From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Oct 27 17:15:57 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:15:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.22)
	id 1AEISj-0004Qf-1k
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:15:57 -0800
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:15:57 -0800
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: More Turner/Nicholas lesson questions
Message-ID: <20031028011557.GQ24659@digitalkingdom.org>
References: <200310270954.EAA02815@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <5.1.0.14.0.20031027195247.02df0e30@pop.east.cox.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20031027195247.02df0e30@pop.east.cox.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 451
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 08:11:35PM -0500, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
> At 07:19 PM 10/26/03 -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> >Lesson 9, Exercise 4 (collapse two sentences into one with poi), item 5:
> >
> >        .i mi viska va le barja le ninmu .i mi klama le barja le briju
> >
> >The answer given is
> >
> >        .i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama fi le briju ku'o le ninmu
> >
> >which is fine.  When answering this, I didn't write that, but I came up
> >with two other alternatives:
> >
> >        .i mi viska va le barja poi mi klama ke'a le briju ku'o le ninmu
> >        .i mi viska va le barja poi se klama mi le briju ku'o le ninmu
> >
> >After reading the explanation accompanying the answer, I'm fairly
> >sure the first is a reasonable alternative (it's just a question
> >of whether you'd rather use fi or ke'a).  But what about the
> >second?  Is it a reasonable rendition?  (And if not, why not?)
> 
> I am a bit confused by the answers you've been given to this.  All
> of them look equivalent to me.  

They are.

One of my previous posts made a comment about observatives that was
simply incorrect, and I apologize.

-Robin

-- 
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***   I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies."  -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/             ***              .i cimo'o prali .ui