From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Oct 01 06:33:40 2009
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1MtLmu-0006XZ-5s	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:33:40 -0700
Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121])	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <phma@phma.optus.nu>)	id 1MtLmq-0006WR-5M	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:33:39 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=0FQv6Q4hpH4A:10 a=u7fdNYU8lKhNtRH36JUA:9 a=0qrwnSwbf42pjy38xDsyJXfAaRgA:4 a=uHfC_tzBNz7IS5sF:21 a=4PQvwNL3u6gQDVNx:21
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-Originating-IP: 71.75.215.96
Received: from [71.75.215.96] ([71.75.215.96:63951] helo=chausie)	by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from <phma@phma.optus.nu>)	(ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP	id 0D/E8-10309-9AFA4CA4; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:33:29 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977F839DD	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Thu,  1 Oct 2009 09:33:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: How to reduce the amount of something?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:33:23 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
References: <16d9defd0909301348o30bb27d4x55540b2192f1eb7d@mail.gmail.com> <4AC3C59A.7040102@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AC3C59A.7040102@kli.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200910010933.25417.phma@phma.optus.nu>
X-archive-position: 16291
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Wednesday 30 September 2009 16:54:50 Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Someone remind me: is it not the case that you can't use {ni} (or any
> abstractor) for things like this, because {lo ni...} is equivalent to
> some *number* (and you can't reduce 41,291)?  I seem to recall that {ni}
> and {jei} had lost most of their utility due to this instantiation in
> extension, and that was why we had to bring in {kau}.

I don't see anything wrong with "ni" for this. lo ni broda is a number or 
amount, but it is not a fixed number, any more than lo se ki'ogra be mi, 
which has been at various times 36, 84, 55, and 63.

On Thursday 01 October 2009 01:19:29 chris kerr wrote:
> ki'e
>
> I noticed few things missing.  So along with those suggestions it would now
> be:
>
> .i ga'i djica lo nu ma'a nitcu lo za'i lo mergu'e ga mutce jdika lo ri ni
> ratske xarci gi mutce zenba jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci
>
> Is  that a pretty good translation?  Anyone else with input?

I suggest "lo mergu'e ke jonsi'u turni" instead of just "lo mergu'e", 
and "ratmidju xarci" instead of "ratske xarci". Do we have a word 
for "arsenal"? Who does "ma'a" refer to? I think "ni ri" is better than "ri 
ni": "lo ni ri te ke ratmidju xarci".

Pierre


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.