From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Jan 23 18:39:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 36262 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2005 02:39:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2005 02:39:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2005 02:39:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Csu82-0002YV-7W for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:38:58 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Csu7r-0002Y6-7b; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:38:47 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:38:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from phma.hn.org ([216.189.113.165] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Csu7g-0002X4-TU for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:38:37 -0800 Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9267A5EAA; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:38:04 +0000 (UTC) Organization: dis Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:38:03 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <20050124022526.GX2342@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20050124022526.GX2342@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200501232138.03723.phma@phma.hn.org> X-archive-position: 9325 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@phma.hn.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Pierre Abbat From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@phma.hn.org Subject: [lojban] Re: "But if that were true..." X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23706 On Sunday 23 January 2005 21:25, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > I found myself with: > > mi pacna lo nu na broda > > Where broda was very complicated, and wanting to say "but *if* it > were true, then". > > I used > > .i ku'i lo ja'a se go'i ja'a mukti ... > > But I'm pretty sure that doesn't "fix" the na in the previous > sentence. I'm quite sick right now, and too brain-dead to figure > this out on my own. Help? {lo ja'a se go'i} amounts to {lo nu na broda}, since {pacna} wasn't negated the {ja'a} has no effect. I would say {lo nu ja'a go'a}. {go'i} repeats {pacna}, and {go'e} whatever top-level bridi preceded that, so {broda}, being embedded, is fair game for {go'a}. phma -- .i le babzba ba zbasu lo jbazbabu lo babjba