From araizen@newmail.net Fri Aug 31 08:08:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 15:08:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 53382 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 15:05:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 15:05:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 15:05:14 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.180.216]) by out.newmail.net ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:06:14 +0200 Message-ID: <032d01c13236$e0f10840$8ab5003e@oemcomputer> To: References: <01082710370708.01399@neofelis> Subject: Re: [lojban] pe BAI on tense markers Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:30:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" la .pier. cusku di'e > 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 - Note that this is not exactly what the original says ("vatehi lahem halevena le'aven"). It's more like le takybli cu me ko'e moi rokci me ko'e moi fa le takybli fe loi rokci (closest to the original word order & grammar) or (if you hate ) le takybli cu se pilno ko'e le nu rokci Also, why use the peBAI construction when 'lo staku poi basti lo rokci' is clear and uncontroversial? mu'o mi'e .adam.