From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDc5cPeBBoENkDiUg@googlegroups.com Thu Apr 22 18:08:21 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O57NC-0003Xf-GM; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:08:20 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf211098wya.16 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=H8wPyfigR21sktRicPMPlRSpLC0IffdDSNWxGttikuo=; b=jmZi+1CPMve4/Wz8rC68dHmzlnGSF7p26/HeBOfnZCOXmbIfGqgt1JAWjojIv90HKZ /fqxmaZPwte9e/S+5SRFxFvOIodjswYmcGGVM3cexM/7ieqI1Hi/UiVxRp2JOIDVVaiS 7QwAMN4qbOqLrbu3e2iyAQyiT/V2+klAuOOHI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=3VDSRHCe3xKV8mLvKMVD2Z3BL1jtS1lajVIMUAcNcVhZ3T3PXVSO5CnEwInTdcFgVm /lgJnXDzYEwoYUuefWvMw7hynrJceFX3fAGTnx/yP/5iHgK6ezuzCDjJe/VJctmxNflk jsh7IWXoukpwikxA9JwYO/bgv4NZKUh/mzvVI= Received: by 10.223.60.83 with SMTP id o19mr57541fah.42.1271984860392; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.64.79 with SMTP id b57ls14570369wed.2.p; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.182.142 with SMTP id o14mr1133130wem.28.1271984858532; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.182.142 with SMTP id o14mr1133129wem.28.1271984858509; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f193.google.com (mail-qy0-f193.google.com [209.85.221.193]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id g1si639187wbg.2.2010.04.22.18.07.37; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.193 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.193; Received: by mail-qy0-f193.google.com with SMTP id 31so11636515qyk.20 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7913e18e-b0f2-4b18-bb4d-ecf39ef60f38@v14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <20100409222518.GN11541@digitalkingdom.org> <4BC02ABC.8000300@lojban.org> <4BC1D15A.5030409@lojban.org> <4BC36464.8010707@gmail.com> <6d4d93ea-e660-4ad1-8910-02ddbb96f48c@b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <7913e18e-b0f2-4b18-bb4d-ecf39ef60f38@v14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:07:36 -0300 Received: by 10.229.217.148 with SMTP id hm20mr4033368qcb.38.1271984856530; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {le} in xorlo (was: Re: Response to Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban" From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.193 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Daniel Brockman wrot= e: > > With the LE KU grammar, however, bringing it up feels more okay. =A0So: > can we get LA KU as well? LA is allowed anywhere that LE is (but not vice-versa). We would also have: "LE relative-clause KU" (as well as the more obvious "LE KU relative-clause") The nice thing about "LE relative-clause" is that it is just like Spanish. English doesn't allow that construction, but Spanish does. And it makes poi'i/seka sort of redundant to "lo poi ge broda gi broda". Yes, this definitely should be allowed. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.