From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Thu Aug 20 11:53:05 1992 Return-Path: Date: Thu Aug 20 11:53:05 1992 Message-Id: <9208201356.AA13511@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le la kaleval. jbofitpla X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:07:51 +1000 Status: RO >Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:07:51 +1000 >From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Subject: le la kalevalas. jbofitpla ^^ Tell me, Nick, you do this just to see if I'm still reading? :-) >Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:57:17 -0400 >From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >Subject: lemi malfri >>I think {ca le pasobinomei nanca} would work better: the year you describe >>(by Western conventions) to be the 1980th. >You mean {le pasobinomoi nanca}, which happens to match the Russian standard >(actually, the Russian standard is {le binomoi nanca}, but that's not very >Lojbanic.) The Lojban standard until now has been {la pasobinonan.} (nan for >nanca). Yeah, I realized that afterwords. {moi}, not {mei}. I personally prefer the tanru form to the cmene form, so I think it shouldn't be discouraged (I'll trade you: I won't discourage the cmene form). >Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:39:24 -0400 >Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" >>ni'ota'o doi nitcion. pau do snada xu te mrilu lemi kardu la .iisra'EL.? >.i go'icai doi mark. i mi mo'u te mrilu le kardu cazi le djedi poi do di'a >cmima le mriste ca ke'a .i mi pu plagau fo lenu frati ckire do .iku'i.u'u >leni mi cutyzu'e cu dukse fi lenu mi snada go'i .i le karda cu li'a mutce >pluka mi gi'e jibni le karda poi mi te mrilu fi la .iVAN. la lndn. ku'o... >fizo'ezo'o no'uzo'onai tu'a le kajna po mi I understood the words but not the meaning of that last bit. "and [it's] near the cards which I was mailed by Ivan from London on something (humor) which is (no humor) something-to-do-with my shelf." What's the deal with the "fizo'ezo'ono'uzo'onai"? ~mark