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 m0qvNCW-00004yC; Thu, 13 Oct 94 12:15 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3020; Thu, 13 Oct 94 12:16:02 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3017; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:16:02 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6952; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 11:13:03 +0100 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 11:14:26 BST Reply-To: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: TECH: brivla sets with the same sumti To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1149 Lines: 37 > What is the simplest way to render into Lojban "Jack loves and admires > Jill", i.e. "X Y broda .i X Y brode"? (Not "Jack loves-cum-admires Jill" > - this is not what I mean, though if you wish to remind me of how that > is done, please do.) I believe the answer is 1) la djak. prami gi'e sinma vau la djil. This is certainly permitted, by rule: bridi-tail<50> = bridi-tail-1 [gihek [stag] KE # bridi-tail /KEhE#/ tail-terms] ... giving the parse: ({la djak} { gi'e <[la djil] VAU>}) This parse does not make it explicit that the effect of the 'vau' is to group the two selbri before attaching the remoi sumti, but I believe that is the case. Another solution: 2) la djak. la djil. prami gi'e sinma Note also that 3) la djak. prami je sinma la djil. is not the same as 4) la djak. prami jo'u sinma la djil. or 5) la djak. prami joi sinma la djil. It's not easy to grasp the difference among these - I would use '-cum-' for 4) or 5). I know you cannot formally export a 'je', but I would nevertheless tend to understand 3) as having very much the same meaning as 1) and 2). Colin Fine