Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qMqky-000021C; Sun, 10 Jul 94 07:44 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2179; Sun, 10 Jul 94 07:43:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2175; Sun, 10 Jul 1994 07:43:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9970; Sun, 10 Jul 1994 06:42:57 +0200 Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:44:24 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: a simple question... X-To: wallace@MATH.BERKELEY.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 694 Lines: 18 If you want the two predications to be truly 'equal' in importance, you need two sentences. le plise cu cpana le tanxe .ije ri cu cpana le karce or perhaps better le plise cu cpana le tanxe .ije lenu go'i cu cpana le karce (The apple is on the box, and this event/state takes place on the car.) But most people would use a relative clause: le plise cu cpana le tanxe noi [] cpana le karce The apple is on the box, which incidentally is on the car. The [] can be null-ellipsis, ke'a (the relative pronoun), or "le tanxe" (explicit). It should not be "ri" which goes to the last COMPLETE sumti and le tanxe is not complete till the relative clause ends, so "ri" refers to "le plise". lojbab