From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Thu Oct 21 05:34:26 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CKc8o-0001Cb-0N for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:34:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20041021122647.13856.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:26:47 PDT Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:26:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: jordis To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20041021004802.GA6493@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8823 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Martin Bays wrote: > Does that leave any way to emphasize constructs? A {ba'e} before each word > would be both cumbersome and inaccurate ("*my* *wife*" and "*my wife*" are > different both in pronunciation and meaning). The only option I can see is to > co-opt {fu'e} - am I missing something less kludgey? I suppose {fu'e} would be the best way to do it. (We then lose the possibility of emphasizing {fu'e} itself, but that doesn't seem to be too big a loss.) That allows to differentiate things like "*buying shoes*" from "*buying* shoes" and "buying *shoes*", which you can't do with a simple {ba'e} either. mu'o mi'e xorxes _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com