From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Oct 03 07:21:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 14:19:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 51251 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 14:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 14:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 14:21:12 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:58:28 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:30:27 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:30:07 +0100 To: "jay.kominek" , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Reading lojban textbook Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11307 >>> Jay Kominek 10/02/01 06:10pm >>> #On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Alex Gontmakher wrote: #> In Lesson 04: #> #> .i ma cu sumti zo klama #> #> shouldn't it be: #> #> .i zo klama sumti ma # #Without looking at the context, I can tell you that the word "klama" isn't #a sumti, so "zo klama sumti" is going to be wrong. # #"klama" is however, a brivla, so "sumti zo klama" makes sense. I see nothing wrong with "zo klama sumti ma": although "klama" is not a valid sumti, "zo klama" is. It might, for example be a sumti of brivla "melbi", say. "ma cu sumti zo klama" is also okay, though. "What is sumti of the predicate-word 'klama' [e.g. in the sentence "la djan klama"]?" Answer =3D "lu la djan li'u" (or whatever the appropriate quote cmavo are). --And.