From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Mar 10 11:24:53 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D9THB-000164-1i for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:24:53 -0800 Received: from new.e-mol.com ([65.169.135.18] helo=mole.e-mol.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.44) id 1D9TH5-00015Y-G6 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:24:52 -0800 Received: from mail.123.net (new.e-mol.com [65.169.135.18]) by mole.e-mol.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with SMTP id j2AJOGTd028924 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:24:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:24:16 -0500 Message-Id: <200503101924.j2AJOGTd028924@mole.e-mol.com> To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org From: Matt Arnold Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Moon River In-Reply-To: <12d58c1605031011021ada0ba8@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050310164648.65243.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> <200503101733.j2AHXTTd005951@mole.e-mol.com> <537d06d005031009534bfb9f0d@mail.gmail.com> <200503101836.j2AIaWTd022430@mole.e-mol.com> <12d58c1605031011021ada0ba8@mail.gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-From: mattarn@mail.123.net X-Originating-IP: [209.220.229.254] Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Thank you. {doi la lunra poi rirxe} has brevity that the last example lacked. But is it acceptable to nest relative clauses as the following does? doi la lunra poi rirxe noi se minli ganra "Oh 'moon', specifically such that it is a river, which incidentally is number-of-distance-units-type-of being broad" Is the last clause referring to the addressee or the river, and does it make a difference? Should I use {po'u rirxe}? -epkat [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-archive-position: 1221 X-Approved-By: mattarn@123.net 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: mattarn@123.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners Thank you. {doi la lunra poi rirxe} has brevity that the last example lacked. But is it acceptable to nest relative clauses as the following does? doi la lunra poi rirxe noi se minli ganra "Oh 'moon', specifically such that it is a river, which incidentally is number-of-distance-units-type-of being broad" Is the last clause referring to the addressee or the river, and does it make a difference? Should I use {po'u rirxe}? -epkat lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org wrote: >On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:36:32 -0500, Matt Arnold wrote: >> While we're on the topic of names, suppose I wish to address Moon River ... >> -epkat > >doi la lunra noi rirxe _______________________________________________________ Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com