From araizen@newmail.net Wed Sep 19 18:18:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 20 Sep 2001 01:18:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 2952 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2001 01:18:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 20 Sep 2001 01:18:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2001 01:18:37 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.180.149]) by out.newmail.net ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 03:56:57 +0200 Message-ID: <000201c14177$8864b6e0$95b4003e@oemcomputer> To: Cc: "Nick NICHOLAS" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 03:50:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10878 la nitcion. cusku di'e > But conversely: > > {li 25 ni glare vi la melbn.} More like: "li mo'e lo jackelvo be li remu cu ni glare bu'u la melbn." > 1) Say sentences where ni2 arises (as bound-ni) are wrong, and that you > shouldn't say {le pixra cu cenba le ni ce'u blanu [kei]} at all, but {le > pixra cu cenba leka leni ce'u blanu cu barda}; I think this is best: use a ka-abstraction for "bound-ni"; but what's wrong with just "le pixra cu cenba le ka ce'u blanu"? The ka here is just as bound as any other bound 'ka'; it is clear from the selbri that it's the amount of the picture being blue and not something else like its truth value. Likewise with 'zmadu' and all the others. I don't like the type coercion version. mu'o mi'e .adam.