From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Thu Jan 16 17:20:42 1992
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Message-Id: <9201161931.AA10157@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Thu, 16 Jan 1992 18:17:22 +1100
Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn
Subject:      Re: lemi mela .AIsopos
X-To:         C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Wed, 08 Jan 92 18:15:38 GMT."
Status: RO

>coi doi nik. .i .a'o ko lifri le ca'o selgleki nanca

ki'esai.e'o do ca'a go'i

Thanks for your instructive comments - where have you been all my life? :)
Any chance you'll comment on my "wallops"? Of *course* I'll get to your
song eventually :)

>> You're right on {lei manti}; in {loi vanyjba}, I was trying to say that the
>> grapes themselves were considered as a mass (a bunch).
>That seems to me confusion about 'mass'. If I have it right, 'loi'
>doesn't mean 'a mass of' but '(a part of) the mass of' - i.e.
>non-specificity. If he is hungry for grapes, 'loi vanyjba' is
>appropriate, but these were particular grapes.

Would {lei vanyjba} better convey my intent?

>Now I've got the cmavo list, I'm not happy about ka'e for that anyway.
>Isn't it  nu'o - or am I reading 'innately' too restrictively?

Innately is ka'e. Ain't that what's required here?

ki'emi'e nitcion.