From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Aug 22 09:09:01 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1INslO-0000b1-Iw for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:09:00 -0700 Received: from mail.bcpl.net ([204.255.212.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1INslK-0000aO-PT for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:08:57 -0700 Received: from webmail.bcpl.net (webmail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.24]) by mail.bcpl.net (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l7MG8lb2002675 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:08:47 -0400 (EDT) X-WebMail-UserID: turnip Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:08:47 -0400 From: turnip To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002700 Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: cu'e Message-ID: <46CFAE9A@webmail.bcpl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.2 X-Spam-Score-Int: 2 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5416 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: turnip@bcpl.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners >===== Original Message From "Vid Sintef" ===== >On 8/21/07, turnip wrote: >> bacu'e is ugnrammatical... see LRG (CLL), Chapter 10: >> ---- >> The only way to combine ``cu'e'' with other tense cmavo is through logical >> connection, which makes a question that pre-specifies some information: >> >> 24.9) do puzi je cu'e sombo le gurni >> You [past] [short] and [when?] sow the grain? >> You sowed the grain a little while ago; >> when else do you sow it? > >Yes, that's what I had read. But there are some points which make me >uncertain of this explanation. Firstly, why is this {cu'e} defined to >be questioning PU or ZI ("when?") and not ZEhA ("how long?")? Who said it is not? >Secondly, what is it meant by "to combine cu'e"? Is {cu'eku do puzi >sombo le gurni} also such a combination? In other words, while constructions like bapu are allowed (I will have done it), "bacu'e" is not allowed directly (nor is cu'ezi, etc.). At least that's how I understand it. Your construction is fine. >Thirdly, do "other tense >cmavo" include VA, VEhA, FAhA, TAhE, ZAhO, ROI, etc? > Absolutely... look at the examples in that section. They have a VA, a ZAhO, even a BAI for answers. (I'm sorry. You meant in regards to combining? Yes, that would be also true, then. You can't do it directly). --gejyspa