From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Jun 11 11:48:50 2001
Return-Path: <raganok@intrex.net>
X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 18:48:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 47459 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 18:48:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 18:48:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 18:48:21 -0000
Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A276BD9B0076; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:48:22 -0400
Reply-To: <ragnarok@pobox.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Purpose of bridi
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:48:23 -0400
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFAENDCBAA.raganok@intrex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <32.1643102f.285669c3@aol.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-eGroups-From: "Craig" <raganok@intrex.net>
From: "Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7813

>{bengo} means Bengali -- {cnita}? {sisma} is {simsa} (welcome to the

I read the wrong lime of the second column in the gismu list - I do mean
cnita.

>independent-finger typing school). {simsa} is weaker that {dunli} or
{mintu}
>and I think the passage can take the stronger form. {gi'e} is for
brid-tails,

I was taking it as "they are similar" but knowing alchemical doctrine it
does need a stronger form. I didn't think of dunli, and I have never heard
of mintu before, but it does fit rather nicely.

>I think (though I am not sure what they are)  and this seems to connect
>complete bridi.  I am unsure how to use {nei} except in {nei jetfa} but I

nei = this bridi, it seemed to fit. But it makes me wonder - if I just say
.i nei haven't I just told you about an infinite string of .i's? or have I
not said anything?

>don't think it is actually in the preceding bridi -- so  you want an {.i}
>(which, in this context, you don't need at the beginning) and then {di'u}.
>The rest then says "this utterance planned that someone do the one and only
>thing-({dacni} > {dacti}) function (? {facnu} > {fancu})"  Minimally, I
>suspect that {pa} modifies {dacti} and is not the internal quantifier with
>{le}, so maybe {pa zei dacti} or {dacti pamei}.  And I think that {prupla}
is
>either the wrong brivla altogether or that you need a different choice of

My copy of the lujvo list says it means to intend or to purpose so nei
prupla would be 'this sentence has the purpose of'

>places to use, {di'u se prupla fi le nu...}?
>Good first shot in that it brings out nicely where the big problems are and
>gets some things tacked down.

Thanks.

Now as for the message that just showed up while I was typing this, you're
right Michael, it does need to be two sentences.
Thanks for all the input everyone!

                             --la kreig.daniyl

     'segu temci fa le bavli gi mi'o ba renvi lo purci
     .i ga la fonxa cu janbe gi du mi'
                     -la djimis.BYFet

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku cmesanji:  0x5C3A1E74