From araizen@newmail.net Fri Aug 31 08:08:07 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
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: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <01082710370708.01399@neofelis>
Subject: Re: [lojban] pe BAI <sumti> 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" <araizen@newmail.net>

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 <me SUMTI moi>)

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.