From phma@webjockey.net Thu Jul 17 15:47:48 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 6088 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2003 22:47:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Jul 2003 22:47:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2003 22:47:48 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19dHXP-00063i-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:47:47 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dHWz-00062x-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:47:21 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dHWn-000628-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:47:09 -0700 Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CE2AD2C01; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Organization: dis To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Some questions Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:46:26 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <20030717164534.K65753-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> In-Reply-To: <20030717164534.K65753-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307171846.27188.phma@webjockey.net> X-archive-position: 5905 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20388 On Thursday 17 July 2003 16:46, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Robin Turner wrote: > > Rob Speer wrote: > > >>3) Is something like "fa mi fa do broda" grammatical? What would that > > >> mean? > > > > > > It's certainly grammatical. It's also been given a meaning - the same > > > as "mi e do broda". > > > > True - the first "fa" is not necessary, though. The same can be done > > with any place e.g. "mi klama la paris. fe la .istanbul." But why use > > FA when you can use ".e"? > > Somehow I think ".e" is not the most useful interpretation that could be > given such overloading. I think that the construction is grammatical but does not have a clear meaning, like "pa pi pai". If someone says something like that to me, I might try to glork what he is trying to say. phma -- .i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do .ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga .icu'u la ma'atman.