From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat May 20 17:23:22 1995 Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 17:24:08 -0400 From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu To: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: mi pu cusku di'e > > > How does {co'a spoja fa lei betfu ba le lorpanzi} stack up? > ^^ should be {be} la goran. cusku di'e > > The mass of stomacks of the fox cub(s) begins to explode. = All the > > stomachs there are in one or more cubs I think about begin to explode, > > together. mi cusku di'e > I don't think that's quite right. Because of the {le lorpanzi}, each > of the referents of {lei betfu be le lorpanzi} is a mass of stomachs, > each belonging to just one fox cub. (Naturally, each mass of stomachs > will have only one stomach.) So this means just the same thing as > {co'a spoja fa le betfu be le lorpanzi}. I think. No, no, that's wrong, and Goran is right. {roloi broda} means the mass of all things that can fit in the first terbridi of {broda}. In this case, the selbri is {betfu be le lorpanzi}, and there are exactly five things that can fit in this place; {roloi betfu be le lorpanzi} (or {lei betfu be le lorpanzi}) would be the mass of all of them. Yes? (And yes, Jorge, I think {lei betfu be lei lorpanzi} is fine; I just like knowing different ways of saying things.) I can modify this to show what I was trying to say before (with "exactly one book on the table"): sentences with {.e} cannot always be expanded into a number of sentences connected with {.ije}. mu'o mi'e. dilyn.