[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Fw: bridi tail negation
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Lindar Greenwood
<lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> {.i na'e se zanfri fa lonu zutse ne'i le ricyzda gi'e na tavla}?
>
> I have nothing helpful to contribute other than pointing out that you didn't need to explicitly mark {fa} if you used {se}.
> It isn't wrong, it's just redundant.
Actually, he wouldn't need "fa" if he hadn't used "se". With "se", he
does need "fa" because he sent the place he wants to fill, originally
x2, to x1.
mu'o mi'e xorxes