From phma@webjockey.net Wed Jul 03 11:49:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 3 Jul 2002 18:49:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 85892 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2002 18:49:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jul 2002 18:49:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2002 18:49:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17PpCN-0003eo-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 11:49:55 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17PpCL-0003eX-00; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 11:49:53 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 Jul 2002 11:49:51 z (PDT) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=neofelis.ixazon.lan) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17PpCI-0003e5-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 11:49:50 -0700 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4A8433C4F4; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:49:17 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <20020702202324.A65525@allusion.net> <0207031424320F.02128@neofelis> <20020703182634.GT2538@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20020703182634.GT2538@chain.digitalkingdom.org> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0207031449170G.02128@neofelis> X-archive-position: 102 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Wednesday 03 July 2002 14:26, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 02:24:32PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > On Wednesday 03 July 2002 13:29, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > What's wrong with "la'e di'u"? > > > > That normally refers to at least a bridi, so it would be understood as > > "The dog chased the cat and the chasing got tired". It can't be taken > > to mean "the dog and the cat" unless the first bridi is rearranged. > > > > After discussing it on IRC, I am now firmly of the opinion that unbound > ko'a is best in this case. Maybe "ko'a poi remei" if you want to > clarify. "ko'a poi remei" could also refer to just the dogs, if there were two of them. phma