Message-Id: <199501280015.AA03510@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Sat, 28 Jan 1995 00:24:38 MET
Reply-To: Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

> Goran:
> > > The claim is that most of the englishmen with a taste for w. acquire the
                        ^^^^
> > > taste, or that most instances of the taste of an englishman for w. are
> > > acquired. Is that precise enough? The translation originally appealed
> > > (though it has palled) because of the use of "*an* englishman": I
> > > wanted to see if it could somehow be translated by "lo gicnau".
> > so'e glipre cu pu'o ja noroi vusnei la .uiskis.
> > or, more precise, and using nice sexist zo'o word:
> > so'e gicnau cu pu'o jonai noroi vusnei la .uiskis.
>
> It appears to me that your versions are claims about most englishmen,
> whereas the claim I have described is not about most englishmen.

?!?!? .uanaicai zo'o Who is nuts here? You said in the previous post
that it's about most Englishmen. Now you say it's ba'e not about
most Englishmen. What is it all about? I'm about to shoot myself with
the grammar. About time. :)

> > sentence you just gave *can* collapse into
> > lo mamta be lo patfu be la .and. .e la xorxes.
>
> Are you sure? Wouldn't your version instead expand into {lo mamta be
> lo patfu be la and beho .e  lo patfu be la xorxes} (meaning A & X have
> the same grandmother)?

Yes, I think you're right here.

> ----
> And

--
Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get
e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi