[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] nu pa moi se nunkei la'e lu lo do ckiku ma zvati li'u lu'u



hmmm.

{barda traji fa lo nu me mi moi fo lo mi pendo}

no, that's not right.  I'm trying to think of an example where it actually would make sense to talk about the me-th member in a set of people.

{lo traji cu me mi moi lo mi pendo lo ka barda} maybe?

that {cu} is necessary right?  If the {me} turns what follows into a selbri then the {mi moi} would get sucked up in to a tanru with {traji} right?

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Krzysztof Sobolewski <jezuch@interia.pl> wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 27 września 2010 o 19:18:18 Alan Post napisał(a):
> The one of these you are interested in is here:
>
>   http://dag.github.com/cll/18/11/

Ah indeed, ki'e.

> I personally think it could use a bit of fleshing out, it glosses
> over a lot very fast.

Yeah, no wonder I didn't remember it...

"It is perfectly possible to use non-numerical sumti after “me” and before a member of MOI, producing strange results indeed:"

Is it "perfectly possible" because there's no way to prevent it with grammar itself, i.e. it's a bug that became a feature? ;) Because I still don't have an idea what {me mi moi} would mean (me-th?).
--
Ecce Jezuch
"-Oh, yeah, that was really cool! Huh, huh / -No, that also sucked...
-What do you know, asswipe? / -We know everything, buttmunch"
- Beavis & St. Peter

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.