Received: from mail-lb0-f189.google.com ([209.85.217.189]:50027) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SuWzl-0003o2-SD; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:57:40 -0700 Received: by lbol5 with SMTP id l5sf1533502lbo.16 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:57:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-authenticated:x-provags-id:message-id :date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-y-gmx-trusted:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dQGJbyMvdwQRf48oLfHYBIC1KmUH1Lz56E5xbet7veg=; b=X9XeN+tvtIBW7ZIywaMKVJQG5F7d2UAtbWChec50oNOebI+uOQQ/SAow1WOInGqY8M PgD9ZguvygKWxrj0I/YGVQR1CVDcvJ8uoHmLUtWXFhbhHLz9cv7AOzQEicCJp1PQlD/S GHUv5eBx/UbBbw5kFcS+32n59QJ9tndAP5/QQ= Received: by 10.216.44.70 with SMTP id m48mr14677web.14.1343343437438; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:57:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.141.22 with SMTP id f22ls2759926wej.0.gmail; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.98.234 with SMTP id el10mr79910wib.3.1343343435897; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.98.234 with SMTP id el10mr79909wib.3.1343343435886; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net. [213.165.64.22]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id hm1si152779wib.3.2012.07.26.15.57.15; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=213.165.64.22; Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2012 22:57:15 -0000 Received: from p57A0810B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.33]) [87.160.129.11] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 27 Jul 2012 00:57:15 +0200 X-Authenticated: #54293076 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+CpGso5veCGJahBYNh1nSqz69WsarG3qe+xvH/m7 3+pT/3DKTy6rRH Message-ID: <5011CB48.9070001@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:57:12 +0200 From: selpa'i User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] la snime blabi References: <500D58DA.7040107@gmx.de> <500D60F7.8030708@gmx.de> <500ECA45.3040609@gmx.de> <5011AB5A.2060505@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Am 27.07.2012 00:28, schrieb Jorge Llamb=EDas: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM, selpa'i wrote: >> Am 26.07.2012 21:19, schrieb Michael Turniansky: >> >> " ni'o ba na'e zu ku ca lo vanci lo ze torcrida cu xruti lo zdani gi'e m= utce >> lo ka se spaji kei ca lo nu viska lo nu la snime blabi cu cpana lo loldi >> gi'e na muvdu fi'o selmlu lo ka morsi " >> It seems like you are trying to say "not long after..." but unfortuna= tely, >> "ba na'e zu" is not grammatical "ba nai zu" is, but may not mean what w= e >> want. I expect you would be better off simply doing "ba za" or "ba zi". >> >> I don't see the problem. NAhE TAG is grammatical, and so is na'e zu. > > "ba [ku] na'e zu ku" is grammatical, but some parsers have trouble > with the elided "ku" in such cases. camxes parses it fine though. > Probably what gejyspa meant is that "ba na'e zu" does not parse as a > single compound tense the way "ba zu" does. This would be solved by > this proposal: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Internal+grammar+of+tags I am aware of this proposal, and I don't really consider it a "proposal"=20 as much as a necessity for the language to be consistent, which is why I=20 pretend it's already "official". There is no way it won't be. mu'o mi'e la selpa'i --=20 pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.