From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhCdmL3lBBoE_bemBw@googlegroups.com Fri Oct 08 09:51:56 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P4GAi-0005Fk-KT; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:55 -0700 Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10sf302681qyk.16 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:46 -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:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JiMxvhX81obvzaL6ovJhx5rKWo2A4YuBfFhzyIMLiDk=; b=tbMe5t+HSF45lFBzSDAO3ZiiZvX6dvoSyyTmGET+Gm7uyAtYzmwFRBz/uqfFlxwyuX rGJCWVk0Ah56VMSc3CIAx7yBJ9KkkVmQD2R/+rCTpsU4qqVCdwNzLB0FaGN9HvGerV0+ asbX7breI5m+8c9nIVfUW3mfYuYn04p9VFeEE= 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-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:content-transfer-encoding; b=FFV4KHqSy397FYvyWziHQZJN9jpIODf5N/+y9hNfmFOeQIEputnhgsoq3kQxwKEAR+ J0Ls56YM627OxGSJ0XPLsR4mhQbGiM5cPIfMNlot1zpsMJCFBcPPycZPHOXkZRJXnADL e+25HGDn9DVAT8Ab6I+QnLvZ8LDog7s84dvqU= Received: by 10.229.106.137 with SMTP id x9mr136987qco.43.1286556701278; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.52.18 with SMTP id f18ls67418qcg.2.p; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.237.74 with SMTP id kn10mr357960qcb.1.1286556700622; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.237.74 with SMTP id kn10mr357959qcb.1.1286556700559; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com (mail-vw0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m5si1450457qcu.8.2010.10.08.09.51.39; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.53; Received: by mail-vw0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 15so417850vws.26 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.202.1 with SMTP id fc1mr779332vcb.76.1286556699267; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.184.72 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:51:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20101007173227.GB27477@alice.local> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:51:39 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] la lojbo kurji From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.53 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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 No one directly answered Luke, so I will tell him the answer is: "Yes, absolutely. More than one sumti grouped together with logical or nonlogical conenctives forms a sumti itself." That's why you can say, "le mlatu .onai le gerku cu cadzu" (the cat walked if and only if the dog didn't). "le mlatu onai le gerku" is filling up exactly one sumti slot as the x1 of cadzu. All connectives do is squish more than one thing in a given category (sumti, selbri, bridi-tail, bridi) into one instance of that category. --gejyspa On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > Can the objects of COI be {.e}'ed together like that? > > 2010/10/7 Jorge Llamb=EDas >> >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM, .alyn.post. >> wrote: >> > =A0.i mi ca nupre lo za'i go'o kei mi .e la lojbo kurji >> >> For an oath "nu'e" is better than "mi ca nupre". You are not reporting >> that someone (in this case yourself) is making a promise. You are >> actually making the promise. >> So "nu'e mi .e la lojbo kurji do'u go'o". >> --=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.