From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LISTSERV Fri Feb 21 19:32:18 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Fri, 21 Feb 92 19:31 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA09702; Fri, 21 Feb 92 13:15:10 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA11403; Fri, 21 Feb 92 12:52:39 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA10739; Fri, 21 Feb 92 12:52:47 EST Message-Id: <9202211752.AA10739@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 5697; Fri, 21 Feb 92 12:51:30 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7091; Fri, 21 Feb 92 12:51:24 EST Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 12:51:23 -0500 From: Revised List Processor (1.7b) Subject: Delivery error notice sent to list LOJBAN To: COWAN@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM, LOJBAB@GREBYN.COM Status: RO The enclosed mail file, found in the LOJBAN reader and shown under the spoolid 1532 in the console log, has been identified as a possible delivery error notice for the following reason: mail subject indicates a delivery problem. ------------------------- Message in error (49 lines) ------------------------- Received: from CUVMB by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7089; Fri, 21 Feb 92 12:50:40 EST Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 12:50:37 EST From: SMTP@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: LOJBAN@CUVMA.BITNET Subject: Undeliverable Mail CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU unable to deliver following mail to recipient(s): CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU unable to connect for 3 days to host: 137.39.1.2 ** Text of Mail follows ** Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 0502; Tue, 18 Feb 92 12:47:59 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7670; Tue, 18 Feb 92 12:47:27 EST Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 12:47:31 EST Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: lojbab comments X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: "F. Schulz"'s message of Sun, 16 Feb 1992 20:39:24 -0800 Frank has trouble with Lojbab's: .i mi ba tcidu le do mulno ke lojbo se cusku .o'acai I will read the you complete lojban is-expressed and asks: >Sentence (3) is tough. Why is "do" after the "le"? I expect >a bridi here. Woops, "do" must attach to the whole "le" construct, >ok. A complex 3 term tanru at the end. The last two terms group. >The thing which is expressed, lojbanically expressed. What does >"complete" mean here? lojbab was using the "forethought possessive form." It seems you're allowed to stick a sumti in after the "le" of another sumti to indicate restrictive association, like {pe}. In other words, {le mi cukta} is equivalent to {le cukta pe mi} which is, loosely, "my book" (or "the my book", if you follow). This is *not* a tanru, though it almost looks like one. Bear in mind that "mi" is not a brivla. So {le do mulno ke lojbo se cusku} is "the your complete kind-of lojbanic thing-expressed", or "your complete lojban expression", or, expanding the tanru and all, "the complete thing you said in Lojban." ~mark