From jjllambias@gmail.com Thu Dec 03 16:07:12 2009 Received: from mail-yx0-f202.google.com ([209.85.210.202]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NGLhS-0008G2-AV for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:07:12 -0800 Received: by yxe40 with SMTP id 40so1755510yxe.28 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:07:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RVMwXj6RfkRWZl1KZ5ql5FxsQGmpB69Gbn76j4L8ECM=; b=hJYYlqY0rckWtQxtRHgYD2X4q5VY09dynFF6N9zHzaZ7X5qEHGacMLwwi+xhU4Z4O/ xWihBXUtHWPzAL8Put+QvYU7KwY9m0kdYlJqhC+3DdBGizP0D6C1GWOpD1KU9eT3ykDb /BFGgjUeZ3tYc5HY362abn8up1r0DkJQ8Pwy0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RXXV+cSLoaqyWtOkoVF+CF9j4/yyMJB4sF9cjwlzUQytcK72GEzzgXMGnqjXiL9LWk e66s8LuyeDbW1DoV2wxxadA1QPrnXhdtea8EShvmtPcDKuPYOg4cIwPlK9y5N/t/oRsJ 9Ap8dbcZyD4PoGgf4XsUDReo1ZZ8V8rW4UY2Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.164.17 with SMTP id r17mr3545243ago.92.1259885219902; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:06:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5715b9300912031540i41f36591mb91b3384f7ae11d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <925d17560912031025v756adb41x909ab4dc11f28fe@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560912031351u371119c8nce6329be6fd90728@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560912031513q7bbc1d1bu89ddeb8c21f48172@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9300912031540i41f36591mb91b3384f7ae11d7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 21:06:59 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560912031606o84fd29cg3b882f9e620ef901@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: what's a du'u? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > > jufra in particular has always seemed kind of weird to me.=A0 Everywhere > through the red book we see things like {bridi}, but then all of a sudden > there's this concept of a "sentence" which as far as I know has no offici= al > definition.=A0 Or am I wrong about that? I don't know about official, but I would say for example that "ge ti cmalu gi ta barda" is one jufra that contains two bridi (in the bridi=3Dtext sense). So jufra is more general than bridi. Also, a jufra can have a prenex, whereas the bridi presumably is only the part that comes after the prenex. mu'o mi'e xorxes