From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Jan 09 17:51:14 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:51:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41904.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.155]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Af8HM-00052l-SV for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:51:08 -0800 Message-ID: <20040110015037.69155.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.6.36] by web41904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:50:37 PST Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:50:37 -0800 (PST) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: On not using du for is To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <001001c3d71a$a47d4320$02e1fea9@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 6960 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- And Rosta wrote: > "ti du le mi patfu" is malglico only when the speaker intends the > meaning "ti patfu mi". When the speaker genuinely intends the > meaning "ti du le mi patfu", it is not malglico. The malgliconess > comes simply from meaning X but saying Y, because Y more closely > resembles the we X is expressed in English. Right. On the other hand, "ti du lo patfu be mi" is synonymous with "ti patfu mi", as far as I can tell. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus