From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 25 05:37:27 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JpNB8-0006ow-IW for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:26 -0700 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JpNAx-0006nf-AK for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:26 -0700 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so3286655fga.0 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=YgeNxeL7kVVg+3HY4fyBoj+lVJZRCQj2A+hWtoEB7pc=; b=xwPWQo9pf3RBIsm5cOhCfmMewJRJ5xJPGYvjED7gHTmA70PJQjQ45dqUYZn1Uh0uLrS510tK0oMLG4Xmq3c7kr2PS0+XueC+XgRIksK4QhlLmbAwkRJqmpaR/EE8H0RrMOZtcTUFTKV8JZcBvR5yXdJzGxxde0jUWCfXskl7fXg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=o8iXrMQS6dcjNlOKVT48/9ejRORXRKTWljUsVA1Lue6ZsDZV2g9mOclQP1GrknQ3Y+uSqEZlkX4PPvYYqLKIW7mjDs8xt9f0UmJNCKeb0ZzyEkMhs3wIWoGFRGduLXCwatVEVxik2+rwGMx4oODTvujY0oyQQBaf7fOgiIdUdtI= Received: by 10.86.68.1 with SMTP id q1mr1278051fga.27.1209127030805; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.33.18 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560804250537x55568a8r183b878039ec5885@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:37:10 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: omitting zo'e in a compound bridi In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0804250419y6524bfbcu15b4d9d052e9c9db@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <2f91285f0804250419y6524bfbcu15b4d9d052e9c9db@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 539 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 4/25/08, Vid Sintef wrote: > ¿Would the intended construct still be clear if I omit the {zo'e} in this: > do te ke dunda le cukta [vau] gi'e lebna zo'e [vau] [ke'e] vau mi ; > .i.e > do te ke dunda le cukta gi'e lebna vau mi? That's not grammatical. Or rather, it is grammatical if you omit [ke'e], but it parses like this: do te ke dunda [ke'e] le cukta [ku] [vau] gi'e lebna zo'e vau mi [vau] If you omit {zo'e}, it would expand to: do te dunda le cukta mi .ije do lebna mi mu'o mi'e xorxes