From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 27 19:09:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 28 Aug 2001 02:09:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 25162 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 02:08:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Aug 2001 02:08:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 02:08:46 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.122]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010828020845.TQIB710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 03:08:45 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] pe BAI on tense markers Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 03:07:34 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <01082710370708.01399@neofelis> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pier > I've figured out what "pe BAI" means, as opposed to "be BAI", in at least one > instance, "ba'i". > > a. ko'e zbasu le dinju lo staku be seba'i lo rokci > (The brick was made of something else instead of stone, maybe.) > b. ko'e zbasu le dinju lo staku pe seba'i lo rokci > (The tower was made of brick instead of of stone. This is the right grammar - > I was going to say "construction", but it wasn't the right construction, > because God was displeased with it.) > c. ko'e zbasu le dinju lo staku seba'i lo rokci > (The making of the building was a substitute for a stone. IOW, ko'e zbasu le dinju lo staku pe seba'i lo rokci = ko'e zbasu le dinju lo staku seba'i loi ka'e nu ko'e zbasu le dinju lo rokci On reflection, though, I don't see how this can generalize beyond ba'i. It really seems a pattern driven by the semantics of "ba'i"/"instead", rather than by pe+BAI. --And.