From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Oct 14 13:38:59 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 14 Oct 2000 20:38:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 1302 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2000 20:38:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Oct 2000 20:38:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Oct 2000 20:38:58 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.2.56] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Oct 2000 20:38:57 -0000
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 20:38:50 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: na nei
Message-ID: <8sag8q+g28n@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <F283PiGuOdN66kAX6Ir00002802@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 592
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4563

--- In lojban@egroups.com, "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:

> > > > I can't think of any context where {nei} would be useful.
> >
> The problem I have with it is that it
> is incurably recursive, if taken at all seriously.

Maybe with stuff like this:

.i la .iaxvE. pu cusku di'e 
mi ka nei (mi me lo ka nei/mi me ro ka nei)

or:

lo rozgu cu pu'u nei

or

mi djuno le nu na nei

It's infact "incurable recursive" (most probably causing a computer
program to crash). I'm not sure with my examples, how much 
of the "outer" bridi's semantics is repeated ;-)

.aulun.