From jjllambias@gmail.com Thu Mar 04 13:52:03 2010 Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com ([209.85.220.222]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NnIxc-0003aJ-FA for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:52:03 -0800 Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so3429092fxm.26 for ; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:51:54 -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=F6Zfi3fgt2qVND4LiMIc3hB3SDytsfDmTMaXS40gyzs=; b=vey9zuICgVoglZ7wpomBrRx7cDrumLIf8QA4uIX5CA3yMHw3s9WwbxX0ag2vvZuzcm rlY4mcyDmHyDMYlt0wL4BaRORIEDX59yN/SbReaI+wQg5LEVPjMKlvCjV8VE2dZbS84A WKQuyjuybyH35Sh0U0HWe6iREq7yHmEQCWCdk= 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=L5qSkYWayIEBZ5namEULRYbGGDsVnHG5FT/klqzdfzU0fyysSQHUvwezdycYj+vwAp +oltXc3KPuTD6OEeOfiIcofFeV6qSy9DNqUKRQFc2msCqaLi44M8434uR8ICjJ35aYmV wwyHTve4MWDjVZxG86VpCNrNL1lwCeflLpkJg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.3.135 with SMTP id 7mr21488fan.21.1267739514008; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:51:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <369994.71546.qm@web50404.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <395141.17119.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <96f789a61003040653h3cbf33fbn82c24ece8e63ec22@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003040928r5d2d85efma8db985509ffbadf@mail.gmail.com> <369994.71546.qm@web50404.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:51:53 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17561003041351u11a65d8fpadc799cd405f8291@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Fw: bridi tail negation 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, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Lindar Greenwood wrote: >> >> =A0{.i na'e se zanfri fa lonu zutse ne'i le ricyzda gi'e na tavla}? > > I have nothing helpful to contribute other than pointing out that you did= n't need to explicitly mark {fa} if you used {se}. > It isn't wrong, it's just redundant. Actually, he wouldn't need "fa" if he hadn't used "se". With "se", he does need "fa" because he sent the place he wants to fill, originally x2, to x1. mu'o mi'e xorxes