Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f61.google.com ([209.85.215.61]:63840) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SxMud-0002VZ-RS; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:47:57 -0700 Received: by laai10 with SMTP id i10sf314752laa.16 for ; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:47:43 -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; bh=gxx8kLLALJYrlBRarPZDSWrlLxN07lbCpRnVAphrOsA=; b=jl/RVWBwda18vqhjpJzD9GPxC3uIMUD7sI1yPLKSFtMcoPU3b0N/glOVmfBHVjXUjO kabv0eBg8Wzirs+1rm9EuToeNCa48kY4f+P3uJC7iVuAmlNihboXfIOyp0vIND6KSJNv lrM3lqwxqbrrE7QdNkB3t1wMVcGF5O8nPEFxQ= Received: by 10.180.109.136 with SMTP id hs8mr819955wib.4.1344019663667; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.206.198 with SMTP id l48ls4288062weo.3.gmail; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.100.98 with SMTP id ex2mr427171wib.4.1344019662784; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.100.98 with SMTP id ex2mr427170wib.4.1344019662765; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net. [213.165.64.23]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id e5si4985915wiw.0.2012.08.03.11.47.42; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.23 as permitted sender) client-ip=213.165.64.23; Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Aug 2012 18:42:54 -0000 Received: from p57A09649.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.33]) [87.160.150.73] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 03 Aug 2012 20:42:54 +0200 X-Authenticated: #54293076 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18tm6Av5YEtcwMJfCTwntoFawz5tYNZHzeN2Kr0AN ilnk1yYLvcSqkT Message-ID: <501C1BAB.8050206@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:42:51 +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: <5016D944.6030405@gmx.de> <501C15B5.2090603@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 213.165.64.23 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000800080301080401070406" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000800080301080401070406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Am 03.08.2012 20:36, schrieb Michael Turniansky: > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM, selpa'i > wrote: > > Am 03.08.2012 18:13, schrieb Michael Turniansky: >> " ni'o la snime blabi cu ze'u ze'u cpana lo nenri be lo mrovau >> gi'e fusra na gi'e ja'a simlu lo ka sipna" >> >> 1) "ze'u ze'u" is not recognized by genrei or jobski. If it is >> in fact not permissible, might I suggest "ba'e ze'u"? > > Any combination of TAGs is fine. Anything else would be madness. > Still, I changed it to "ze'u sai". > > > If you want to use it as a tag, then instead of "....cu ze'u ze'u > cpana..." use "....ze'u cu ze'u cpana" or "ze'u ku ze'u cpana..." > The problem you are encountering is that within the selbri (to the > right of the cu) it's NOT a tag, but a subsidiary tense. In my opinion, there is no (semantical) difference between sumtcita and selbri tcita. TAG broda = TAG zo'e broda = TAG ku broda. The placement of cu is purely a grammatical thing, it has no bearing on meaning. It just so happens that non-filled TAGs right before the selbri get merged with them to allow things like lo TAG broda etc. >> >> 2) You got tripped up here due to the default grouping of >> multiple logical connectives. This says that she was "not (both >> lying a long time in the coffin and decaying) but seemed to be >> sleeping" In other words, she either was not lying a long time >> in the coffin, or not decaying, or perhaps both. Not what you >> wanted. Stick a "bo" after the second gi'e to solve that. > > That's one way. I just moved the na in front of fusra instead. > > > That works, too. (No comments on my other emails?) I don't want to comment on every single one with the same single line every time: "Thanks, I corrected it" :) I do read all of them. When I don't agree with something, I comment on it. mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --------------000800080301080401070406 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Am 03.08.2012 20:36, schrieb Michael Turniansky:


On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 03.08.2012 18:13, schrieb Michael Turniansky:
" ni'o la snime blabi cu ze'u ze'u cpana lo nenri be lo mrovau gi'e fusra na gi'e ja'a simlu lo ka sipna"

  1)  "ze'u ze'u" is not recognized by genrei or jobski.  If it is in fact not permissible, might I suggest "ba'e ze'u"?

Any combination of TAGs is fine. Anything else would be madness. Still, I changed it to "ze'u sai".

   If you want to use it as a tag, then instead of "....cu ze'u ze'u  cpana..." use "....ze'u cu ze'u cpana"  or "ze'u ku ze'u cpana..." The problem you are encountering is that within the selbri (to the right of the cu) it's NOT a tag, but a subsidiary tense.

In my opinion, there is no (semantical) difference between sumtcita and selbri tcita.
TAG broda = TAG zo'e broda = TAG ku broda.
The placement of cu is purely a grammatical thing, it has no bearing on meaning. It just so happens that non-filled TAGs right before the selbri get merged with them to allow things like lo TAG broda etc.

  

  2)  You got tripped up here due to the default grouping of multiple logical connectives.  This says that she was "not (both lying a long time in the coffin and decaying) but seemed to be sleeping"  In other words, she either was not lying a long time in the coffin, or not decaying, or perhaps both.  Not what you wanted. Stick a "bo" after the second gi'e to solve that.

That's one way. I just moved the na in front of fusra instead.


  That works, too.  (No comments on my other emails?)

I don't want to comment on every single one with the same single line every time: "Thanks, I corrected it" :) I do read all of them. When I don't agree with something, I comment on it.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--------------000800080301080401070406--