Re: Bible translation

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

--- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:

> >2) Termsets are awkward for "gapping" (when the selbri of the
second
> >sentence is implicitly that of the first). With termsets, the terms
have
> >to be next to each other (with no intervening selbri), and they
also add
> >extra cmavo. I believe it used to be grammatical to put a bare list
of
> >sumti after "ije", which would be a much easier and more natural
way to
> >specify gapping.
> 
> You're right, it seems that it is no longer grammatical!
> You can still do it without {je}:
> 
> i le moklu be mi le nunmi'a cu se culno i le tance be mi
> le geirselsanga
> 
> but it is strange that you can't do it with {ije}.
> 

It seems it came about when the scope of "ije" was reduced to allow a
prenex to cover an entire conjunction of 2 complete bridi, but I'm
still not sure why it can't have a list of terms.

co'o mi'e adam