IIRC
13:40 <@xalbo> Should have just made it {zonzo'a}.
13:41 < ctefa`o> Hmm it is?
13:41 < ctefa`o> iirc it was "grammar allows it but we have no idea what it means"
13:42 < Ilmen> Maybe I mix them up with TAhE then
13:42 < ctefa`o> Can check it up in a min
13:43 < ghhtzt> I wish people would spend more time enriching the lojban lexicon
13:47 < Ilmen> .oi glare
13:47 < Ilmen> fa lo tcima
14:13 < ctefa`o> Ilmen: nothing in bpfk section at all
14:13 < Ilmen> je'e
14:13 < ctefa`o> Unless I somehow missed it
14:13 < Ilmen> I think I mixed up with TAhE, sorry
14:20 < zipcpi> ghhtz: I have been adding lots of words yes, though too many are cmavo for some people's tastes :p
15:01 < zipcpi> jbovelcki be zo samyuan
15:01 < zipcpi> zo .samyuan., noi se krasi lo valsi befi lo glibau beife tu'ai da poi prenu li'u ku'o, cu cmene lo cevni be lo'e prenu poi lazni .i py ta'e
15:01 < zipcpi> Er... "push responsibility"?
15:05 < durka42> en:samyuan
15:05 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
15:05 <@xalbo> basygau fi lo ka fuzme or something
15:05 <@xalbo> {krati} may be relevant, or it may not.
15:06 < durka42> e'ende?
15:07 < zipcpi> There needs to be a brivla form of {ca'e}
15:08 < durka42> ca'enmo :p
15:08 < zipcpi> ca'esku
15:08 < zipcpi> No that's a lujvo
15:08 < durka42> jbo:ca'e
15:08 < mensi> ca'e = [UI2] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri jetnu seja'e le nu ri se cusku
15:08 < zipcpi> Yeah needs a brivla
15:08 < durka42> vlaste: jetnu jalge cusku (luj)
15:09 < vlaste> jetnu jalge cusku (lujvo) = jetyja'esku, je'urja'esku, jetyjagysku, jetnyja'esku
15:09 < durka42> pei
15:09 < zipcpi> k: ca'ensku
15:09 < mensi> (CU [Z:ca'ensku VAU])
15:10 < zipcpi> k: ca'engau
15:10 < mensi> (CU [Z:ca'engau VAU])
15:11 < zipcpi> $x_1$ defines $x_2$ to happen / to exist / to be true
15:12 < zipcpi> zo .samyuan., noi se krasi lo valsi befi lo glibau beife tu'ai «da poi prenu» li'u ku'o, cu cmene lo cevni be lo'e prenu poi lazni .i le go'i cu sinxa lo du'u le cusku cu ca'engau lo du'u lo datpre be cy be'o poi to'e itca cu fuzme lo se fuzme be cy
15:12 < durka42> hehe
15:12 < durka42> http://www.palci.org/
15:13 < durka42> er
15:13 < durka42> zipcpi: did something get cut off
15:13 < zipcpi> No
15:13 < durka42> it says "(incompatible encoding)" after "lo se fuzme be cy"
15:13 < zipcpi> That's the last part
15:13 < durka42> ok
15:14 < durka42> looks good
15:14 < durka42> I wouldn't use {ca'engau} but I won't tell you not to do it :)
15:15 < durka42> I just think those zi'evla that are zi'evla only because they use the wrong hyphen are a tad confusing
15:19 < zipcpi> "x1 defines x2 (nu/du'u) to be true / to happen // x2 is true because x1 says so or thinks so."
15:22 < zipcpi> le go'i cu sinxa lo du'u le cusku cu ca'engau lo du'u lo datpre be cy be'o poi to'e itca cu basti cy lo ka ce'u fuzme da
15:28 < zipcpi> coi vonxlu
15:29 < zipcpi> su'oda se cfipu tu'a zo landegmei jo'u zo xirdegmei
15:30 < zipcpi> ma vlakra
15:31 < ctefa`o> la Ctefà'o has made radical changes to his ideas of formal expansion
15:31 < ctefa`o> Fellow jbopre can rejoice
15:35 < durka42> ua
15:35 < durka42> la ctefa'o made radical changes, and there was much rejoicing
15:36 < cliva> doi dabysi'u be tu'a lo re plise do'u .e'u curmi lo nu do pensi lo du'u da'i zo ko ka'e se sko'opu lo drata be lo bramau
15:36 < ctefa`o> durka: concept of bridi types still remains. Or you show me how to fix the adverbials
15:37 < durka42> :)
15:37 < ctefa`o> Just tabled the idea of most ke'as not expanding
15:37 < cliva> .i mu'a da'i ka'e cusku lu re plise zo'u ko ri mi dunda li'u je lu ko zo'u ko dunda re plise mi li'u
15:37 < durka42> lo sidbo cu binxo lo tanbo iau xu
15:38 < cliva> .i je lo ro re jufra cu smuficysi'u
15:38 < durka42> s/tanbo/jubme
15:38 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: lo sidbo cu binxo lo jubme iau xu
15:38 < cliva> (to .ai sipna co'o toi)
15:38 < durka42> s/iau //
15:38 < fenki> durka42 meant to say: lo sidbo cu binxo lo jubme xu
15:39 < durka42> co'o la li'oi cliva
15:41 < zipcpi> rafsi: ca'e
15:41 < mensi> zo catke se rafsi zo'oi ca'e
15:41 < zipcpi> rei'e sai sai mapti
15:41 < zipcpi> do'a sai
15:42 < durka42> en:rei'e
15:42 < mensi> rei'e = [NAhE] scalar abator: slightly... / not very...
15:42 < durka42> I was thinking of {re'e} .u'i
15:42 < zipcpi> u'i
15:43 < zipcpi> kinda sorta lo ka mapti
15:43 < durka42> catke lo nu fuzme
15:43 < zipcpi> ie u'i
15:44 < zipcpi> ue zo jetrinsku
15:44 < durka42> matmau
15:45 < zipcpi> ku'i pe'i lo ka cusku na sarcu lo ka ca'engau
15:46 < durka42> lo nu pensi cu banzu xu
15:46 < zipcpi> ja'a
15:46 < durka42> je'e
15:46 < durka42> ta'o these red links make jbovlaste comments a lot easier to read
15:46 < zipcpi> iesai
15:50 < ctefa`o> Overengineering--
15:50 < ctefa`o> (Unrelated to anything anyone said)
15:51 < ldlework> like bridge making?
15:51 < durka42> like lojban :p
15:51 < ldlework> "over" engineering
15:51  * ldlework rolls his eyes
15:51 < ldlework> :)
15:52 < ldlework> bad joke, I'll let myself out
15:52 < ctefa`o> Nah I had just overengineered an idea. Enjoying to cut it down consideraly
15:53 < ldlework> What do you call a bridge that goes under the water?
15:53 < durka42> broken
15:53 < ldlework> A tunnel.
15:53 < durka42> I thought of that but then I decided my answer was funnier
15:53 < ldlework> jeeze I thought we were done with jokes I was just asking
15:54 < ldlework> I have this strange thing that when I'm at work all I want to do is think about lojban and flying
15:54 < ldlework> And when I get home sleep
15:54 < durka42> haha
15:54 < ldlework> There's just not enough time in the day! :)
15:54 < durka42> flying? xu do vinji sazri?
15:54 < ctefa`o> I had the weirdest dreams tonight
15:55 < ldlework> durka42: ie
15:55 < durka42> ua mi jilra
15:55 < ldlework> durka42: do ka'e cilre
15:55 < ldlework> I only fly simulators, but I'm giving it a real legitimate go interms of avionics and flight.
15:56 < zipcpi> ei mi cliva co'o
15:56 < ldlework> zipcpi: did you buy it?!
15:56 < durka42> lo mi senva zo'u lo mergugja'a jinga cu me lai gubyseltru jecu du la'o gy Lindsay Lohan gy
15:56 < durka42> ldlework: ai mi cilre ca la samdei
15:56 < zipcpi> What, the book?
15:56 < ldlework> zipcpi: yeah
15:57 < ldlework> durka42: know that is very easy to get started
15:57 < zipcpi> Not yet... still hadn't got through the preview x.x
15:57 < ldlework> its almost like they were designed to flight
15:57 < durka42> ie
15:57 < durka42> lo rupnu ku po'o cu sarcu
15:57 < durka42> what were designed?
15:57 < ldlework> airplanes
15:57 < durka42> indeed...
