From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Nov 21 12:11:47 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gmby7-00064Z-88 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:11:47 -0800 Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gmby2-000647-Hf for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:11:47 -0800 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3719B94781 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:11:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:11:23 +0100 (CET) From: Arnt Richard Johansen X-X-Sender: arj@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lujvo creation: economical class. In-Reply-To: <925d17560611211015n467731dds647473411170771e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <4561F3E0.3000409@bommelibom.com> <45621B0C.4090801@phma.optus.nu> <4562214C.9080200@bommelibom.com> <12d58c160611210847r24a4302cma891495a6a67b886@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560611211015n467731dds647473411170771e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 3692 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 11/21/06, komfo,amonan wrote: >> How about {ni ricfu klesi}? mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan > > {ninricfu klesi} or {ni ricfu kei klesi}, otherwise it's {ni (ricfu klesi)}. Although in an actual lujvo, you don't strictly need to include the -kez-. Except if you think that "ni ricfu klesi" means something sensible that someone might want to make into a lujvo. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ A wrong note played timidly is a wrong note. A wrong note played with authority is an interpretation.