From nicholas@uci.edu Tue Aug 28 15:55:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 28 Aug 2001 22:55:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 45213 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 22:54:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Aug 2001 22:54:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 22:54:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13450; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:54:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:54:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS Correct, d00d. {le ni ce'u prami be mi}, and by analogy {le ka ce'u prami pe mi}, or {le ka ce'u prami poi ckaji mi}. The planners did indeed intend both ways; but the planners didn't know about {ce'u} at the time... But with seljvajvo (collective groan erupts), you can put the x2 of ni inside a nil- lujvo; it's just the very last place, which makes it unpredictable: {le nilprami be ce'u mi bei do bei mi} . So of course, {pe} is safer. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias