From sentto-44114-2408-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun Apr 16 20:44:54 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 21712 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2000 20:44:53 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2000 20:44:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 929 invoked by uid 40001); 16 Apr 2000 21:46:12 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 926 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2000 21:46:06 -0000 Received: from ck.egroups.com (208.50.144.69) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2000 21:46:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2408-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Apr 2000 21:46:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 20429 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2000 21:46:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Apr 2000 21:46:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO latimer.mail.easynet.net) (195.40.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2000 21:46:03 -0000 Received: from rrbcurnow.freeuk.com (tnt-18-114.easynet.co.uk [212.134.224.114]) by latimer.mail.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5272D53CE9 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:46:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=richard) by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 12gwGM-00003a-00 for lojban@onelist.com; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:07:26 +0100 To: Lojban List In-Reply-To: <20000415185630.79089.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:07:26 +0100 (BST) X-eGroups-From: Richard Curnow From: Richard Curnow Reply-To: "Richard P. Curnow" Subject: Re: [lojban] Interaction of SE and NAhE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit de'i li 15:4 vecu'u le notci neme'e la'o xy. <20000415185630.79089.qmail@hotmail.com> xy. la'o xy. Jorge Llambias xy. pu ciska di'e la jbomriste : (On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Jorge Llambias wrote): > > la ritcyd cusku di'e > > >mi na'e se klama > >(I am other than a destination) > > > >mi se na'e klama > >(I am the destination of other than a go-er) > > I don't think there is any difference between those > two, because {na'e} applies to the selbri, not only > to the first argument. {klama} and {se klama} > represent the same relationship, and {na'e} is the > negation of that relationship . OK, what Jorge is saying is that NAhE and SE can be arbitrarily flowed across one another. This makes the whole thing much simpler than what I had in mind, so I agree the rest of my original argument is wrong. [I think the effect I was describing before is what is achieved with NAhE BO in front of the sumti which is negated in the relationship.] co'o mi'e ritcyd. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard P. Curnow rpc@myself.com Weston-super-Mare Network time sync for Linux/Solaris/Dial-up at United Kingdom http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/chrony/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now the best and coolest websites come right to you based on your unique interests. eTour.com is surfing without searching. And, it's FREE! http://click.egroups.com/1/3013/2/_/17627/_/955921565/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com