[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
> If {po'u} sounds too incidental, then you can use {gi'e du}:
>
> fy fancu ro namcu pa namcu gi'e du le du'u makau sumji ce'u li pa
>
> And if it is just an assignment, {goi} might even make more sense.
>
{gi'e du} sounds equally afterthoughtish for what is the point after all of
the exercise.
Put the {du} first then:
fy du le du'u makau sumji ce'u li pa kei noi fancu ro namcu pa namcu
(goi} by fundamentalist me is for assigning identities to free floating terms like literals and other KOhA, not for specifying functions.
That's just what 'fy' is.
You don't expect funadamentalist me to pay any attention to your aberrationsdo you?
Ok, I won't in the future.
Even remember that you have them? And especially when, even when you translate it, I can find no way to make it say that.
Forget about {lo'e} then. It was your typo that got us talking
about it anyway.
I don't see how your version is an advantage over (the slightly more exact) {lo' numcu lo'inumcu}, which works as well for distinguishing differrent functions by domainand range -- and actually mentions their domain and range, to boot.
It isn't. That is not my preferred alternative to {lo'i namcu}.
<<I number,
Then we're missing an important predicate: "x1 maps value x2 to
value x3". I still think that would be the most useful place
structure for {fancu}, and that's how it has mostly been used
as far as x2 and x3 are concerned. (The use of x1 and x4 seems
to vary much more wildly.)>
Tsk, tsk. Not by any mathematician I know.
How many mathematicians you know have been using Lojban?
The person who has used {fancu} most is xod, I would think.
But this is just {x3 uizbangi
x2}, which is what you specified whizbang for in the first place.
I don't think in any of the uses I've seen of {fancu} there was
a new word specified at all.
Now that you have, use it. I do find the notion of mapping a point onto a point rather strange, what's more. Mapping a domain into a range such that acertain point in one corresponds to a certain point in the other makes sense,but this is so derivative a notion I wouldn't call it mapping.
Ok. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com