From a.rosta@pmail.net Wed Jan  5 10:31:55 2000
X-Digest-Num: 330
Message-ID: <44114.330.1791.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:31:55 -0000
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>
Subject: RE: "what i have for dinner"
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1791

Kinin:
> «People used to use {jei} for "whether", until it was realized that if
> le jei da klama is TRUE, then you are claiming that ro da zo'u mi kucli
> TRUE -- which is not what you want to claim at all. li'osa'a»
>
> It is!? Let's break it down:
>
> le
> one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-as
>
> jei
> being-a-truth-value-of
>
> da klama
> X goes

Correct.

> I hate to cite references, but the exact same construct (in the same
> context) is used in example 11.7.6 of the Reference Grammar

This has come up on the list before, IIRC. I have a vague recollection that
it was acknowledged as an error, though not necessarily an error of the kind
that LLG is obliged to list as such. John?

> (ta'o, does this book have a Lojban name?)

{la codeksuoldemar}? {le lojbo zei cukta}?

--And.