Return-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0su3Z6-0000ZLC; Sat, 16 Sep 95 23:10 EET DST Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.12+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA02184 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 23:10:20 +0300 Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (MAILER@CUNYVMV2) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V5.0-3 #2494) id <01HVD0JBO8RK000H85@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> for veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 23:11:11 +0200 (EET) Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@CUNYVM) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0576; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 16:04:15 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 20:48:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: jvajvo query Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: ia@STRYX.DEMON.CO.UK Message-id: <01HVD0JBW80Y000H85@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 731 Lines: 19 In message <9509160408.aa28205@punt2.demon.co.uk> ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk writes: > QUESTION ONE > Can anyone recall the jvajvo recommendations for, say, > {koa troci/djica lo (dahi) nu koa te dunda koe}? Should it be > {koa troci zei te zei dunda koe} or {koa te zei dunda zei > troci koe}? The natural language pattern is generally the > latter (at least according to current theory). I don't remember specifically, but I tend to prefer the latter. > QUESTION TWO > How does one distinguish (tahi loe jvajvo) between > [[te zei broda] zei brode] versus [te zei [broda zei brode]]? {te zei ke zei (broda zei brode)} -- Iain Alexander ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk