[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: omitting zo'e in a compound bridi
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: omitting zo'e in a compound bridi
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:37:10 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; 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=YgeNxeL7kVVg+3HY4fyBoj+lVJZRCQj2A+hWtoEB7pc=; b=xwPWQo9pf3RBIsm5cOhCfmMewJRJ5xJPGYvjED7gHTmA70PJQjQ45dqUYZn1Uh0uLrS510tK0oMLG4Xmq3c7kr2PS0+XueC+XgRIksK4QhlLmbAwkRJqmpaR/EE8H0RrMOZtcTUFTKV8JZcBvR5yXdJzGxxde0jUWCfXskl7fXg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=o8iXrMQS6dcjNlOKVT48/9ejRORXRKTWljUsVA1Lue6ZsDZV2g9mOclQP1GrknQ3Y+uSqEZlkX4PPvYYqLKIW7mjDs8xt9f0UmJNCKeb0ZzyEkMhs3wIWoGFRGduLXCwatVEVxik2+rwGMx4oODTvujY0oyQQBaf7fOgiIdUdtI=
- In-reply-to: <2f91285f0804250419y6524bfbcu15b4d9d052e9c9db@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <2f91285f0804250419y6524bfbcu15b4d9d052e9c9db@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
On 4/25/08, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
> ¿Would the intended construct still be clear if I omit the {zo'e} in this:
> do te ke dunda le cukta [vau] gi'e lebna zo'e [vau] [ke'e] vau mi ;
> .i.e
> do te ke dunda le cukta gi'e lebna vau mi?
That's not grammatical. Or rather, it is grammatical if you omit
[ke'e], but it parses like this:
do te ke dunda [ke'e] le cukta [ku] [vau] gi'e lebna zo'e vau mi [vau]
If you omit {zo'e}, it would expand to:
do te dunda le cukta mi .ije do lebna mi
mu'o mi'e xorxes