From phma@ixazon.dynip.com Fri Jun 13 09:59:27 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19QrtP-0001Nb-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:59:11 -0700
Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 696DB44F6; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:58:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
Organization: dis
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Userfriendly Translation
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:58:37 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <20030613144334.75236.qmail@web40409.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030613144334.75236.qmail@web40409.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200306131258.37795.phma@webjockey.net>
X-archive-position: 5659
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Friday 13 June 2003 10:43, Eric Sumner wrote:
> As Gregory has already guessed in the other reply, the reason I put the
> {da'i} into the sentence was to remove the assertion that Martha is going
> to jail.  Is this incorrect usage?  If it is incorrect, is there a similar
> form that conveys this?

I'd put {da'i} after {klama}. After {iipei}, it appears to modify {pei}, and 
as {dai} is commonly used after attitudinals, it's easy to think that you 
meant {dai}.

phma