From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Feb 06 04:54:23 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LVQDv-0004Zb-Gn for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:54:23 -0800 Received: from mail-qy0-f20.google.com ([209.85.221.20]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LVQDq-0004YT-8Y for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:54:23 -0800 Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so1385588qyk.10 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:54:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kNWiTH81qB8Q5TUhubeIvX9QGPjwJaSzUdnqd0cjmx4=; b=ido9Q4oNvtw27+ZdORLlHGLkef6Gckz11I1FePV2jNwWJI4OJVTdQKXzmA++O3CZN7 IoZzGOShLUpI7MXZ0Yr7rTRnucW/Ugybwoo7x65y5w3Qz+d5r+c45niLj9FtEX2d+CmR koU3MJaAGXMG/sWLGn11a7STV47jOo8hn0fVM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qiBFm7x6mP5PWyMkZBtjC2mSuSTTWFkkQw4NR7oAQ/pimoNPGHUtNApzdP7VkXirea ZOA+Ajhs1LSyH0V4kSn2zbEITbGf8/8FzAaqmYWg8GMPFbE7h1x4RhtJPNRaMwtcmloQ Hqit9WjtJESwrlvZyciZ8YYhdnB3Bc6SCvjZ8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.97.202 with SMTP id m10mr522143qcn.77.1233924850254; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:54:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7f55268a0902042231wdcbb933nc9526ff4cb390fd7@mail.gmail.com> References: <7f55268a0902042231wdcbb933nc9526ff4cb390fd7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:54:10 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560902060454u7abeea8dubb50643d08470c62@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Missing out obvious words From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15259 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Christopher Done wrote: > > So proceeding with the knowledge that many bridi-less answers are allowed, > presumably because they are so obvious, it seems an interesting idea that > questions can be bridi-less, when obvious, as above. I would call such fragmentary sentences "implicit-selbri", rather than "bridi-less". They can always be completed with "co'e" to get a formally complete bridi. > I haven't discovered anything in the CLL about bridi-less questions, this is > why I'm asking here. > > Thoughts? As long as they are understood, I don't see any problem with them. A truly bridi-less question is something like "ui pei". mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.