15:57 < ldlework> hehe I just mean, they are made to be very easy to manipulate. Its a lot more straightforward than I expected
15:58 < ldlework> In other ways, far more complex I guess
15:58 < durka42> mi pu'i vijysazri pare'u
15:58 < durka42> ze'i
15:58 < durka42> man the scope there is all bananas
15:59 < durka42> mi pu'i pare'u ze'i vijysazri
15:59 < ldlework> zasti vinji xu
15:59 < durka42> I can-and-have (once) (for a very short time) flown a plane
15:59 < durka42> jetnu vinji ja'a
16:00 < ldlework> ua
16:00 < ldlework> mi pu'i nai
16:00 < ldlework> ii da'i
16:00 < durka42> va'o lo nu kansa lo drata vijypre na iinmo
16:01 < ldlework> lo nu vinji nenri cu se jinzi tu'a lo ka terpa
16:02 < durka42> je'u
16:02 < durka42> mi ta'e klaustrofobo
16:03 < ldlework> uu
16:04 < durka42> vlaste: claustrophobia
16:04 < vlaste> cmazvakemnoryraclyte'a = x1 is claustrophobic.
16:04 < zipcpi> u'i
16:04 < durka42> damn that's longer than the english .u'i
16:04 < durka42> vlaste: claustrophobia (finti)
16:04 < vlaste> cmazvakemnoryraclyte'a (finti) = durka42
16:04 < durka42> .oi
16:04 < durka42> .u'i
16:05 < zipcpi> oise'idai
16:05 < ldlework> u'i
16:06 < durka42> is there a brivla for {noryracli}?
16:06 < zipcpi> I'm not sure... this really reminds me of that thing that la kristan said
16:06 < ldlework> kanpe is the only one coming to mind
16:06 < zipcpi> Erm, not sure how kanpe is relevant
16:07 < ldlework> like expected / avergae behavior I dunno
16:07 < ldlework> my humor is just not working today
16:07 < durka42> bebna?
16:07 < durka42> cmazvabebyte'a
16:08 < zipcpi> u'i
16:08 < zipcpi> But la kristan wanted an attitudinal modifier for rationality (cause you can feel something even though you know it is irrational)
16:08 < ldlework> is enough to be "small-room-fear" ?
16:08 < durka42> cmazvacunte'a
16:09 < zipcpi> Apparently Laadan has something like that
16:09 < durka42> yeah cmazvate'a works too
16:09 < durka42> but I wanted a general word/suffix for "phobia", ldlework
16:09 < zipcpi> Probably not gonna happen unless you use my {dzau} trick
16:09 < ldlework> selte'a
16:09 < durka42> a phobia as in a fear not necessarily grounded in truth
16:10 < ldlework> ah
16:10 < durka42> a fear of being hit by a car is not a phobia
16:10 < durka42> (in this sense)
16:10 < durka42> zipcpi: which trick?
16:10 < ctefa`o> co'o rodo
16:11 < zipcpi> I made {dzau} a pseudo-rafsi for the slate of upvote-etc brivla :p
16:11 < durka42> zipcpi: well you could just say {pe'i na'i}
16:11 < durka42> well sure, I could just zi'evla-shorten {noryraclyte'a} to {norclate} and then do {cmazvanorclate}
16:11 < zipcpi> na'i is... weird to me
16:11 < zipcpi> It's like... su
16:12 < zipcpi> I mean I can see it's utility in some questions, but leaving it unexplained... well, that's just very smart-assy pe'i
16:12 < durka42> en:na'i
16:12 < mensi> na'i = [UI3a] discursive: metalinguistic negator.
16:12 < durka42> jbo:na'i
16:12 < mensi> na'i = [UI3a] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri na'e drani
16:12 < durka42> ja'a se velcki
16:15 < zipcpi> Yeah it's like "that's the wrong question to ask"; useful, but not particularly polite to leave it unexplained
16:15 < durka42> yeah well that's when you apply it to someone else's selsku
16:15 < durka42> but if you proactively apply it to your own...
16:16 < zipcpi> If you proactively apply it to your own... it's like... su... or seju co'e
16:16 < zipcpi> As in I'm not sure what you're saying lol
16:17 < durka42> well what else would this "irrationality marker" mean :l
16:17 < durka42> si :)
16:17 < zipcpi> lol
16:17 < zipcpi> I think it's meant to modify attitudinals
16:17 < zipcpi> Not sure about applicability to statements
16:19 < zipcpi> I mean it could modify {pe'i} to give an opinion that you know is irrational... lol
16:20 < zipcpi> Maybe it's {ro'enai} or {ro'ene'e} :p
16:20 < durka42> pe'i toi'e na'i
16:20 < durka42> vlaste: ro'e
16:20 < vlaste> ro'e = emotion category/modifier: mental - mindless.
