From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Nov 13 18:52:25 1995 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id SAA18582 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:52:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199511132352.SAA18582@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id C9CF9D59 ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:43:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:29:12 GMT Reply-To: ia@stryx.demon.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: all the chinese whispers To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR In message <9511121416.aa29880@punt-4.mail.demon.net> ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK writes: > Iain: > > > > > 6. Iain: > > ... > > > > > .i mi certu le nu troci lenu jai zdile lo'e prenu poi gasnu da > > > > I didn't understand the {jai} there. > > > Nor me. Baffling. > > Well, my gimste says the x1 of {zdile} is an event: > > zdile zdi amusing 'amused' > > x1 (abstract) is amusing/entertaining to x2 in property/aspect x3; > > so I was just being pedantic zo'o. > > Are you sure you mean {jai}? It ought to be followed by a sumtcita > (I think). Naked {jai} was introduced a long time ago as a sort of inverse of {tu'a}. x1 jai broda x2 x3 ... tu'a x1 broda x2 x3 ... but there's also an extra {fai} place for the original event in broda's x1. x1 jai broda x2 x3 ... fai xf xf po'u lenu x1 co'e cu broda x2 x3 ... ki'ape'i co'o mi'e .i,n. -- Iain Alexander ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk