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 m0ssaX9-0000ZLC; Tue, 12 Sep 95 21:58 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by segate.sunet.se (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id F0E36A2E ; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 20:58:14 +0200 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 12:58:45 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: afterthought conn within NU? X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199509121059.GAA16673@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Sep 11, 95 08:28:31 pm Content-Length: 861 Lines: 22 la .and. cusku di'e > [Y]ou 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. It's true. The afterthought bridi connectives are really afterthought >sentence< connectives, being grammatical variants of ".i", so they can't be used within embedded bridi. > 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). So it does, so it does. The real solution is to Plan Ahed. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.