From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Sep 30 12:38:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 30 Sep 2002 19:38:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 93754 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 19:38:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2002 19:38:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-15.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 19:38:26 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-149.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.149]) by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809B720174 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:38:23 +0200 (DST) To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] LOI PRENU GO PA MEI GI KA'E NAI TE JINGA? Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:40:01 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200209301558.LAA20589@mail2.reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin From: John Cowan > And Rosta scripsit: > > > How about {loi prenu go pa mei gi ka'e nai te jinga} > > that sounds pretty coolass to me -- something John might consent to chant. > > Indeed I would. Alas, "gi nai" are about as united as any two cmavo can > possibly be, and "ka'e" can't intervene. A UI can intervene, > but the result is that the "nai" binds to the UI. Is {ka'e nai} not standard Lojban for "cannot"? The meaning I intended was "is a unity iff cannot be defeated" -- makes a stronger claim than the original, but not inappropriately so. That is, the meaning is "go pa mei gi na ka'e te jinga". > I think the best we can do is "loi prenu. go pamei. giNAI ka'E te jinga." > > > But it won't work if GA can occur tanru internally, which it probably can. > > No, that's why GUhA exists -- to eliminate the ambiguity. So I reckon "LOI PRENU GO PA MEI GI KA'E NAI TE JINGA" should do the job, then, right? --And.