[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: Not needing terminators
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
> To verify that I actually do get this, here's another sentence I wrote today:
> mi nupre lonu lonu do spuda lo preti befi mi kei na'e ba nandu do kei do
> The intention is "I promise you the question(s) I ask will not be
> difficult for you to answer". (This is intentionally somewhat clunky
> so I could make sure I knew what I was doing). I'm pretty sure it
> actually does it right this time.
>
> This seems to also be what jbofi'e says:
> [1(2[nupre1 (promise-r(s)) :] mi I, me)2 [is, does] Â3nupre
> promis-ingÂ3 (4[nupre2 (promised thing(s)) :] lo any/some <5nu
> event(s) of [6(7[nandu1 (difficulty thing(s)) :] lo any/some <8nu
> event(s) of [9(10[spuda1 (answer-er(s)) :] do you)10 [is, does]
> Â11spuda answer-ingÂ11 (12[spuda2 (stimulus(es)) :] lo any/some
> {13preti question(s) be  (14[preti3 (questioner(s)) :] fi  mi I,
> me)14}13)12]9 kei Â>8)7 [is, does] Â15na'e not ba will be nandu being
> difficultyÂ15 (16[nandu2 (thing(s) hav-ing difficulty) :] do you)16]6
> kei Â>5)4 (17[nupre3 (thing(s) receiving promise) :] do you)17]1
>
> Am I reading it correctly this time?
Yes, that's correct. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan