Message-Id: <199412162204.AA29256@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Fri, 16 Dec 1994 19:36:18 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: TEXT: advert
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Thu, 15 Dec 94 17:36:55 EST.)
Status: RO

Xorxe:
> > [This is a version of a text from an advertisement.]
> I couldn't even guess what you meant.
I didn't want it to be guessable, only interpretable (which it
evidently isn't).

> > Suho buha cei ka da kau vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe
> > zohu
> The prenex is grammatical:
>  There is at least one predicate bu'a = "is the property
>  of who likes whisky", such that:

Why not "is the property of being a liker of whisky"? That's
what I wanted. [You would want "ka keha vusnei", but this
isn't official, is it?]

> > naho ku ge loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu gi
> > lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda
> This part is not grammatical.

I want:
    naho ku loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu
    .i naho ku lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda

I thought NU is a selbri that optionally takes a bridi as its
complement. Here I meant puhu to be a selbri without a bridi
complement. If that's ungrammatical, then I guess I'd want

    naho ku puhu buha be lo gligicnau

> From the prenex bu'a doesn't have an x2

If buha = ka ... kei, shouldn't x2 be the possessor of the property?
"Lo se ka"?

I will post the original text in due course, but I would like to see
if I can get across its meaning independently.

---
And