pensi2 and djuno3 issues: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (Text replace - "jbocre: " to "") |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==== Here is a lovely conversation on what is supposed to go in pensi2, djuno3, and why epistemology/subject places are (or are not) useless. ==== | |||
~pp~ | |||
zgana: new question: what kinds of things can be pensi2 | |||
[[3:42pm]] selpa`i: I asked that same question like 2 weeks ago. | |||
[[3:42pm]] zgana: aaand? | |||
[[3:42pm]] lindar: du'u | |||
[[3:42pm]] selpa`i: I still can't tell for sure. | |||
[[3:42pm]] selpa`i: du'u yes | |||
[[3:42pm]] selpa`i: But what else? | |||
[[3:42pm]] selpa`i: Some ppl said nu | |||
[[3:43pm]] lindar: Yeah, I saw that. | |||
[[3:43pm]] lindar: It's wrong. | |||
[[3:43pm]] zgana: it says subject/concept in the definition | |||
[[3:43pm]] lindar: ...or at least less correct. | |||
[[3:43pm]] zgana: not fact | |||
[[3:43pm]] tricus left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection) | |||
[[3:43pm]] lindar: ... | |||
'' | [[3:43pm]] lindar: Well... that's what's been used. | ||
[[3:43pm]] lindar: Maybe si'o? | |||
[[3:43pm]] lindar: It's a weird word. | |||
[[3:44pm]] lindar: The common convention has du'u as pensi2. | |||
[[3:44pm]] selpa`i: is it malgli to use it for "I think I will go"? | |||
[[3:44pm]] zgana: probably | |||
[[3:44pm]] selpa`i: The definition is a bit unclear to me | |||
It | [[3:44pm]] lindar: It -is- unclear. | ||
[[3:44pm]] zgana: what do you mean by "i think i will" | |||
[[3:44pm]] lindar: If you have a problem, write a proposal. We can submit it as an official proposal to the BPFK. | |||
[[3:44pm]] zgana: are you unsure? are you deciding? | |||
[[3:45pm]] tricus joined the chat room. | |||
[[3:45pm]] selpa`i: both | |||
** | [[3:45pm]] selpa`i: kinda | ||
[[3:45pm]] tricus left the chat room. | |||
[[3:45pm]] selpa`i: it seems malgli | |||
[[3:45pm]] lindar: I'm not particularly sure. | |||
[[3:45pm]] selpa`i: but allowing only du'u seems about weird | |||
[[3:45pm]] lindar: I'm actually going to side against convention in this case and say anything could be put there, but an abstraction seems -more- correct. | |||
[[3:45pm]] lindar: rlpowell: Can we get your input? | |||
[[3:46pm]] zgana: valsi djuno | |||
[[3:46pm]] lindar: Broca: If you're here, I'd love your input as well. | |||
[[3:46pm]] zgana: .oi | |||
[[3:46pm]] lindar: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/ | |||
[[3:46pm]] zgana: i know but i wanted it here for the discussion | |||
[[3:46pm]] tricus joined the chat room. | |||
[[3:46pm]] lindar: Also there are goldendict dictionaries and other stuff.... | |||
[[3:46pm]] zgana: x2 is a fact, x3 is a subject | |||
[[3:46pm]] zgana: to mi ca'o pilno la vlasisku toi | |||
[[3:47pm]] lindar: Hmmm... | |||
[[3:47pm]] selpa`i: mi pensi do | |||
[[3:47pm]] lindar: Like I said, write up the proposal, use your evidence (that was a good one), and I'll submit it. | |||
[[3:48pm]] Moddington is now known as Modd|nazvati. | |||
[[3:48pm]] rlpowell: lindar: With what? | |||
[[3:48pm]] selpa`i: pensi2 | |||
[[3:49pm]] lindar: What goes in pensi2? | |||
[[3:50pm]] zgana: selpa`i: in your example, i'd maybe say {.i ju'o ru'e ba zi cliva} | |||
[[3:51pm]] selpa`i: .ie | |||
[[3:51pm]] selpa`i: Something like that | |||
