From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 06 17:01:25 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 May 2006 17:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcWhv-0001bv-Ud for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:01:08 -0700 Received: from web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.128]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcWhu-0001bm-TD for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:01:07 -0700 Received: (qmail 5990 invoked by uid 60001); 7 May 2006 00:01:05 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=SjtzU97GTiwbEFOIK0Tt0scbGyGFXd7Cd1JzRcNyCou8ToymwxObvUl5pC7i7CWFzmBM3PH0gUbAmfXuFJZBvyZj7+PrW0KGNLbC82CcnoLmr2faArkvYJ4NhPUZELdDw9HvYYVreu9BBMYMwBCZEe6A0RCn3g4sEuRPFbYXEFY= ; Message-ID: <20060507000105.5988.qmail@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:01:05 PDT Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 17:01:05 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: re prenu To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <873029224.20060507065011@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11417 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list At least officially, {re prenu} is equivalent to {re lo prenu} and {lo} is used for distrbutive predication. That is, each carries it separately. I think that that would be the answer on any of the suggested changes in these expressions, if for no other reason than that {re} distributes even the most collectivized sumti, taking them separately. --- Yanis Batura wrote: > And another question. > > {re prenu cu bevri lo pipno} > > Are these {re prenu} carrying the piano > together (as in {loi} or when using {joi}), or > this statement is true for both persons separately? To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.