From sentto-44114-1912-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Thu Feb 03 22:09:44 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 13071 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 22:09:41 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 22:09:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 23155 invoked by uid 40001); 3 Feb 2000 22:11:30 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 23152 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 22:11:28 -0000 Received: from ch.egroups.com (208.48.218.21) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 22:11:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1912-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.39] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2000 22:11:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 18998 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 22:11:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.39 with QMQP; 3 Feb 2000 22:11:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.93) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 22:11:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 58875 invoked by uid 0); 3 Feb 2000 22:11:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000203221117.58874.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.38 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Feb 2000 14:11:17 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.38] 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 14:11:17 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] re: 3 loaves Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Jorge Llambias" la maikl cusku di'e >1. English "A (certain)..." = lebi'u Yes, I think that is what {bi'u} was invented for. >2. "another (=one more)": how about "za'u"? or "ny.su'ipa"? No, {za'u} is "more than one", or "more than x", but something like {za'u nanba} refers to each of those more than one loaves of bread, not to the more-than-one-th loaf that we want to talk about now, i.e. not the next one after all those we have talked about already. Same with n+1, with the additional complication that {nysu'ipa} by itself cannot be used as a quantifier. >3. so we can't negate ZA'O cmavo using "nabo"?? I was wrong about ZAhOnai, it is grammatical! I just checked with the Book. It used to be ungrammatical but it has been fixed. It is still the case however that {nai} is more restricted than UI. I don't understand how you mean to use {nabo}. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Finding a sweetheart is hard work. Shopping for one shouldn't be. Click here for Valentine Surprises. Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com