From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 17 13:43:19 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52)
	id 1E5Ukp-00032C-LM
	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:43:19 -0700
Received: from mole.e-mol.com ([204.11.35.13])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24)
	(Exim 4.52)
	id 1E5Ukk-00031y-1r
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:43:19 -0700
Received: from mail.123.net (nobody@new.e-mol.com [204.11.35.18])
	by mole.e-mol.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with SMTP id j7HKhDlc005179
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:43:13 -0400
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:43:13 -0400
Message-Id: <200508172043.j7HKhDlc005179@mole.e-mol.com>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
From: Matt Arnold <mattarn@123.net>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: web comics translated into Lojban
In-Reply-To: <43039705.30900@handgranat.org> 
References: <5ccdc7530508120938724eccf2@mail.gmail.com> <200508130340.j7D3eiTd013068@mole.e-mol.com> <42FDE2E5.7000308@handgranat.org> <200508171850.j7HIoklc022184@mole.e-mol.com>  <43039705.30900@handgranat.org> 
X-Priority: 3
X-From: mattarn@mail.123.net
X-Originating-IP: [209.220.229.254]
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 1768
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

You're right about {pacycrida patfu}.
For {bogygreku xampre}, I don't know why that doesn't work. Doesn't the {le du'u} create a self-contained sentence? Why could that sentence not be a question? How about {.i paunai xu do djuno leni jdima lo xampre ckule}?
-epkat

lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org wrote:
>Matt Arnold wrote:
>
>>The {fengu mruli} cartoon raises a question.
>>http://www.nemorathwald.com/pbflojban/pbflojban.htm
>>speni: x1 is married to x2 through tradition x3
>>Are x1 and x2 symmetrical? Or would {coi selspeni} be more appropriate?
>>-epkat
>>
>I opine that speni is fine in case.
>
>I'm still concerned about the multiple {xu}s in {*bogygreku xampre}, and 
>would like to add that {**pacycrida patfu} has two problems -- first, it 
>lacks an article before {pacycrida} (for example, {lo pacycrida} would 
>be preferable) and second, in the fathers reply, I'd like to switch {na} 
>and {ko} around -- {ko na xampa}.
>
>mi'e snan
>*

_______________________________________________________
Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com