From lojban+bncCIfx8JOUAxC97f_iBBoE8_oq9Q@googlegroups.com Mon Aug 09 05:38:42 2010 Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OiRch-0003pV-4h; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:38:41 -0700 Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7sf55506bwz.16 for ; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:38:33 -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:x-virus-scanned:received:received :message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=qFuvymMcuqt6EsGliGnm0zad6tJwNY92OcMUVXzlbZo=; b=hI+QJEU+22eWlA00ceUrjyVTUTIzMxtOXia3zqIqjNlsG7hDYVTBwt9K5sk84TaKB3 7SeAZ+sa+3kKQORLHqW01tPcHUTAs368S8zYGtHoo/rfp/ZOGGiRqe8pTQzU2v29AftH zT9ul/7A2/ctjzlOGgXSKhAOVTjSdFGNac1vQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-virus-scanned:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=6/QjMwVEZYt3Or+5dR4CIgrzH2ffb6J9L4tx5r0Ej4dozFXp3sQgU2jJafKHea6p9/ vJ6VDgQjWhn6od54l4UGqAiKT6XFuegPVfA0CYcCANGMO4hpzrcOwvqb7c/OLfVhbjfY m4MfYgTy9bY3dFm8uamZ8fy3kdCKh1WwV32RE= Received: by 10.223.7.79 with SMTP id c15mr32733fac.38.1281357501722; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.59.80 with SMTP id k16ls1570833bkh.1.p; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.80.4 with SMTP id r4mr129736bkk.14.1281357500578; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.80.4 with SMTP id r4mr129734bkk.14.1281357500555; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.wouldyoubuythis.net (mail.wybt.net [195.191.196.3]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id bv13si2600249bkb.4.2010.08.09.05.38.20; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.191.196.3 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de) client-ip=195.191.196.3; Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wouldyoubuythis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2547448897 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:36:53 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.wybt.net Received: from mail.wouldyoubuythis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.wybt.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OfrwE1s-8v34 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:36:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.178.94] (HSI-KBW-078-042-025-249.hsi3.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [78.42.25.249]) by mail.wouldyoubuythis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8848448536 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:36:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C5FF69A.4050300@perpetuum-immobile.de> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:37:46 +0200 From: Timo Paulssen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100620 Icedove/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Illogical English Sign References: In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.191.196.3 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de) smtp.mail=timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de 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 On 08/06/2010 09:09 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > ok, so forgetting the fatci bit, you're saying that these two > following bridi are different? > > 1) mi na kakne lo nu tolmo'i lo du'u do tolmo'i > 2) mi na kakne lo nu tolmo'i lo du'u do tolmo'i makau > > I read {lo du'u do tolmo'i} as {lo du'u do tolmo'i zo'e} and the way > I understand {zo'e} is that it can be anything (including makau). So > I see 2 as being a more specific version of 1. Am I wrong here? This totally goes against my understanding of kau. In my opinion, zo'e can never be "ma kau", because kau alters the basic semantic structure of the sentence to such an extent that no other simple sumti could. {mi na kakne lo nu tolmo'i lo du'u do tolmo'i } == I can't forget, that it is true, that you forgot. {mi na kakne lo nu tolmo'i lo du'u do tolmo'i ma kau} == I can't forget, what it was, that you forgot. mu'o mi'e la timos noi se cfipu -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.