From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 26 10:46:20 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I3F7J-0001Bd-Po for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:46:19 -0700 Received: from 25.mail-out.ovh.net ([213.186.37.103]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I3Eu6-0000XP-Qk for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:32:43 -0700 Received: (qmail 348 invoked by uid 503); 26 Jun 2007 17:32:58 -0000 Received: (QMFILT: 1.0); 26 Jun 2007 17:32:58 -0000 Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail37.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 25.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 Jun 2007 17:32:58 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 Jun 2007 17:32:40 -0000 Received: from 36.69-225-89.dsl.completel.net (36.69-225-89.dsl.completel.net [89.225.69.36]) by ssl0.ovh.net (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:32:40 +0200 Message-ID: <1182879160.46814db8bd985@ssl0.ovh.net> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:32:40 +0200 From: m.kornig@sondal.net To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: I'm... My name's... References: <1182798606.4680130e60899@ssl0.ovh.net> <200706260034.11084.phma@phma.optus.nu> In-Reply-To: <200706260034.11084.phma@phma.optus.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6 X-Originating-IP: 89.225.69.36 X-Spam-Score: 0.2 X-Spam-Score-Int: 2 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5147 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: m.kornig@sondal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Selon Pierre Abbat : > On Monday 25 June 2007 15:10, m.kornig@sondal.net wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is there a difference in meaning between > > the two sentences {mi'e tim.} and {tim. > > cmene mi}? Are they both correct? Both > > used? > > {tim. cmene mi} is grammatical for no obvious reason; Pierre, I guess you mean "is not grammatical", don't you? > a bare cmene has no > clear meaning, You can say {mi'e tim.} and {coi tim.} and {co'o tim} though, can't you? In these examples the cmene would be "bare", i.e. there are no articles. Still these sentences seem to have a clear meaning. Martin