Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931015021938.320@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 1993 21:18:54 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: vilva
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TEXT: nu la nunmorsi catlu
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  <199310150109.AA16678@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU> from "Nick Nicholas"
              at Oct 15, 93 11:09:43 am
Content-Length: 889
Lines: 29

mi'e .djan. .i la nitcion. cusku di'e

> #                .ije la nunmorsi terbandu catlu mi
>
> la nunmorsi cu terbandu catlu, I believe.

Right.

> #                .i mi pacna le nu mi darno gi'e zvati la .isfaxan li'u
>
> Hm. Shouldn't that properly be {djica}?

"pacna" and "djica" are pretty similar: one has a probability, the other has
a purpose in x3, but both mean "x1 desires that event x2 come to pass".
Actually, "a'o mi darno ..." would be less heavyweight, and I may adopt it.

> #                .i mu'i tu'e
>
> Instead of .imu'ibotu'e... does this parse right? I mean, with the right
> constituent structure? I guess it does, since you used it :)

Yup.  You are explicitly allowed to put either a <tag> or a prenex before
a "tu'e...tu'u" structure.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.