16:20 < durka42> heh
16:20 < durka42> pe'i ro'enai
16:21 < zipcpi> ii ro'enai
16:21 < durka42> jbo:ro'e
16:21 < mensi> ro'e = [UI4] tcita le se cusku le du'u la'e ri se krasi le menli be le cusku
16:21 < durka42> jbo:ro'e (n)
16:21 < mensi> lo nu mulno sisku zo'u: y no da se tolcri
16:21 < durka42> except that phobias come from your menli, just not the racli pagbu be lo do menli
16:21 < zipcpi> nitpick nitpick lol
16:22 < durka42> lo'e jbopre ta'e nitpiki
16:22 < zipcpi> ie
16:23 < ldlework> lo'i go'i
16:23 < durka42> la'a
16:23 < ldlework> u'i
16:24 < ldlework> xendo fa lo nu pilno troci lo cnino gadri
16:25 < zipcpi> jo'au gadganzu jo'au tcekitaujei jo'au lomcninojbobauklepoiminadjunomakaugo'auei
16:26 < zipcpi> zo'o
16:26 < ldlework> uaaa le selsumne poi selkra lo mi jupku'a cu mutce pluka
16:27 < zipcpi> mau'udai
16:27 < ldlework> je'u
16:28 < zipcpi> k: lomcninojbobauklepoiminadjunomakaugo'auei
16:28 < mensi> (CU [Z:lomcninojbobauklepoiminadjunomakaugo'auei VAU])
16:28 < ldlework> I swear when I hear myself speak lojban with the internal voice, its an over-the-top japanime character
16:28 < durka42> k: lomicninojbobauklepoiminadjunomakaugo'auei
16:28 < mensi> ([LE:lo {KOhA:mi Z:cninojbobauklepoiminadjunomakaugo'auei} KU] VAU)
16:29 < durka42> k: lomicnínojbobáuklepoiminadjúnomakaugo'auei
16:29 < mensi> SyntaxError: Expected [yY] but "u" found.
16:29 < zipcpi> lo'u go'a uei le'u
16:29 < durka42> k: lomicnínojbobáuklepoiminadjúnomakaugo'aui
16:29 < mensi> ([LE:lo {KOhA:mi <G:cnino L:jbobaukle> <NOI:poi (¹KOhA:mi [CU {NA:na G:djuno} {KOhA:ma UI:kau} VAU]¹) KUhO>} KU] [CU {GOhA:go'a UI:ui} VAU])
16:29 < durka42> zo uei na slabu
16:29 < durka42> na slabu mi je JVS vu'o ji'a .u'i
16:30 < ldlework> no uei .i ku'i ia uei
16:30 < durka42> .u'isai
16:30 < durka42> ia uei re'e
16:30 < ldlework> ko ca'o salci doi la uain
16:36 < durka42> I guess {dunli} is better than {du} since you get an x3 escape hatch
16:37 < durka42> if some jbopre nitpiki gets on your case about "amounts" of different substances
16:39 < durka42> whoa I switched windows how did that happen
16:39 < ldlework> u'i
16:47 < zipcpi> ldlework: Huh I get that too, except that it's a cross with Malay sped-up dubs
16:47 < ldlework> I don't know what either of those things are.
16:47 < zipcpi> Well I'm from Malaysia
16:47 < ldlework> Unless by dub you mean like 'copied cassete player'
16:47 < ldlework> u'i
16:47 < zipcpi> And you know of dubbed videos?
16:48 < zipcpi> THat is, video kept, audio replaced?
16:48 < ldlework> ahhh
16:48 < ldlework> ki'a nai
16:48 < zipcpi> Yeah, because Malay is rather verbose, often the audio is sped up to fit
16:48 < ldlework> Oh Malay is the native language of Malaysia, uasai
16:49 < ldlework> I told you I knew nothing about Malaysia
16:49 < zipcpi> lol
16:49 < ldlework> Now I know where it is and what its native language is.
16:49 < ldlework> :P
16:50 < zipcpi> lo galraiKENka! BE lo fraGAri!
16:51 < dutchie> uinai mi gunka ei lo bavlamdei no'u lo cabdei
16:52 < zipcpi> The Polandball rules won't allow Lojbanistan but perhaps we should make some comics anyway
16:53 < zipcpi> Not sure what they should be about though
16:55 < ldlework> I have had fun translating comics in the past
16:55 < ldlework> I did a bunch
16:56 < ldlework> Comics are fun because you want to pack as much semantic information into as small of a space as possible
16:56 < ldlework> Damn english and its popular idiomatic lossy compression algorithms
16:58 < ldlework> zipcpi: dubbing a seinfeld episode or something could be fun
16:59 < ldlework> probably a lot of work tho
16:59 < zipcpi> ldlework: Not translating; original ones involving Lojbanball
16:59 < zipcpi> la jbogugboi
17:00 < zipcpi> ku'i no srana cu sidbo fi mi
17:02 < ldlework> I talked to Ilmen about doing a flight-sim thing where we fly a plane and joke around with each other roleplaying as pilots in jet airliner
17:02 < ldlework> and record it li'a
17:02 < zipcpi> xu da me'oi script
17:03 < ldlework> oh god I don't know how to interpret da
17:03 < zipcpi> u'i
17:03 < zipcpi> da de di daxidu'e
17:04 < ldlework> Are you simply asking if there is a script?
