From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 29 01:32:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 09:32:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 66165 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 09:32:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 09:32:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 09:32:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.14f.32c0212 (17381) for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 04:32:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <14f.32c0212.290e7c29@aol.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 04:32:25 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14f.32c0212.290e7c29_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_14f.32c0212.290e7c29_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/28/2001 6:17:06 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > Is it not true that if you use {da} in one sentence and again in > another, without using {da'o}, it refers to the same thing? > > For example, is this correct? > {.i reda cu kanla mi .i da blanu} > Officially not, but then we get hung up on the meaning of "sentence" for Lojban and also on the general permission to slop over {i} when "it is clear what is intended" -- rampant glorkosis. To be safe, say {ije} instead of {i} the second time (why the first, by the way?). (Sentence in lojban" all between a bare {i} /beginning of speech/{ni'o}/... and the next bare {i}/end of speech/{ni'o}/...) --part1_14f.32c0212.290e7c29_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/28/2001 6:17:06 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


Is it not true that if you use {da} in one sentence and again in
another, without using {da'o}, it refers to the same thing?

For example, is this correct?
{.i reda cu kanla mi .i da blanu}


Officially not, but then we get hung up on the meaning of "sentence" for Lojban and also on the general permission to slop over {i} when "it is clear what is intended"  -- rampant glorkosis.  To be safe, say {ije} instead of {i} the second time (why the first, by the way?).  (Sentence in lojban" all between a bare {i} /beginning of speech/{ni'o}/... and the next bare {i}/end of speech/{ni'o}/...)
--part1_14f.32c0212.290e7c29_boundary--