[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: zo bo
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: zo bo
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:20:31 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ozTAXDUPyKfnXjDGrWobUz5dl0OLx1E+o3AWZLgqmso=; b=bhK8uXMjcPT5WCP8hUDBxKUl0hV/d/Vjh1KarDiITIs48NehgKtT/2fdZE/OM962fxztnsWrQYs2sD+sVwKMbaJRBnJoi54QYoJJBbLuPMu3GO+lW75rr9RHh5KuoRNeXanJi1O9jhkFBFhLrxEG1ldWUTp4DUvA9svft1DtB1c=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=BCRh0WxRg21AxFeV9/ITHR7WTlDy9GudHGKC3GA5LR5kUSaUUXVe18xSz+McJARAWe9ZWU7wfmOMqilDNd0GZzG3apwQGjUPPgXQF6spKM0JHds2GTY4rg8z2qYThlSsn7Ovb4Ms0/Nbz9Rwa+7or3V+hRIJvzkUZB9pMiyKrpA=
- In-reply-to: <2f91285f0803310712u446302b6j9a3b70fe3f68091c@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <2f91285f0803310712u446302b6j9a3b70fe3f68091c@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
On 3/31/08, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
> .i mi do pu nelci gi'e cabo prami
>
> .i mi do ge pu nelci gi cabo prami
>
> Is my use of {bo} here correct?
The first one is correct, the second one is not.
The forethought equivalent of the first one is:
.i mi do ca ke ge pu nelci gi prami
> Do I still need it if {ca} follows gihek/gik?
> (le nu nelci and le nu prami are meant to be sequential.)
{ca} indicates simultaneity, not sequentiality. Did you mean
{gi'e ba bo}?
mu'o mi'e xorxes