17:04 < zipcpi> da de di broda da zo'e zo'e da de di do du du lo nu co'e kei lo nu bu'a
17:04  * ldlework spoja
17:04 < zipcpi> Yes
17:04 < ldlework> nah
17:04 < ldlework> we'd be focused on flying the plane most, and just quip at each other
17:05 < ldlework> dunno really
17:05 < zipcpi> xu lu'i ro setmima poi na ke'a cmima ke'a cu se cmima vo'a
17:05 < zipcpi> .y.
17:06 < zipcpi> exp: xu lu'i ro setmima poi na ke'a cmima ke'a cu se cmima vo'a
17:06 < mensi> (xu [lu'i {<ro BOI> setmima KU <poi (¹[{na KU} ke'a] [CU {cmima <ke'a VAU>}]¹) KUhO>} LUhU] [cu {se cmima} {vo'a VAU}])
17:06 < zipcpi> za'a drani
17:06 < ldlework> staaahp
17:06 < zipcpi> ma dilcu li vo li no
17:06 < zipcpi> la'e di'e jitfa .i la'e di'u jetnu
17:09 < ldlework> u'i https://gist.github.com/dustinlacewell/96cc9b6d370c14c2046c
17:10 < zipcpi> ma du lo cmarai mulna'u poi loi paci jbobau valsi na ka'e velski ke'a
17:13 < zipcpi> xu la cevni ka'e finti lo bangu poi ke'a dukse lo ka pluja kei lo nu cy ka'e tavla fo ke'a
17:15 < zipcpi> li'a mi pofygau ro lo jbobau tersmu sampre
17:51 < noncomcinse> coi
17:52 < durka42> coi
17:52 < noncomcinse> .i do mo
17:57 < durka42> ze'irsaivi
17:59 < noncomcinse> ki'a
18:11  * nuzba @hyliu: 将来的に習得したい言語        プログラミング言語    python    processing    scheme    java    (c++(c))        自然言語    Japanese    english    latina    Italiano    deutsch    gaeilge        人工言語    esperanto    lojban [http://bit.ly/1RRDbqs]
18:13 < noncomcinse> lo mi .irci samselpla cu na nelci lo so'i lerfu poi la nuzba cu cusku ke'a
18:13 < mensi> e'u do vrude pajni gi'e nai ze'i co'a cinmo lo ka nelci
21:44 < gleki> 25 more questions with a score of 10 or more
21:46 < gleki> some questions have now the score 11. you may unvote them and upvote other questions instead
22:00 < cliva> s/bramau/brarai
22:00 < fenki> cliva meant to say: doi dabysi'u be tu'a lo re plise do'u .e'u curmi lo nu do pensi lo du'u da'i zo ko ka'e se sko'opu lo drata be lo brarai
22:00 < phma__> 25 more questions? I see 9 in animals and 2 in geography
22:34  * nuzba @464161niftg: https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramatiko_de_Esperanto これと http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban_kontra%C5%AD_Esperanto これを合成しようかとも思つたけれど、結局は十六条文法へのpinkaにしかならんからな… [http://bit.ly/1eZJNXM]
22:50 < gleki> phma__: have you upvoted at least  questions here? area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
22:51 < gleki> phma__: * have you upvoted at least 5 questions here? area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/83133/jbobau-joi-jboceu-lojban-language-and-culture
23:09 < gleki> formatting fixed http://mw.lojban.org/papri/building_Floors/Stories_Numbering_System
23:11  * nuzba @uitki: building Floors/Stories Numbering System - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/building_Floors/Stories_Numbering_System by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1HtHQgN]
23:13  * nuzba @uitki: L17-01 - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/L17-01 by Gleki - /* Numbers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 = pa re ci vo mu xa ze bi so no */ [http://bit.ly/1ei8f5y]
23:49  * nuzba @uitki: Lingo - http://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lingo by Gleki [http://bit.ly/1KrWKGH]
--- Log closed Wed Jul 01 00:00:20 2015