From pycyn@aol.com Mon Nov 05 09:25:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 5 Nov 2001 17:25:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 17893 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 17:25:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Nov 2001 17:25:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 17:25:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.15a.37cbd0a (4314) for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:25:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <15a.37cbd0a.29182596@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:25:42 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] only in subordinate clauses To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15a.37cbd0a.29182596_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_15a.37cbd0a.29182596_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/5/2001 7:00:44 AM Central Standard Time, phma@oltronics.net writes: > {le vidrnvariola te djuno le du'u zvati le skebriju [?] be ne'i la jonsi'u > jecta .e la rukygug po'o} > > Is that similarly ambiguous? Are there better ways of saying it? > Aside from the question of whther this (or any place) is the right place to use {po'o}, this has the peculiarity that it says that two places are the only place where something happens. I think you want to join the two with {joi} or some such. the whole seems clearly to have the interpretation you originally gave the quote, not the intended one. Going back to basics, the distinction is between {ro da zo'u ganai le vidrnvariola te djuno le du'u vy zvati le skebriju be ne'i da gi da du la jonsi'u jecta a la rukygug } and {le vidrnvariola te djuna le du'u ro da zo'u ganai vy zvati da gi da du la jonsi'u jecta a la rukygug} I am not wild about {jonsi'u jecta} and would expect (and welcome) complaints about {le du'u}. --part1_15a.37cbd0a.29182596_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/5/2001 7:00:44 AM Central Standard Time, phma@oltronics.net writes:


{le vidrnvariola te djuno le du'u zvati le skebriju [?] be ne'i la jonsi'u
jecta .e la rukygug po'o}

Is that similarly ambiguous? Are there better ways of saying it?


Aside from the question of whther this (or any place) is the right place to use {po'o}, this has the peculiarity that it says that two places are the only place where something happens.  I think you want to join the two with {joi} or some such.  the whole seems clearly to have the interpretation you originally gave the quote, not the intended one.  
Going back to basics, the distinction is between
{ro da zo'u ganai le vidrnvariola te djuno le du'u vy zvati le skebriju be ne'i da gi da du la jonsi'u jecta a la rukygug }  and
{le vidrnvariola te djuna le du'u ro da zo'u ganai vy zvati da gi da du la jonsi'u jecta a la rukygug}
I am not wild about {jonsi'u jecta} and would expect (and welcome) complaints about {le du'u}.
--part1_15a.37cbd0a.29182596_boundary--