[[3:51pm]] zgana: .i zo .au ka'e co'e .e'u ru'e | |||
[[3:52pm]] selpa`i: never = no roi? | |||
[[3:53pm]] latros: I think so? | |||
[[3:53pm]] selpa`i: k | |||
[[3:54pm]] lindar: Ehm... kinda? | |||
[[3:54pm]] lindar: "Zero times" | |||
[[3:54pm]] donri left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection) | |||
[[3:55pm]] zgana: {na pu} might work if you just mean {i've never '''_} | |||
[[3:55pm]] lindar: You haven't in the past... | |||
[[3:56pm]] selpa`i: On that note, it'd be useful to have a template of how the maximum selbri would look, most importantly the order of the tenses, negations etc | |||
[[3:56pm]] selpa`i: NA PU SELBRI, but with all the selma'o that can be in a selbri | |||
[[3:57pm]] Xunie joined the chat room. | |||
[[3:57pm]] rlpowell: lindar: A du'u or a si'o, I should think. | |||
[[3:57pm]] selpa`i: what about simple ko'a? | |||
[[3:57pm]] selpa`i: KOhA | |||
[[3:58pm]] rlpowell: lindar: The issue of what goes in various places is a large one that needs some real sit-down discussion betwene a bunch of peolpe at some point; if there's something about pensi2 that's unusually weird in this respect, it should be noted on the gismu issues page. | |||
[[3:58pm]] selpa`i: "I think about you" mi pensi do | |||
[[3:58pm]] selpa`i: is that BS? | |||
[[3:58pm]] lindar: It sounds reasonable to me. | |||
[[3:58pm]] lindar: Like I said, somebody write up the proposal, I'll put it on the correct page. | |||
[[3:58pm]] rlpowell: selpa`i: Was your KOhA question about pensi2? | |||
[[3:59pm]] selpa`i: Yes | |||
[[3:59pm]] rlpowell: Because that sounds like sumti raising to me. | |||
[[3:59pm]] zgana: i've never seen any other proposals, so i wouldn't necessarily know how to start | |||
[[3:59pm]] zgana: rlpowell: consider djuno2 and djuno3 | |||
[[3:59pm]] zgana: or cilre | |||
[[3:59pm]] zgana: subjects can be things, in those words | |||
[[3:59pm]] selpa`i: djuno2? | |||
[[3:59pm]] lindar: Yeah, I really have to agree there. | |||
[[4:00pm]] latros: is there a way to raise without having to use SE | |||
[[4:00pm]] lindar: That's not what that means. | |||
[[4:00pm]] latros: er | |||
[[4:00pm]] rlpowell: zgana: the "subject" places there look pretty seriously redundant. | |||
[[4:00pm]] latros: wait | |||
[[4:00pm]] latros: nvm | |||
[[4:00pm]] latros: tu'a, right right | |||
[[4:00pm]] selpa`i: redundant? | |||
[[4:00pm]] selpa`i: they get used all the time | |||
[[4:01pm]] lindar: They are somewhat redundant as one or the other gets used, but never both at once. | |||
[[4:01pm]] zgana: they could be replaced by zo'ei constructs, probably | |||
[[4:01pm]] selpa`i: true | |||
[[4:01pm]] rlpowell: zgana: But yes, either djuno3 is redundand or pensi is missing a place; a note to that effect on gismu issues would be good. | |||
[[4:01pm]] rlpowell: selpa`i: What's the difference between {mi djuno tu'a le karce} and {mi djuno fi le karce}? | |||
[[4:01pm]] latros: I find jimpe's place structure is, in a practical sense, backwards | |||
[[4:01pm]] rlpowell: AFAICT, they are *exactly* the same thing. | |||
[[4:01pm]] latros: .ie | |||
[[4:01pm]] rlpowell: Which means one of those places adds no vaule. | |||
[[4:01pm]] lindar: Agreed. | |||
[[4:01pm]] zgana: .ie | |||
[[4:02pm]] latros: although | |||
[[4:02pm]] latros: I suppose | |||
[[4:02pm]] latros: {mi djuno fi le xumske} | |||
