From pycyn@aol.com Wed Apr 03 18:01:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 02:01:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 82345 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 02:01:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 02:01:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 02:01:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.187.5f8e822 (25715) for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:01:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:01:46 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13910 --part1_187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/2002 4:31:22 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > le te bilma be la fred le te bilma be la djordj. cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau > le bilma be le nei > > or > > le nu la fred bilma kei le nu la djordj. bilma cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau > le > se nunbilma be le nei > Can a disease really gasnu anything? It doesn't seem to be a person or agent. Nor does an event. I think we have to stick with {rinka/ri'a} Does {le nei} get the right thing either time? In the first it seems to be the disease but comes out as a symptom -- unless it is theill person himself as a symptom or the cause of the weakness as a symptom (exactly which predication counts as the current one is obscure, but none of them seem to work). Much the same problems occur in the second case, though the choice of corect readings is somewhat harder to spell out in English, except as possibly superfluous. --part1_187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/2002 4:31:22 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:


le te bilma be la fred le te bilma be la djordj. cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau
le bilma be le nei

or

le nu la fred bilma kei le nu la djordj. bilma cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau le
se nunbilma be le nei


Can a disease really gasnu anything?  It doesn't seem to be a person or agent.  Nor does an event.  I think we have to stick with {rinka/ri'a}

Does {le nei} get the right thing either time?  In the first it seems to be the disease but comes out as a symptom -- unless it is theill person himself as a symptom or the cause of the weakness as a symptom (exactly which predication counts as the current one is obscure, but none of them seem to work).  Much the same problems occur in the second case, though the choice of corect readings is somewhat harder to spell out in English, except as possibly superfluous. --part1_187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a_boundary--