Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1743 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO qh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.28) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 12795 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (152.163.225.7) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.11.3110cb6 (8329) for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11.3110cb6.263cc12c@aol.com> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:50:20 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku and najyzme To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2475 Content-Length: 895 Lines: 30 In a message dated 4/29/00 0:55:43 AM CST, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > How should I read the observatives (well, I don't suppose you can observe a > perfective)? za'a galfi le jufra (It seems to modify the sentence.)>> Makes sense, but not grammar: the preceding English is not a sumti (needs quotes or, better, a linguistic deixis, {de'u} say) And will {galfi} really work: the sentence is unchanged and the lojban phrase is hardly an agent? {ve skicu}? [Natural tight literalism in action] <> u'u .i mi dukse pensi loi nazbi .i mi pu'o ciksi zo nazyzme fo la'e lu kanba se cigla panci guzme li'u no'u la'e zoi gy. muskmelon .gy .i ma sinxa zoi gy. pumpkin.gy Is it time for the occasional worry about the lack of redundancy (= the packedness of some word spaces) in Lojban? pc