From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 23 14:05:27 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NuBHy-0002GQ-Uw for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:05:27 -0700 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NuBHm-0002BK-Dy for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:05:22 -0700 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so5610549bwz.26 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JM6YC02o4a1cs7t0l/7/Za3lcFOqJKwX2Bp5LPU+aYo=; b=ZgSBVLOC61+xcTpVk5pEsmOIQDWaAY3YYExo+DVmwbG8wn+El8ws27wb5XSMNCuMfi 5pPWe7FfMxSbwAXIFzAHdV8uxWAd0CoKnT5Ji/dTKZEepzspYtHBH+Mqr9jWzAb8TXcn 0uybfXO/IPvazYlaRhJLY/bC9R71E4EfYrwuw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=vNW+XPiKW7sAj0YjSB+j5EEDUk3lWsFUrOUo1/69kla58uCACgZOdj5PzxyRTHJY56 aAvSwwvTwgH9edmZrWWNOJGbGvMCAuaT2kBLlaOmZcKqdxvMNhSLlp0pw7yPuEaqn91q K9sCW9EIGM3UfsUgr0aTMUdwWmH/NwSzu3C6s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.126.130 with SMTP id c2mr2082121bks.155.1269378307611; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <586963.6470.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <586963.6470.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:05:07 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17561003231405x13cc5c30j38c738d432488a02@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: How verstaile is "nu" From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 3061 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 Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM, A. PIEKARSKI wrote: > > "We're having one [arguement] right now," said Mama, "about whether or not we have arguements!" > > {.i lu mi'o ca simda'a seisa'a la mamcribe ku cusku lojei mi'o cu simda'a}. > > I'm not arguing against the use of {lo du'u xukau} in general but this seems > to be a case of where {lo jei} provides the 'neatest' solution. I don't see the problem in using "lo du'u xukau" there. (I also prefer "da'arsi'u" to "simda'a", and of course "cu" rather than "ku", but that's just an aside.) Compare with any other indirect question: mi'o ca da'arsi'u lo du'u mi'o da'arsi'u makau "We are arguing about what we argue about." mi'o ca da'arsi'u lo du'u mi'o da'arsi'u xokau da "We are arguing about how many things we argue about." mi'o ca da'arsi'u lo du'u mi'o da'arsi'u ko'a jikau ko'e "We are arguing about whether we argue about ko'a or about ko'e." and so on. Having a special shortcut for "du'u xukau" is not really necessary. mu'o mi'e xorxes