From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCK0ZXvBBoE3XyEKw@googlegroups.com Tue May 31 15:15:52 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QRXE5-0003lI-0S; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:52 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf2975819vws.16 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature: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:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=q+YuzkJ6P5zV6YG4dbUOWzzJ1wW21xHa5q0ZbJY25+4=; b=DzVzlcsLDOdhGoAASRTSGZCIcIbxI9MbW9naiYzF68Lwsk8GZc7aUCH3+pvFqvkaWQ ixunv2LUzKutKqW80C9sZnjaEi6iTRNM3nNv94krKwjWEQXc8qhQuAVZePpDrXf+vQFg YWe405PRlhyiQ0QdKBUTs3iBgB+rda+tlPBRc= 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=inh2GttmqoC+2dJgKvn072JqU1JazprIXOqOkTxoUuoSQXqD4KpfJJp9aIPwd9lTLH gck8uQh132C+RT10x/lSyt6TJuqEQtg960rV5GxB93GgDEqEtSmPZXuPsQfHAk4hKGw1 qG3CS0oEz1CBqXTYgKnl83Hu/CoXy3dLdBj1A= Received: by 10.220.117.139 with SMTP id r11mr845166vcq.18.1306880138330; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.179.138 with SMTP id dg10ls2545055vdc.2.gmail; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.32.71 with SMTP id g7mr62735vdi.1.1306880137708; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.32.71 with SMTP id g7mr62734vdi.1.1306880137699; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f49.google.com (mail-vw0-f49.google.com [209.85.212.49]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cy4si252936vdc.1.2011.05.31.15.15.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.49; Received: by mail-vw0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 8so4605938vws.36 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.176.3 with SMTP id ce3mr1174326vdc.313.1306880136617; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.183.129 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201105311203.46300.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201105311203.46300.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:15:36 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] sedu'o no natfe... From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > One of my sigs is "sedu'o no natfe puze'e noroi nalselganse srera". I'm not > sure if I said that right. > 1. Should it be "sedu'o no natfe" or "sedu'o lo no natfe"? If the latter, the > third is moot. I'll leave that one to those who think that "lo no natfe" is sound. > 2. Is it "puze'e" or "ze'epu"? The Book says "ze'epu", but I think either works. > 3. Should "sedu'o no natfe" be before or after "noroi"? "no da no de zo'u ..." = "ro da naku naku su'o de zo'u ..." = "ro da su'o de zo'u", so your double "no" could be rephrased as: sedu'o ro natfe puze'e su'oroi nalselganse srera Unless of course "no natfe" is supposed to be embedded in a subordinate clause, something like "fau lo nu djuno no natfe", in which case the quantifier cannot jump out to the main clause's prenex. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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.