Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GjTLW-0006BA-0t for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:58 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GjTLR-0006B2-00 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:57 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id c2so872283ugf for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:51 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Ou9x+n4P7OBgZmFhTmatIbMAm+mouh11lhEqlBdFI4CUZmjzkNaFv+xhGERd4f2R/MXNAJ9I4IHgJEoLsRIvxI1XXF++ZhXx3JzKVBMnhxwwn5ILSKng2Czrr9jRDcuygK8zwkGNCYgiyQDRQgmJJfN8uVcY4x528SqcLdr3stU= Received: by 10.78.83.13 with SMTP id g13mr5839114hub.1163391770650; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.131.5 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:50 -0800 From: "Theodore Reed" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lojban-beginners Digest V5 #187 In-Reply-To: <20061111221650.23212.qmail@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_21003_30800654.1163391770616" References: <20061111221650.23212.qmail@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-archive-position: 3678 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ted.reed@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 1873 ------=_Part_21003_30800654.1163391770616 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 11/11/06, Jon MacLeod wrote: > > I must have placed the word incorrectly. It was my intention that the vi > be > attached to the adjacent zo'e, as in '(something unspecified) close by', > not to > fill a sumti place with vi. > > Perhaps 'vi zo'e klama zo'e' and 'zo'e klama vi zo'e'? > > When vi is not directly in front of the selbri, they become sumtcita, those therefore mean "close to something unspecified, someone is going somewhere unspecified" and "someone unspecified is going, near something unspecified". -- Theodore Reed (treed/bancus) www.surreality.us ------=_Part_21003_30800654.1163391770616 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 11/11/06, Jon MacLeod <eye_onus@yahoo.com> wrote:
I must have placed the word incorrectly. It was my intention that the vi be
attached to the adjacent zo'e, as in '(something unspecified) close by', not to
fill a sumti place with vi.

Perhaps 'vi zo'e klama zo'e' and 'zo'e klama vi zo'e'?


When vi is not directly in front of the selbri, they become sumtcita, those therefore mean "close to something unspecified, someone is going somewhere unspecified" and "someone unspecified is going, near something unspecified".

--
Theodore Reed (treed/bancus)
www.surreality.us ------=_Part_21003_30800654.1163391770616--