From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 18 14:23:35 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:23:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLlEV-0000VM-EZ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:23:35 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f187.google.com ([209.85.211.187]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLlEC-0008PW-4f for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:23:19 -0800 Received: by ywh17 with SMTP id 17so4318661ywh.2 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:23:10 -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=Lfz5NCsk9tS+FOy4wOWFK3KHGZGL+M95191QvCpde1s=; b=X/cDeNwe8kY82D3JxToR56LOyTjcUDmLqZ7H0Zc/ivRxgOIe13W7twDsENlccRtqAs G4s6v7RE4AK9+1R4r5TGbpM7qpnDQs3KuKE/MRsm1FKxog3ye9UdMp6YGO1KefXmB5ms g8SCdds/docg8bVB8ZqNXTXl+pBbjdYa3HfHA= 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=veN6Rc8YPVoqootgGlpomz5cggRwct7/aYmf0sZS8bqYgheFUYQTV1XIiPNsT1Vmme +8vumfxzcqJPdK8A4szk36GyHK+v0CADFfosM5MWE+OHaiYori9qSdffQ03yzV9ua3UD ZUMnt4y1pKPOqNllET+sxXDUDBt3y1aOVDwaM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.18.39 with SMTP id v39mr4894117agi.66.1261174989516; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:23:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5715b9300912181403w564ec927xa5eef2755878dcb4@mail.gmail.com> References: <8a20e9f70912181024t29e56190u762c85c8373e0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560912181211o485199adj246be26f7ce5e368@mail.gmail.com> <8a20e9f70912181227j40b5b65didcef9b757ce87df0@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560912181357y2ba48da3rf9190d51c3ed9690@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9300912181403w564ec927xa5eef2755878dcb4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:23:09 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560912181423l10e3a509m528c603a93c9c654@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: The New Method From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 16706 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 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > What do you mean "we don't need it"?  How else would you say {mi klama be lo > zarci be'o djica fi lo nu cpacu lo nanba}?  Here is a selbri which is a > tanru made up of two gismu each of which need stuff put into their x2 place. >  How can that be done without {be}? IF "ku" were not elidable, then we would not need the be-bei-be'o construction. In that case, we would say: "mi klama lo zarci ku djica" and "lo zarci ku" would fill the x2 of klama without any need for "be", and "klama lo zarci ku" would form a tanru with "djica". That's not grammatical with the current grammar, but the reason is so "ku" is elidable most of the time. 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.