From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Aug 11 06:38:30 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GBXDE-0005YW-8o for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:38:08 -0700 Received: from pi.meson.org ([66.134.26.207]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GBXDB-0005YG-8b for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:38:07 -0700 Received: (qmail 3372 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2006 13:38:00 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 11 Aug 2006 13:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <44DC8837.7080607@kli.org> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:37:59 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: catni - 4 References: <2d3df92a0608110546j7b976a71p6279aa13469b969@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2d3df92a0608110546j7b976a71p6279aa13469b969@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 12414 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list I don't think Yanis made the mistakes you saw... HeliodoR wrote: > doi daVID. mi na tolcertu be la lojban. > > > "mi na tolcertu la lojban." It is also perfectly correct to say {tolcertu be la lojban}. Semantically, in a construction like that, there's no difference between the forms. The {be} binds the second sumti more tightly to the selbri, making it actually part of the selbri, but since there's nothing after it, the changed precedences don't matter. > > .i lo du'u do ka'e fanva so'a da la lojban. cu xamgu > > > "lo nu do [...]" Maybe {nu} would be better; the distinctions among the abstractors can be hard to pin down. > > .i ni'i lo go'i do ka'e la'a fanva zoi gy. authority .gy. la > lojban. .iku'i pe'i do na kakne > > > "ni'i lo nu go'i [...]" No, {lo go'i} makes perfect sense here. {lo go'i} is the x1 of the previous sentence, and that x1 is {lo du'u do ka'e fanva...}. It's not because of {the fact that {the fact that you can translate into Lojban} is good}, it's because of {the fact that you can translate into Lojban}. Usually for {lo nu go'i} I've seen {la'edi'u}, which is similar, though less specific. ~mark To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.