Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sOkmG-0000YlC; Thu, 22 Jun 95 14:50 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 7EE7C56B ; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:35:25 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 07:34:30 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Another question about imperatives To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 698 Lines: 16 >From: Chris Bogart >Subject: Re: Another question about imperatives > >>I think the dates should be inside of the se bilga, because they give the >>time that the prescription should be made, not the time of the obligation. >>(Also, the connective should be {e} instead of {gi'e}.) > >I wasn't sure about that -- I thought .e connected two sumti within the >context of a particular place, rather than conjoining the places themselves. > I.e. you could say "ne'i le botpi .e le tanxe" for "in the bottle and also >in the box" but not "ne'i le botpi .e ne'i le tanxe". Or can you do both? The former parses correctly. The latter requires a termset construction. lojbab