From xod@sixgirls.org Mon Nov 05 10:15:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 5 Nov 2001 18:15:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 19006 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 18:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Nov 2001 18:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 18:15:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fA5IFiZ29478 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:15:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:15:44 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] only in subordinate clauses In-Reply-To: <0111050747340X.01045@neofelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Pierre Abbat wrote: > I found the following sentences while reading the news: > > The smallpox virus is known to exist only in laboratories in the United > States and Russia. But germ warfare experts suspect that other countries, > including North Korea and Iraq, may have secretly obtained stocks. > > The first sentence is ambiguous, and without the second I would interpret it > as "It is known that the smallpox virus exists only in laboratories in the > United States and Russia." > > {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? .uicai .e'usai le vidrnvariola ca du'o zvati noda po'u na'ebo le skebriju be vi le gugrmerkos ku joi le gugnrucas -- "You can not stop us. We have this anthrax. You die now. Are you afraid? Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great."