From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 24 15:45:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 22:45:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 3185 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 22:45:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 22:45:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 22:45:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.141.6c0beb (17236) for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <141.6c0beb.28b832e8@aol.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:44:56 EDT Subject: Re: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (was[lojban] si'o) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_141.6c0beb.28b832e8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_141.6c0beb.28b832e8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/24/2001 5:23:38 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >Still, how do I say "mine"? > > {memimoi} > Aside from being ill-formed, how does this work? {mimoi} (is my-th in sequence quence of ....) is not a sumti so {me} can't mean "is a referent of " and {memi} ("is a referent of {mi}" is not a number. so the whole is an idiom made from fairy spiderwebs: not a particularly Lojbanic procedure, but one that offers immediate solutions to all manner of problems: take a couple of words you aren't using at the moment and run them together, declaring them to do what is needed. There are gereat piles of MEX, for example, that we never use; maybe that is where all the {ka} and {du'u} solutions really are. --part1_141.6c0beb.28b832e8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/24/2001 5:23:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>Still, how do I say "mine"?

{memimoi}


Aside from being ill-formed, how does this work?  {mimoi}  (is my-th in
sequence quence of ....) is not a sumti so {me} can't mean "is a referent of
" and {memi} ("is a referent of {mi}" is not a number.  so the whole is an
idiom made from fairy spiderwebs: not a particularly Lojbanic procedure, but
one that offers immediate solutions to all manner of problems: take a couple
of words you aren't using at the moment and run them together, declaring them
to do what is needed. There are gereat piles of MEX, for example, that we
never use; maybe that is where all the {ka} and {du'u} solutions really are.  
--part1_141.6c0beb.28b832e8_boundary--