Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu (uga.cc.uga.edu [128.192.1.5]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id GAA16673 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 06:59:33 -0400 Message-Id: <199509121059.GAA16673@locke.ccil.org> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 0501; Tue, 12 Sep 95 06:45:18 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3340; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 06:45:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 20:28:31 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: afterthought conn within NU? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Tue Sep 12 06:59:35 1995 X-From-Space-Address: <@uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> While listening to the Nicholas Tapes (just got to Goran singing the Lojbo-Croat anthem amidst a drunken revel), among much fascinating stuff I came across Nik telling Ivan that you can't do afterthought bridi connectives within a NU clause. Is this true? I certainly don't know how to do it, but I'd always assumed that that was because I don't know how to do most things Lojban is capable of. Nik says to Ivan that the solution is to insert a {kei} plus sumti conn (i.e., I presume, {le nu .... kei e le nu...}) but that quite obviously distorts the semantics (so much so that I conclude I misunderstood the discussion due to poor audio quality). --- And