From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 22 23:29:24 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3552 ; Thu, 22 Jun 95 23:29:22 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jun 95 11:35:44 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa03063; 22 Jun 95 12:35 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6517; Thu, 22 Jun 95 07:33:35 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9359; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 07:33:32 -0400 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 X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506221235.aa03063@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >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