From pycyn@aol.com Sun Nov 04 05:58:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 4 Nov 2001 13:58:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 8281 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2001 13:58:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Nov 2001 13:58:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2001 13:58:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.6a.15e125b4 (18254) for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 08:58:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6a.15e125b4.2916a398@aol.com> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 08:58:48 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] "I know you have a brother..." To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6a.15e125b4.2916a398_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_6a.15e125b4.2916a398_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/3/2001 9:39:38 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > (4) mi djuno lo'e du'u (su'o da zo'u) da bruna do > i zo bil cmene da > > But this is logically malformed. Instead, I would suggest: > > (5) mi djuno lo'e du'u (su'o da zo'u) da bruna do > i zo bil cmene le co'e > Well, the first has the problem within the basic rules (16.14) that the {da} is in a subordinate clause so even changing {i} to {ije} would not help officially. Only the fact that this is {djuno}, not {krici}, say, allows the extension to be even plausible. So, some help is needed, whether "the whatever" is quite right is another question. I would be inclined to stop off at {cmene}, since we are going to have to glork it anyhow, unless be say {le bruna be do}. --part1_6a.15e125b4.2916a398_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/3/2001 9:39:38 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:


(4) mi djuno lo'e du'u (su'o da zo'u) da bruna do
   i zo bil cmene da

But this is logically malformed. Instead, I would suggest:

(5) mi djuno lo'e du'u (su'o da zo'u) da bruna do
   i zo bil cmene le co'e


Well, the first has the problem within the basic rules (16.14) that the {da} is in a subordinate clause so even changing {i} to {ije} would not help officially. Only the fact that this is {djuno}, not {krici}, say, allows the extension to be even plausible.  So, some help is needed, whether "the whatever" is quite right is another question.  I would be inclined to stop off at {cmene}, since we are going to have to glork it anyhow, unless be say {le bruna be do}. --part1_6a.15e125b4.2916a398_boundary--