[[4:02pm]] latros: is somewhat of a different intended meaning from {mi djuno tu'a le xumske} | |||
[[4:02pm]] rlpowell: And which also means that pensi2 should be clearly stated to be like djuno2, out of which you can get the subject with tu'a | |||
[[4:02pm]] latros: when djuno3 is a "field", in other words | |||
[[4:02pm]] rlpowell: Right now it sounds like it's djuno2+djuno3, which is broken. | |||
[[4:02pm]] selpa`i: It is possible to see some difference between the two | |||
[[4:03pm]] zgana: does this mean we should expect {djuno} to change in the future, possibly? | |||
[[4:03pm]] rlpowell: latros: I still don't see a difference; "I know some chemistry" vs. "I know things about chemistry". Seems the same to me. | |||
[[4:03pm]] rlpowell: zgana: Unlikely. | |||
[[4:03pm]] latros: but it's not that you know a du'u that has xumske in it | |||
[[4:03pm]] latros: it's that you know things that are part of the field of chemistry | |||
[[4:03pm]] zgana: latros: what about zo'e pe | |||
[[4:04pm]] latros: that would fix it | |||
[[4:04pm]] selpa`i: "I know that something is going on with a car" vs "I know some fact about a car" | |||
[[4:04pm]] latros: that works for things like cars | |||
[[4:04pm]] zgana: mi pensi zo'e pe lo nu cliva | |||
[[4:04pm]] zgana: maybe | |||
[[4:04pm]] latros: I don't think it works for things like chemistry | |||
[[4:04pm]] latros: zo'e pe / zo'ei does fix it though | |||
[[4:04pm]] rlpowell: < selpa`i> "I know that something is going on with a car" vs "I know some fact about a car" -- I do not see an interesting difference; something that is going on with a car *is* a fact about a car, no? | |||
[[4:05pm]] zgana: actually di'u is wrong | |||
[[4:05pm]] selpa`i: rlpowell: I suppose the difference I see, is "action/event" vs "subject" | |||
[[4:05pm]] lindar: With zo'ei, I see no reason for djuno3. | |||
[[4:05pm]] selpa`i: rlpowell: the former seems more ... animate | |||
[[4:06pm]] lindar: OKAY SO PLEASE WRITE A PROPOSAL STATING YOUR OPINIONS AND EVIDENCE AND I'LL SUBMIT IT TO THE BPFK. -'''_- | |||
[[4:06pm]] rlpowell: Heh. | |||
[[4:06pm]] rlpowell: lindar: I don't think we have enough for a *proposal* here. | |||
[[4:06pm]] zgana: .u'i ru'e ko smacni | |||
[[4:06pm]] selpa`i: Why change djuno when it doesn't cause any problems? | |||
[[4:07pm]] rlpowell: The point is more discussion needs to occur; a simple "look at pensi2 vs. djuno2/3 wtf?" on the gismu issues page would suffice. | |||
[[4:07pm]] rlpowell: selpa`i: I have no particular intention of changing djuno. | |||
[[4:07pm]] selpa`i: Good. | |||
[[4:07pm]] rlpowell: Redundancy is not a crime. | |||
[[4:07pm]] selpa`i: Agreed. | |||
[[4:07pm]] latros: that I can agree with | |||
[[4:07pm]] latros: there's a fair amount of usage breaking there | |||
[[4:07pm]] enthymeme left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) | |||
[[4:08pm]] tjader: Has anyone translated the poem of the ring to lojban? | |||
[[4:08pm]] latros: I mean, is it really helpful to replace all the fi's with zo'ei's? | |||
[[4:08pm]] zgana: i find that later places are always harder to remember | |||
[[4:08pm]] selpa`i: I don't find that to be true. | |||
[[4:08pm]] lindar: -''''''_- I'm just going to copypaste this discussion if nobody wants to write anything formal. | |||
[[4:09pm]] rlpowell: tjader: The what? | |||
[[4:09pm]] zgana: so pulling the epistemology place down by one would help n00bs | |||
[[4:09pm]] rlpowell: lindar: < rlpowell> The point is more discussion needs to occur; a simple "look at pensi2 vs. djuno2/3 wtf?" on the gismu issues page would suffice. | |||
[[4:09pm]] zgana: at least ones who think like me | |||
[[4:09pm]] rlpowell: lindar: I've said that like 4 times now; which part confuses you? | |||
[[4:09pm]] tjader: rlpowell: ash nazg durbatuluk... | |||
[[4:09pm]] rlpowell: tjader: Oooh. | |||
[[4:09pm]] tjader: one ring to rule them all | |||
[[4:09pm]] rlpowell: *That* ring. | |||
[[4:09pm]] rlpowell: I was thinking like the nibelungen or something. | |||
[[4:09pm]] lindar: The part where "wtf?" pages don't do crap and then later we need documented discussion and proposals -anyway-. | |||
[[4:10pm]] rlpowell: lindar: Yes, but we don't *have* a proposal right now. | |||
[[4:10pm]] selpa`i: Bullshit, I'm sure people don't want to relearn a bunch of place structures just because it might be easier for noobs when there is one place less. | |||
[[4:10pm]] tjader: la pa degja'i | |||
[[4:10pm]] rlpowell: And Idon't have the focus/energy to produce one, and this isn't the right group anyway. | |||
[[4:10pm]] zgana: selpa`i: i wasn't clear | |||
[[4:10pm]] zgana: i wouldn't argue that it should be changed! definitely not | |||
[[4:10pm]] rlpowell: lindar: Part of my plan is to have a bunch of such discussions to generate such proposals. | |||
[[4:10pm]] tjader: anyway, is there a translation of that already floating around? | |||
[[4:10pm]] zgana: hindsight is 20/20 though. i just mean it -would have been- easier the other way | |||
[[4:10pm]] • rlpowell fucking hates epistemology places. | |||
[[4:10pm]] rlpowell: And standard places, and observer places. | |||
[[4:11pm]] rlpowell: tjader: Not to my knowledge. | |||
[[4:11pm]] selpa`i: I've never used any of those. | |||
[[4:11pm]] zgana: rlpowell: that's a good point. those things don't usually have names that you just use in a sentence | |||
[[4:11pm]] lindar: Yeahhhh.... | |||
[[4:11pm]] lindar: I think we should just have an epistemology and standard BAI. | |||
[[4:11pm]] rlpowell: I hate them because that's what BAI is for. The problem is that the gismu list predates BAI. :) | |||
[[4:12pm]] selpa`i: Though again, no one forces you to use them. | |||
[[4:12pm]] zgana: .ua | |||
[[4:12pm]] rlpowell: 'strue. | |||
[[4:12pm]] rlpowell: But I've been trying to memorize place structures lately. | |||
[[4:13pm]] zgana: can more BAI be made for those places? | |||
[[4:13pm]] selpa`i: Maybe with mekso gone. :P | |||
[[4:13pm]] rlpowell: Well, for things that really need it, like say *djuno*, an epistomolgy place is fine, and we have du'o | |||
[[4:14pm]] selpa`i: Which should suffice. | |||
[[4:14pm]] rlpowell: Similarily zgana/ga'a for observer. | |||
[[4:14pm]] rlpowell: And manri/ma'i fro standard. | |||
[[4:15pm]] zgana: .ua sai .a'u | |||
[[4:15pm]] rlpowell: I've considered simply dropping those places from my memorization schedule. | |||
~/pp~ |
Latest revision as of 16:20, 23 March 2014
Here is a lovely conversation on what is supposed to go in pensi2, djuno3, and why epistemology/subject places are (or are not) useless.
~pp~
zgana: new question: what kinds of things can be pensi2
3:42pm selpa`i: I asked that same question like 2 weeks ago.
3:42pm zgana: aaand?
3:42pm lindar: du'u
3:42pm selpa`i: I still can't tell for sure.
3:42pm selpa`i: du'u yes
3:42pm selpa`i: But what else?
3:42pm selpa`i: Some ppl said nu
3:43pm lindar: Yeah, I saw that.
3:43pm lindar: It's wrong.
3:43pm zgana: it says subject/concept in the definition
3:43pm lindar: ...or at least less correct.
3:43pm zgana: not fact
3:43pm tricus left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
3:43pm lindar: ...
3:43pm lindar: Well... that's what's been used.
3:43pm lindar: Maybe si'o?
3:43pm lindar: It's a weird word.
3:44pm lindar: The common convention has du'u as pensi2.
3:44pm selpa`i: is it malgli to use it for "I think I will go"?
3:44pm zgana: probably
3:44pm selpa`i: The definition is a bit unclear to me
3:44pm lindar: It -is- unclear.
3:44pm zgana: what do you mean by "i think i will"
3:44pm lindar: If you have a problem, write a proposal. We can submit it as an official proposal to the BPFK.
3:44pm zgana: are you unsure? are you deciding?
3:45pm tricus joined the chat room.
3:45pm selpa`i: both
3:45pm selpa`i: kinda
3:45pm tricus left the chat room.
3:45pm selpa`i: it seems malgli
3:45pm lindar: I'm not particularly sure.
3:45pm selpa`i: but allowing only du'u seems about weird
3:45pm lindar: I'm actually going to side against convention in this case and say anything could be put there, but an abstraction seems -more- correct.
3:45pm lindar: rlpowell: Can we get your input?
3:46pm zgana: valsi djuno
3:46pm lindar: Broca: If you're here, I'd love your input as well.
3:46pm zgana: .oi
3:46pm lindar: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/
3:46pm zgana: i know but i wanted it here for the discussion
3:46pm tricus joined the chat room.
3:46pm lindar: Also there are goldendict dictionaries and other stuff....
3:46pm zgana: x2 is a fact, x3 is a subject
3:46pm zgana: to mi ca'o pilno la vlasisku toi
3:47pm lindar: Hmmm...
3:47pm selpa`i: mi pensi do
3:47pm lindar: Like I said, write up the proposal, use your evidence (that was a good one), and I'll submit it.
3:48pm Moddington is now known as Modd|nazvati.
3:48pm rlpowell: lindar: With what?
3:48pm selpa`i: pensi2
3:49pm lindar: What goes in pensi2?
3:50pm zgana: selpa`i: in your example, i'd maybe say {.i ju'o ru'e ba zi cliva}
3:51pm selpa`i: .ie
3:51pm selpa`i: Something like that
3:51pm zgana: .i zo .au ka'e co'e .e'u ru'e
3:52pm selpa`i: never = no roi?
3:53pm latros: I think so?
3:53pm selpa`i: k
3:54pm lindar: Ehm... kinda?
3:54pm lindar: "Zero times"
3:54pm donri left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
3:55pm zgana: {na pu} might work if you just mean {i've never _}
3:55pm lindar: You haven't in the past...
3:56pm selpa`i: On that note, it'd be useful to have a template of how the maximum selbri would look, most importantly the order of the tenses, negations etc
3:56pm selpa`i: NA PU SELBRI, but with all the selma'o that can be in a selbri
3:57pm Xunie joined the chat room.
3:57pm rlpowell: lindar: A du'u or a si'o, I should think.
3:57pm selpa`i: what about simple ko'a?
3:57pm selpa`i: KOhA
3:58pm rlpowell: lindar: The issue of what goes in various places is a large one that needs some real sit-down discussion betwene a bunch of peolpe at some point; if there's something about pensi2 that's unusually weird in this respect, it should be noted on the gismu issues page.
3:58pm selpa`i: "I think about you" mi pensi do
3:58pm selpa`i: is that BS?
3:58pm lindar: It sounds reasonable to me.
3:58pm lindar: Like I said, somebody write up the proposal, I'll put it on the correct page.
3:58pm rlpowell: selpa`i: Was your KOhA question about pensi2?
3:59pm selpa`i: Yes
3:59pm rlpowell: Because that sounds like sumti raising to me.
3:59pm zgana: i've never seen any other proposals, so i wouldn't necessarily know how to start
3:59pm zgana: rlpowell: consider djuno2 and djuno3
3:59pm zgana: or cilre
3:59pm zgana: subjects can be things, in those words
3:59pm selpa`i: djuno2?
3:59pm lindar: Yeah, I really have to agree there.
4:00pm latros: is there a way to raise without having to use SE
4:00pm lindar: That's not what that means.
4:00pm latros: er
4:00pm rlpowell: zgana: the "subject" places there look pretty seriously redundant.
4:00pm latros: wait
4:00pm latros: nvm
4:00pm latros: tu'a, right right
4:00pm selpa`i: redundant?
4:00pm selpa`i: they get used all the time
4:01pm lindar: They are somewhat redundant as one or the other gets used, but never both at once.
4:01pm zgana: they could be replaced by zo'ei constructs, probably
4:01pm selpa`i: true
4:01pm rlpowell: zgana: But yes, either djuno3 is redundand or pensi is missing a place; a note to that effect on gismu issues would be good.
4:01pm rlpowell: selpa`i: What's the difference between {mi djuno tu'a le karce} and {mi djuno fi le karce}?
4:01pm latros: I find jimpe's place structure is, in a practical sense, backwards
4:01pm rlpowell: AFAICT, they are *exactly* the same thing.
4:01pm latros: .ie
4:01pm rlpowell: Which means one of those places adds no vaule.
4:01pm lindar: Agreed.
4:01pm zgana: .ie
4:02pm latros: although
4:02pm latros: I suppose
4:02pm latros: {mi djuno fi le xumske}
4:02pm latros: is somewhat of a different intended meaning from {mi djuno tu'a le xumske}
4:02pm rlpowell: And which also means that pensi2 should be clearly stated to be like djuno2, out of which you can get the subject with tu'a
4:02pm latros: when djuno3 is a "field", in other words
4:02pm rlpowell: Right now it sounds like it's djuno2+djuno3, which is broken.
4:02pm selpa`i: It is possible to see some difference between the two
4:03pm zgana: does this mean we should expect {djuno} to change in the future, possibly?
4:03pm rlpowell: latros: I still don't see a difference; "I know some chemistry" vs. "I know things about chemistry". Seems the same to me.
4:03pm rlpowell: zgana: Unlikely.
4:03pm latros: but it's not that you know a du'u that has xumske in it
4:03pm latros: it's that you know things that are part of the field of chemistry
4:03pm zgana: latros: what about zo'e pe
4:04pm latros: that would fix it
4:04pm selpa`i: "I know that something is going on with a car" vs "I know some fact about a car"
4:04pm latros: that works for things like cars
4:04pm zgana: mi pensi zo'e pe lo nu cliva
4:04pm zgana: maybe
4:04pm latros: I don't think it works for things like chemistry
4:04pm latros: zo'e pe / zo'ei does fix it though
4:04pm rlpowell: < selpa`i> "I know that something is going on with a car" vs "I know some fact about a car" -- I do not see an interesting difference; something that is going on with a car *is* a fact about a car, no?
4:05pm zgana: actually di'u is wrong
4:05pm selpa`i: rlpowell: I suppose the difference I see, is "action/event" vs "subject"
4:05pm lindar: With zo'ei, I see no reason for djuno3.
4:05pm selpa`i: rlpowell: the former seems more ... animate
4:06pm lindar: OKAY SO PLEASE WRITE A PROPOSAL STATING YOUR OPINIONS AND EVIDENCE AND I'LL SUBMIT IT TO THE BPFK. -_-
4:06pm rlpowell: Heh.
4:06pm rlpowell: lindar: I don't think we have enough for a *proposal* here.
4:06pm zgana: .u'i ru'e ko smacni
4:06pm selpa`i: Why change djuno when it doesn't cause any problems?
4:07pm rlpowell: The point is more discussion needs to occur; a simple "look at pensi2 vs. djuno2/3 wtf?" on the gismu issues page would suffice.
4:07pm rlpowell: selpa`i: I have no particular intention of changing djuno.
4:07pm selpa`i: Good.
4:07pm rlpowell: Redundancy is not a crime.
4:07pm selpa`i: Agreed.
4:07pm latros: that I can agree with
4:07pm latros: there's a fair amount of usage breaking there
4:07pm enthymeme left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
4:08pm tjader: Has anyone translated the poem of the ring to lojban?
4:08pm latros: I mean, is it really helpful to replace all the fi's with zo'ei's?
4:08pm zgana: i find that later places are always harder to remember
4:08pm selpa`i: I don't find that to be true.
4:08pm lindar: -'_- I'm just going to copypaste this discussion if nobody wants to write anything formal.
4:09pm rlpowell: tjader: The what?
4:09pm zgana: so pulling the epistemology place down by one would help n00bs
4:09pm rlpowell: lindar: < rlpowell> The point is more discussion needs to occur; a simple "look at pensi2 vs. djuno2/3 wtf?" on the gismu issues page would suffice.
4:09pm zgana: at least ones who think like me
4:09pm rlpowell: lindar: I've said that like 4 times now; which part confuses you?
4:09pm tjader: rlpowell: ash nazg durbatuluk...
4:09pm rlpowell: tjader: Oooh.
4:09pm tjader: one ring to rule them all
4:09pm rlpowell: *That* ring.
4:09pm rlpowell: I was thinking like the nibelungen or something.
4:09pm lindar: The part where "wtf?" pages don't do crap and then later we need documented discussion and proposals -anyway-.
4:10pm rlpowell: lindar: Yes, but we don't *have* a proposal right now.
4:10pm selpa`i: Bullshit, I'm sure people don't want to relearn a bunch of place structures just because it might be easier for noobs when there is one place less.
4:10pm tjader: la pa degja'i
4:10pm rlpowell: And Idon't have the focus/energy to produce one, and this isn't the right group anyway.
4:10pm zgana: selpa`i: i wasn't clear
4:10pm zgana: i wouldn't argue that it should be changed! definitely not
4:10pm rlpowell: lindar: Part of my plan is to have a bunch of such discussions to generate such proposals.
4:10pm tjader: anyway, is there a translation of that already floating around?
4:10pm zgana: hindsight is 20/20 though. i just mean it -would have been- easier the other way
4:10pm • rlpowell fucking hates epistemology places.
4:10pm rlpowell: And standard places, and observer places.
4:11pm rlpowell: tjader: Not to my knowledge.
4:11pm selpa`i: I've never used any of those.
4:11pm zgana: rlpowell: that's a good point. those things don't usually have names that you just use in a sentence
4:11pm lindar: Yeahhhh....
4:11pm lindar: I think we should just have an epistemology and standard BAI.
4:11pm rlpowell: I hate them because that's what BAI is for. The problem is that the gismu list predates BAI. :)
4:12pm selpa`i: Though again, no one forces you to use them.
4:12pm zgana: .ua
4:12pm rlpowell: 'strue.
4:12pm rlpowell: But I've been trying to memorize place structures lately.
4:13pm zgana: can more BAI be made for those places?
4:13pm selpa`i: Maybe with mekso gone. :P
4:13pm rlpowell: Well, for things that really need it, like say *djuno*, an epistomolgy place is fine, and we have du'o
4:14pm selpa`i: Which should suffice.
4:14pm rlpowell: Similarily zgana/ga'a for observer.
4:14pm rlpowell: And manri/ma'i fro standard.
4:15pm zgana: .ua sai .a'u
4:15pm rlpowell: I've considered simply dropping those places from my memorization schedule.
~/pp~