From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 15 15:05:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 22:05:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 17970 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 21:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 21:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 21:55:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.80.1019e29a (26118) for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:55:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <80.1019e29a.28d52853@aol.com> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:55:31 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_80.1019e29a.28d52853_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_80.1019e29a.28d52853_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2001 1:53:34 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > la and cusku di'e > > >1. What is the difference, if any, between > > > > {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda} > > > >and > > > > {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka xu kau ce'u barda} > > > >? > > The second one is clear, they differ in whether or not they are big, > i.e. one is big and the other isn't. > > The first one is incomplete, as you need to have some kau in the > te frica. For example it could be interpreted as {le ka ce'u barda > makau}, they differ in what dimension they are big in. > Why? The first is "They differ in bigness (in the usual whatever dimension)" And at least seems to be following the latest dictate of fashion, one which requires all {ce'u} to show in {ka} (and certainly in {du'u}) with the remaining gaps filled with {zo'e}. This looks like a case of the sort of thing conventions are designed to deal with and we don't seem yet to be together on what the conventions are. We are not, at the moment, in a {makau} situation, although there are several available one to hand, all deriving by {frica}ization from {la djumbos barda ijonai la tamtum barda} There is also the ever popular "in how big they are" {le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}. I know you don't like this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits nicely here as does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}. --part1_80.1019e29a.28d52853_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2001 1:53:34 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

la and cusku di'e

>1. What is the difference, if any, between
>
> {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda}
>
>and
>
> {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka xu kau ce'u barda}
>
>?

The second one is clear, they differ in whether or not they are big,
i.e. one is big and the other isn't.

The first one is incomplete, as you need to have some kau in the
te frica. For example it could be interpreted as {le ka ce'u barda
makau}, they differ in what dimension they are big in.

Why? The first is "They differ in bigness (in the usual whatever dimension)" And at least seems to be following the latest dictate of fashion, one which requires all {ce'u} to show in {ka} (and certainly in {du'u}) with the remaining gaps filled with {zo'e}. This looks like a case of the sort of thing conventions are designed to deal with and we don't seem yet to be together on what the conventions are.
We are not, at the moment, in a {makau} situation, although there are several available one to hand, all deriving by {frica}ization from {la djumbos barda ijonai la tamtum barda} There is also the ever popular "in how big they are" {le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}. I know you don't like this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits nicely here as does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}. --part1_80.1019e29a.28d52853_boundary--