X-Digest-Num: 108
Message-ID: <44114.108.596.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 08:48:19 +0300
From: Robin Turner <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>
Subject: Re: introduction
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 596
Content-Length: 1371
Lines: 53

la maykl. cusku di'e

>
> Excellent! -with a few quibbles:
>
> "because of it's other benefits." shd be- "because of its other
> benefits."
>
> "how complicated and illogocal the grammar was " shd be
> "illogical"
>

Hmm - a bit embarrassing for an English teacher to be doing this!

>
> "To say la djim. du xlali would meaning something totally d
> ifferent" shd be- "du le (or lo)" & "mean"
>
> ""it is equally bad"),

According to Jorge, {du} can form a tanru with {xlali} to give that meaning
(which kind of surprised me, but makes sense).  However, it should of course
be "Jim [not it] should be equally bad."

> and even la djim. xlali" shd be- ""he
> is a bad one"" & "la djim. cu xlali"
>

I don't see where the "one" comes in here.

>
>  "le nu la djim. gasnu cu xlali " shd be- "lenu la djim. zukte
> cu xlali"
>

{le nu ko'a gasnu cu xlali} is from the gismu list for {xlali}, though
{zukte} would work just as well - without context there is no difference
between "do" and "act".  It is an English convention to use "do" with "bad"
in the practical sense, and "act" with "bad" in it's moral sense, but I'm
not sure if the distinction carries over that well into Lojban.

co'o mi'e robin. ___________________________________________________________

> Get Free Email

[and the Melissa virus]

> and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com