From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 29 12:26:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 29 Sep 2001 19:25:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 59069 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2001 19:25:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 29 Sep 2001 19:25:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Sep 2001 19:26:46 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.42.146]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010929192644.VETP29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:26:44 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Set of answers encore Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:26:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010928154057.A495@twcny.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" rob: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 07:40:41PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 9/27/2001 2:23:07 PM Central Daylight Time, > > rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > > > > > > > > la djan krici da poi go ke'a jetnu gi la bil klama > > > > > > "John believes something such that it is true iff Bill goes to it"? > > > > > > > Well, without the "to it," which isn't there and doesn't make much sense. > > I was interpreting the sides of the go...gi as separate bridi which would > follow the poi, and thus each would require a ke'a, explicit or implied. > Perhaps this is not the case. > > For clarity, I'd suggest {la djan krici da poi ke'a o lenu la bil klama cu > jetnu}. Well, nu don't jetnu, but if you change it to du'u then yes, it is a longerwinded and more complex equivalent. --And.