From sentto-44114-1907-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Thu Feb 03 18:11:01 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 12751 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 18:10:59 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 18:10:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 2171 invoked by uid 40001); 3 Feb 2000 18:12:48 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 2168 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 18:12:47 -0000 Received: from hj.egroups.com (208.48.218.12) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 18:12:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1907-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2000 18:12:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 14597 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 18:12:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.10.37 with QMQP; 3 Feb 2000 18:12:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.19) by 10.1.10.27 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 18:12:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 47302 invoked by uid 0); 3 Feb 2000 18:12:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000203181241.47301.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 12.128.10.26 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Feb 2000 10:12:41 PST X-Originating-IP: [12.128.10.26] To: lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 10:12:41 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] 3 loafs Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Jorge Llambias" la ivAn cusku di'e > > >doesn't {co'unai} get the point across better? > > I think {co'unai} is not currently grammatical > > (though I think it should be). > >You mean {nai} can't be attached to everything in Lojban? I was surprized when I first noticed it, too. {nai} doesn't have the grammar of selma'o UI. >I did wonder if {za'o} could be used for a state holding >beyond a would-be {co'u} point, as opposed to a process >going on beyond its {mo'u} point. I think it makes sense. {za'o xagji} is grammatical, so that seems to be the likeliest meaning. After all, in general the would-be {co'u} point of a process is its {mo'u} point, so it is a valid generalization. > > >How do we say `one more' (English `another one') in Lojban? > > {lo drata}. > > You mean as a number? I don't know. >I mean that if the English sentence _He ate another loaf_ is >translated word-by-word into Bulgarian or German, it will come >across as putting undue emphasis on the fact that the second loaf >was different from the first one (as if it could have been the >same one). Maybe that's the difference between {drata} and {frica}. >The existence of {paunai} seems to imply that rhetorical >questions are not banished as a matter of principle, but >I still wouldn't use them for things that can be said in >more Lojbanic ways. > >{.i'enairo'e .i.u'acu'i mi citka le barda nanba}, perhaps? Sounds right. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com