Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:60487)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNTPpI2KGxDp8PWABRoElIywag@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Sxk3s-0003lP-DH; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:31:03 -0700
Received: by yenq11 with SMTP id q11sf71313yen.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references
         :in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id: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-disposition;
        bh=N2K375ldF7OG//rIe6sU8qBBOyX/yPYNWC/T781hc+A=;
        b=U2GyFnugERBJmmKM/D3tjlypNhnsilk9RhSHwAL6EYxvsWpoRxS4eH30d/8INami+8
         3/J4RS3RQIoIxWXNgDdStWX+alzwtY3Pl97qLcMPKCTMYQwD/6PbiQMDtGNdi/laOZvH
         jEErDBilTxgOzZIiV+tUxYQjB9x3aBnmxQC4I=
Received: by 10.236.145.70 with SMTP id o46mr1200048yhj.1.1344108649558;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.121.203 with SMTP id r51ls10322686yhh.5.gmail; Sat, 04 Aug
 2012 12:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.189.105 with SMTP id b69mr3064146yhn.2.1344108648933;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.189.105 with SMTP id b69mr3064145yhn.2.1344108648923;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chausie (cpe-069-132-101-103.carolina.res.rr.com. [69.132.101.103])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id i27si3184390yhe.4.2012.08.04.12.30.47;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 69.132.101.103 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) client-ip=69.132.101.103;
Received: from ip6-localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5C6216CD
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat,  4 Aug 2012 15:30:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Ancient Greek, free word order and the same FA two
  times  in a bridi
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:30:43 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
References: <d31f9fdd-bfa0-4f98-ba41-77ed87af37a6@googlegroups.com> <501CCD85.9090902@gmail.com> <CAEimHHArGqziabsHa-vi_dGeFhtnStyQf6GovS6Frk=xWr1Vdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEimHHArGqziabsHa-vi_dGeFhtnStyQf6GovS6Frk=xWr1Vdg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <201208041530.45361.phma@phma.optus.nu>
X-Original-Sender: phma@phma.optus.nu
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 69.132.101.103 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
 domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) smtp.mail=phma@phma.optus.nu
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Saturday 04 August 2012 10:12:18 Luke Bergen wrote:
> This has come up a couple times before.
>
> I don't think it's a matter of "we need to figure out how to do this
> because other languages do it".  I think it's more so a matter of "the
> grammar allows this form (fe lo barda cu broda fe lo gerku), we should
> probably decide just what it means".

Maybe it's good to figure out what this construction means, but I don't think 
that, in general, it's wise to assign a meaning to every construction that 
the formal grammar allows. "mi te.u do du ra'o lo gerku pe naku" I consider 
to be ungrammatical on the second level, even though it is grammatical on the 
first (the formal grammar).

Pierre

-- 
loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

-- 
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.