From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:50:30 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 11182 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1997 17:16:28 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 4 Mar 1997 17:16:28 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.A40CBEF2@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:16:27 +0100
Date:         Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:02:56 -0600
Reply-To:     mark.vines@wholefoods.com
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Mark Vines <vinesm@WHOLEFOODS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Some how-do-you-says
To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
Content-Length: 789
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <SScKw_jA4kH.A.OiH.2y0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

coidoi lobypli

la xorxes. spuda mi di'e

> > Because I'm only a beginner, my suggestions
> > may be less than reliable, but I have a
> > suggestion regarding 2a ... & that is to use
> > {vrici}:
> >
> > 2a  le vrici mamta be la xorxes. je la .and.
> > ...
> > If my suggestion is incorrect or suboptimal,
> > I hope someone will say so.
>
> I don't think that works. In 2a you're describing
> each of the things as being vrici mamta of both
> Jorge and And.

Okay, but what is responsible for this unintended
result?  I assume that {vrici}, altho perhaps
unhelpful, is not the problem.  I assume that {le}
should be {lei} or {loi}.  What else needs to be
changed in order to produce the intended result?
Should I have used a conjunction other than {je}?
If so, which one?

co'omi'e markl