From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 18 07:08:59 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 18 May 2007 07:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp38a-0001MA-K5 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 07:08:57 -0700 Received: from anno.name ([81.169.186.62] helo=mail.anno.name) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hp38O-0001Ll-8q for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 07:08:52 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.146] (p5085d0f2.dip.t-dialin.net [80.133.208.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.anno.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908B9A0FB9 for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 16:08:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <464DB33D.7010403@perpetuum-immobile.de> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 16:07:57 +0200 From: Timo Paulssen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] elided ko (was: leaving a sumti out) References: <2f91285f0705180637r7b9fed73x7b6dcf13eb5eb6f2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0705180637r7b9fed73x7b6dcf13eb5eb6f2@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=21E90840 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig5A221B1A1F6B126E7AC8CECF" X-Spam-Score: 0.2 X-Spam-Score-Int: 2 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4500 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5A221B1A1F6B126E7AC8CECF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Vid Sintef schrieb: > Also, can a repeating "ko" be left out, without connecting the selbri > with "gi'e"? > That is, is >=20 > ko lebna ta .i dunda lo cnino vanju botpi mi >=20 > instead of >=20 > ko lebna ta .i ko dunda lo cnino vanju botpi mi >=20 > possible? Or would that "dunda" without "ko" loose the intended > imperative sense? the second sentence would indeed lose its intended imperative meaning. replacing i with gi'e there would be perfectly fine, though. - Timo --------------enig5A221B1A1F6B126E7AC8CECF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGTbM9us6NTCHpCEARAtrxAJ4ieUb5hLpsT8bzy/DD2rwv4nrbJACgh07+ kxiItCmcAOsxNBIlKOYrPWQ= =RXq1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5A221B1A1F6B126E7AC8CECF--