From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 23:00:03 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:54:20 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8784; Sat, 19 Dec 92 20:53:45 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9096; Sat, 19 Dec 92 20:53:05 EST Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 12:53:12 EST Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: Latest version of my kafybarja story X-To: shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: ; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Dec 18, 92 1:52 pm Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Sun Dec 20 07:53:12 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: >.i lebi'u remna cu klama mo'ine'i ra >.i ko'a goi ra zutse ne'a lo jubme If the referent of this second {ra} is {lebi'u remna}, then the {ra} should be {ri}, as {rX} anaphora don't refer to other {rX} anaphora. >.i da poi prenu cu genai pinxe lei ckafi gi pencu le kabri gi'e >na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai glare Hm. Doesn't the {na} negate the whole clause? "It is not true that (she wants the coffee because it's not hot enough, quotha)". I'd go either {na'e} or {gi'enai} to clean up this one. (Bandaid solution, I know.) >mi lebna lei ckafi gi'e na'o denpa fu'i so'e mentu tezu'e lenu lei ckafi >cu glaryri'a le kabri kei fo lenu krefu dunda lei naldrata ckafi Strictly speaking, {tu'a le ckafi}, but I still think the omission of {tu'a} here acceptable, as communicative. ******************************************************************************* A freshman once observed to me: Nick Nicholas am I, of Melbourne, Oz. On the edge of the Rubicon, nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo) men don't go fishing. Account expires end of February 1993. - Alice Goodman, _Nixon In China_ Mail me! Mail me! Mail me! Or don't!!