From nicholas@uci.edu Sat Sep 22 14:31:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 22 Sep 2001 21:30:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 55925 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2001 21:30:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 22 Sep 2001 21:30:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 21:31:31 -0000 Received: from [128.195.186.89] (dialin53a-79.ppp.uci.edu [128.195.186.89]) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10604 for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: nicholas@e4e.oac.uci.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:35:41 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: ro prenu na ku daplu From: Nick Nicholas And's version: Well, I read it, and obviously I like mine better. :-) (Btw, you guys have noticed I've also posted this, right?) One thing: you're insisting on {zei} because you want to sidestep the potential ambiguity of tanru, or because you don't want to look up the Evil that is rafsi? I hope that in {i loi ropno cu jdika ro mu'ei tu'odu'u da ge se vimcu}, {mu'ei} is just {mu'e}, and not a new experimental cmavo? What else... oh, I'm using forethought a lot more since I forced myself to read about them for the Lessons (in Olden Days, I had a kneejerk reaction against them); but because to my mind they are still marked, all I can say is, there's a time and place for them... :-) Any man's death diminishes me, you do as {ro nu da ge prenu gi morsi zei binxo ku rinka lo nu mi jdika ku}. I was about to complain of it, but actually, that is more correct than what I had ({ganai su'o prenu cu morsi gi mi jdika}). (Still think mine works, of course. :-) Nick Nicholas, UCI, USA. nicholas@uci.edu http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis "Must I, then, be the only one to be beheaded now?" "Why, did you want everybody to be beheaded for your consolation?" Epictetus, Discourses 1.1.