From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 04 12:05:19 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxqD0-0000jm-Rw for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:05:18 -0700 Received: from ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.42]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FxqCw-0000jd-Bl for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:05:18 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.103] (cpe-66-68-161-49.austin.res.rr.com [66.68.161.49]) by ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k64J5AtG003495 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:05:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <44AABBE6.5060208@hypermetrics.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:05:10 -0500 From: Hal Fulton User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0RC1 (X11/20041209) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: CLL p 95 - huh? References: <44AA1FD6.9030906@hypermetrics.com> <20060704080511.GE9631@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <44AA266B.60807@hypermetrics.com> <20060704163207.GF9631@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20060704163207.GF9631@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 3324 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: hal9000@hypermetrics.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > No; that would be {zdani be mi melbi le speni be mi} (note the lack > of co). Remember, the gloss for co is "of type", so it's "house of > me of type beautiful to my spouse". > Thank you. Once again, obvious in retrospect. I knew the gloss "of type", but was still muttering "type of" to myself. Must stop posting after 2 am. >>Could I say (without inversion): >> - ta zdani be mi be'o cu melbi le speni be mi > > Illegal unless you drop the cu. If you drop the cu the meaning > changes a lot, and you're talking about a house-ish-ly beautiful > thing instead of a beautiful house. Not obvious to me why dropping the cu is necessary. The rest I understand. Thanks, Hal