From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Nov 04 12:57:27 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EY8co-0004Xh-Eu for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:57:27 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.193]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EY8cm-0004Xa-LD for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:57:26 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i24so516785wra for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:57:22 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=pQDQ6bWLEbil26NT5lsCQN/2Yf+sLWo32SqR3t8fTedTNMe/SKeENeHc1sDKCARKlyg5n3GrQDFJwfLQje25Hi+TqgIvtaqxc2NJyR8aXsZyEv1mNG1Nensd2xucwqGrFMhyoxbQWc1j7S0X2NTK92f8D3UxrmG+F1ftaZLa+Gw= Received: by 10.54.71.4 with SMTP id t4mr2042339wra; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:57:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.66.3 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:57:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560511041257n2afde68bn8f6d4e050001a6e6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:57:22 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Tao translation In-Reply-To: <2d3df92a0511040813v443fa8ebl@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: <2d3df92a0511040813v443fa8ebl@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 2484 X-Approved-By: jjllambias@gmail.com 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 11/4/05, HeliodoR wrote: > > .i le jmive cu tolci'o ca'o citno That's not grammatical, you'd need {ca'o lo nu citno} there. > .i le go'i cu fapro le saxysidbo > .i seki'ubo le go'i cu lirymro > > (Can the lujvo be {saxysidbo} at all?) Officially, they should be {saxsidbo} (or {saxsi'o}) and {lirmro}. In my proposed morphology, the versions with {y} are also allowed. mu'o mi'e xorxes