From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Feb 12 04:55:25 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 12 Feb 2003 04:55:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from f171.law8.hotmail.com ([216.33.241.171] helo=hotmail.com) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18iwQ8-0004Js-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 04:55:24 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 04:54:54 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:54:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] From: "Jorge Llambias" To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: A problem with cu Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:54:53 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2003 12:54:54.0198 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0385960:01C2D295] X-archive-position: 91 X-Approved-By: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners la iens cusku di'e >Thanks for your answers. If I would recognize {nu mi cilre fi >la lojban.} in {lenu mi cilre fi la lojban. cu xamgu mi} as a >selbri the {cu} in this sentence would be clear. Let's see what >I understand with my little knowledge about Lojban. If I don't >use {cu} {xamgu} would be x5 of {cilre}. Then the sentence doesn't >make any sense to me. No, it's not that. {xamgu} is not a sumti, so it cannot fill a sumti place. {xamgu} is a selbri. What you are missing is that if you put two selbri words together, you get another selbri. You need {cu} in {le broda cu brode} so that {broda} and {brode} don't form a tanru. The same situation occurs if you replace {broda} with {nu mi cilre fi la lojban}. >Now take: > >{lenu mi cilre fi la lojban. (by a method x5) xamgu mi} > >Just replace "(by a method x5)" with a good Lojban phrase. There >are no more places of {cilre}. Do I still need the {cu}? Yes. The parser doesn't count arguments anyway, and it doesn't take into account the meaning of the words. Whether or not a sentence parses does not depend on the number of arguments that the selbri takes. >Unfortunatly I don't understand the answers for my other {cu}- >problem with {lenu mi klama cu se tcika la daucac.} Probably >because I don't know what a tanru is (not yet!). Can I use the >following rule as long as I don't know it: > >Use {cu se} instead of {se} when in doubt. {se} never indicates the beginning of a selbri. {broda se brode} is a selbri. >mu'o mi'e .iens. (Why is {mu'omi'e .iens.} correct, too?) You can always write two cmavo together if you like. It makes no difference to the grammar. The meaning doesn't change. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail