From rob@twcny.rr.com Mon Oct 29 13:55:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 21:55:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 62975 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 21:54:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 21:54:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.169) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 21:54:54 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9TLslh06951 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:53:52 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15yKM4-0000GL-00 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:54:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:54:00 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Message-ID: <20011029165400.B879@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <14f.32c0212.290e7c29@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14f.32c0212.290e7c29@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 04:32:25AM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > To be safe, say {ije} instead of > {i} the second time (why the first, by the way?). In writing multiple sentences, I am in the habit of using some separator to begin the first sentence. The reason is that otherwise the first word would be at the "start of text" which does weird things to the scope of attitudinals. (People didn't believe me the first time I mentioned this - it was in the heat of the attitudinal debate and they thought it was my own proposal - but the Book says that an attitudinal at the start of text applies to the entire text, so if you want it to be an ordinary attitudinal which applies to the sentence, you have to put .i before it.) Even though there was no attitudinal in this case, I find it useful to simply be in the habit of beginning the text with some sort of separator. Anyway, I'm a bit unclear on why .ije would make a difference. Does {.i} remove the assignments of {da}-cmavo? If so, why do people think {da'o} needs to be improved? -- .i la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri