Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:16:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711151616.LAA12873@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: `at least one ' vrs `one or more' X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1368 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 15 11:16:14 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU la erik cusku di'e >>The best way to get confirmation that it got through is to include >>in your mail something really controversial so that someone >>will respond. > >zu'o go'i cu nu mi do'o xlura le za'i fengu >That activity (the previous selbri) is an event of me luring you all >into an state anger. >That's trolling. :) > >Dare I ask if that was grammatical? Almost. You're missing a {le} or some other gadri at the start of the sentence. As a matter of style, I prefer to use {nu} rather than {zu'o} or {za'i}, because I feel that these don't add anything to the meaning of the sentence and they just complicate it, so I would suggest: {le nu go'i cu nu mi do'o xlura le nu fengu}. But this is strictly style, and just my personal peeve. Others may and certainly do opine differently. Another point is that if And is right about nu's being things that happen only, then the x3 of xlura should not take a nu (or any of its subsidiaries). I think the x3 should be the property {ka} into which x2 is lured. Finally, why is {le nu go'i} a {nu xlura} rather than a {ve xlura}? So I would say: {le nu do setca lo se darlu le do selmri cu ve xlura mi'o le ka fengu} = "Your including something controversial in your mail is to lure us into anger." (Personally, I'm not usually lured into anger by controversies, though. I rather enjoy them. :) co'o mi'e xorxes