Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:07:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712100107.UAA14875@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: logical gaffs X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 769 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 9 20:07:18 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Robin Turner writes: >mi'o gugde cu nitcu X (hope I've got the grammar right this time!) Close, but you need an article for gugde. {le mi'o gugde} or {lo mi'o = gugde} or ... >I would guess that a Lojban-speaker would automatically answer > >cu nitcu ko'a ma {cu} separates the selbri from prior sumti; if there are no prior sumti, = you don't need {cu}, and in fact, I think it's illegal. {nitcu ko'a = ma}, or {nitcu fi ma} or {ma te nitcu}. =20 >.. I would imagine this kind of thing [asking for filled-in places] = would >again be easier in Lojban. Why? We can ask "to what end?" in English just as easily as in Lojban, = can't we? You aren't the first person to make this observation, and I'm = curious about the reasoning behind it. co'o mi'e kris