From pycyn@aol.com Wed Apr 03 18:01:53 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 02:01:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 82345 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 02:01:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 02:01:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 02:01:53 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.187.5f8e822 (25715)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:01:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:01:46 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 4/3/2002 4:31:22 PM Central Standard Time, 
araizen@newmail.net writes:


> le te bilma be la fred le te bilma be la djordj. cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau
> le bilma be le nei
> 
> or
> 
> le nu la fred bilma kei le nu la djordj. bilma cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau 
> le
> se nunbilma be le nei
> 

Can a disease really gasnu anything? It doesn't seem to be a person or 
agent. Nor does an event. I think we have to stick with {rinka/ri'a}

Does {le nei} get the right thing either time? In the first it seems to be 
the disease but comes out as a symptom -- unless it is theill person himself 
as a symptom or the cause of the weakness as a symptom (exactly which 
predication counts as the current one is obscure, but none of them seem to 
work). Much the same problems occur in the second case, though the choice of 
corect readings is somewhat harder to spell out in English, except as 
possibly superfluous.

--part1_187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 4/3/2002 4:31:22 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">le te bilma be la fred le te bilma be la djordj. cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau<BR>
le bilma be le nei<BR>
<BR>
or<BR>
<BR>
le nu la fred bilma kei le nu la djordj. bilma cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau le<BR>
se nunbilma be le nei<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Can a disease really gasnu anything?&nbsp; It doesn't seem to be a person or agent.&nbsp; Nor does an event.&nbsp; I think we have to stick with {rinka/ri'a}<BR>
<BR>
Does {le nei} get the right thing either time?&nbsp; In the first it seems to be the disease but comes out as a symptom -- unless it is theill person himself as a symptom or the cause of the weakness as a symptom (exactly which predication counts as the current one is obscure, but none of them seem to work).&nbsp; Much the same problems occur in the second case, though the choice of corect readings is somewhat harder to spell out in English, except as possibly superfluous.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_187.5f8e822.29dd0e0a_boundary--

