From pycyn@aol.com Wed Nov 14 10:06:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 18:06:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 8441 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 18:06:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 18:06:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 18:06:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.32.1dd74774 (4403) for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:06:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <32.1dd74774.29240cb8@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:06:48 EST Subject: Re: ka'e (was: Re: [lojban] Introduction, and zutse/se sutse To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_32.1dd74774.29240cb8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_32.1dd74774.29240cb8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/14/2001 11:40:06 AM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > .ienai .i le selkla po'o cu selsnu .i ku'i le mulno ckini cu cumki > > .i ko lanli "mi pu klama" .i le mulno ckini cu purci > As we've said, {ka'e} doesn't behave just like a tense, or even like {cumki} (which is why there are two gismu, presumably). The whole may be possible, because the (understood) x1 can enter into such a relation. Very messy, I agree, and a defective from a logical point of view, but it is what we have for now. --part1_32.1dd74774.29240cb8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/14/2001 11:40:06 AM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes:


.ienai .i le selkla po'o cu selsnu .i ku'i le mulno ckini cu cumki

.i ko lanli "mi pu klama" .i le mulno ckini cu purci


As we've said, {ka'e} doesn't behave just like a tense, or even like {cumki}  (which is why there are two gismu, presumably).  The whole may be possible, because the (understood) x1 can enter into such a relation.  Very messy, I agree, and a defective from a logical point of view, but it is what we have for now. --part1_32.1dd74774.29240cb8_boundary--