From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 23 14:29:56 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NuBff-00048t-6Q for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:29:55 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NuBfY-000480-Gm for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:29:53 -0700 Received: by vws4 with SMTP id 4so609026vws.40 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:29:41 -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; bh=q8DaPYRDplmHHwhuYyRJ9adSIgMRLI1aYCYWMEFQ84g=; b=vo937CLXFmR3nJha5mEUpDv9Ho+wxbRKQHw8CVOjp8YwsPm/VlhmF+q3+UBFouq7An tjfVWc5QBfyQ0s6kHb/8CUkfOPbtYyvPLOzzlAizJxY6maB5g+i044uI0HxXoVorz2UT SmsWXGJX41L7RoBXxr5scpi0LKHIQlsUHFIjs= 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; b=PpmdqY4+8BFxGPMEBBj4/AXE9STQPNBKXxbdoVgK285w2DfxSKItVAG2ftC8aEc8Ik RWLDLOX8uEHG+//SkIRW7ilsWO56RukJ3EMur0QT2e8e+evYf/LONRwenAebqaKEItBb OnUxlUL1oofbUIPVgMmBAUNLnFD6G2ulO/+2A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.121.142 with SMTP id h14mr2031471vcr.164.1269379780591; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:29:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <96f789a61003231413t2117aa25sc34d6d12a20f6e3b@mail.gmail.com> References: <586963.6470.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <925d17561003231405x13cc5c30j38c738d432488a02@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a61003231413t2117aa25sc34d6d12a20f6e3b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:29:40 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9301003231429u1c1e707bjd7f30e70b78fbeae@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: How verstaile is "nu" From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6816cbce84c9904827e822b X-archive-position: 3065 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0016e6816cbce84c9904827e822b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > doi xorxes xu do da'asnu lo nu da'asnu lo du'u da'asnu .i .oi lo besna > be mi cu cortu .u'icai .i mi pu simsa pensi On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > 2010/3/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > > 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. > > > > doi xorxes xu do da'asnu lo nu da'asnu lo du'u da'asnu .i .oi lo besna > be mi cu cortu > --gejsypa > > > > --0016e6816cbce84c9904827e822b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=A0doi xorxes xu do da'asnu lo nu da'asnu lo du'u da&#= 39;asnu .i .oi lo besna
> be mi cu cortu

.u'= icai .i mi pu simsa pensi

On = Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> w= rote:
2010/3/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM, A. = PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> = 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 lo= jei mi'o cu simda'a}.
>>
>> I'm not arguing against the use of {lo du'u xukau} in gene= ral=A0but this seems
>> to be a case of where {lo jei} provides the 'neatest' solu= tion.
>
> I don't see the problem in using "lo du'u xukau" the= re.
>
> (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:
>
> =A0 =A0mi'o ca da'arsi'u lo du'u mi'o da'arsi&= #39;u makau
> =A0 =A0"We are arguing about what we argue about."
>
> =A0 =A0mi'o ca da'arsi'u lo du'u mi'o da'arsi&= #39;u xokau da
> =A0 =A0"We are arguing about how many things we argue about."= ;
>
> =A0 =A0mi'o ca da'arsi'u lo du'u mi'o da'arsi&= #39;u ko'a jikau ko'e
> =A0 =A0"We are arguing about whether we argue about ko'a or a= bout ko'e."
>
> and so on. Having a special shortcut for "du'u xukau" is= not really necessary.
>

doi xorxes xu do da'asnu lo nu da'asnu lo du'u da&#= 39;asnu .i .oi lo besna
be mi cu cortu
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--gejsypa




--0016e6816cbce84c9904827e822b--