From lojban+bncCOib25n_BhDP-ZbvBBoEZLvk5A@googlegroups.com Tue May 31 21:15:26 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QRcq2-0007k9-N6; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:26 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf9109359fxm.16 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:16 -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:sender :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:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=XfqTRu3heMGo+S2UQewNlMxwQF5deDa5hY3gvPM5CXU=; b=U+VfHUCjtRs7zHZyRYdK+XbEU3iguArQBoSXCxXIrSW8KWK7fYDUglQhhWDJ+L6Cor nPCJlv6D3BelU+4IrIIKLszD9dWXP0b0LL3xyVgpXazjdmimZUDjX7oq052Du+7Qn0Oa K86iLZjmPvB8Dd88LIcAxhszByqIT5WgRCMjc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=4E3OztcSXAoAEl85fxyGKmxpPT1EswtzHHiojDKgwuDJOqtv0b2pxaxdWEApLBL/DA arMfbG2WxU8AeLkTfzqvR+YUmHksQIuHD07fdI0i8+bdYbIIzDJ5VGEpShxwf1OmfsEv YRZrzrFffO/xJcs+csStFqBZ55xpDUQxaiZcM= Received: by 10.223.5.16 with SMTP id 16mr1281475fat.25.1306901711303; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.34.76 with SMTP id k12ls44314bkd.0.gmail; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.132.133 with SMTP id b5mr761731bkt.10.1306901710274; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.132.133 with SMTP id b5mr761730bkt.10.1306901710250; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f50.google.com (mail-bw0-f50.google.com [209.85.214.50]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y18si387348bkf.2.2011.05.31.21.15.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.50; Received: by bwz2 with SMTP id 2so5708752bwz.37 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.126.214 with SMTP id d22mr5165680bks.21.1306901710046; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.166.130 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:15:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201105312351.56777.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201105311203.46300.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201105312351.56777.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:15:10 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] sedu'o no natfe... From: ".arpis." To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dbe86e2f069e04a49ec420 --0016e6dbe86e2f069e04a49ec420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {vedu'o zo'ei mi [ .onai mi'a ] noroi nalselganse srera} or { [...] noroi srera be fi'o nalselganse} What do people think of these? On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Tuesday 31 May 2011 18:15:36 Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > "no da no de zo'u ..." =3D "ro da naku naku su'o de zo'u ..." =3D "ro d= a > > 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. > > "sedu'o ro natfe puze'e su'oroi nalselganse srera" doesn't sound like it > means > the right thing. The original IIRR is "As far as we know, we have never h= ad > an undetected error." If I exchange the two no-quantifiers and > double-nodulate it, I get "puze'e roroi sedu'u su'o natfe cu nalselganse > srera". That still doesn't sound right. So I think it should be "sedu'u l= o > no > natfe" or some other construction entirely. Any ideas? > > Pierre > -- > li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa > > -- > 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=3Den. > > --=20 mu'o mi'e .arpis. --=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. --0016e6dbe86e2f069e04a49ec420 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {vedu'o zo'ei mi [ .onai mi'a ] noroi nalselganse srera}
or<= br>{ [...] noroi srera be fi'o nalselganse}

What do people think= of these?

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:51 = PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 18= :15:36 Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
> "no da no de zo'u ..." =3D "ro da naku naku su'= o de zo'u ..." =3D "ro da
> su'o de zo'u", so your double "no" could be rep= hrased as:
>
> sedu'o ro natfe puze'e su'oroi nalselganse srera
>
> Unless of course "no natfe" is supposed to be embedded in a<= br> > subordinate clause, something like "fau lo nu djuno no natfe"= ;, in
> which case the quantifier cannot jump out to the main clause's pre= nex.

"sedu'o ro natfe puze'e su'oroi nalselganse srera&qu= ot; doesn't sound like it means
the right thing. The original IIRR is "As far as we know, we have neve= r had
an undetected error." If I exchange the two no-quantifiers and
double-nodulate it, I get "puze'e roroi sedu'u su'o natfe = cu nalselganse
srera". That still doesn't sound right. So I think it should be &q= uot;sedu'u lo no
natfe" or some other construction entirely. Any ideas?

Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

--
You received this message because y= ou 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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
mu'o mi= 'e .arpis.

--
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.
--0016e6dbe86e2f069e04a49ec420--