From Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de Fri Aug 16 06:15:08 2002
Return-Path: <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de>
X-Sender: Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 16 Aug 2002 13:15:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 97573 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 13:15:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2002 13:15:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO spree.gedas.de) (139.1.44.12)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 13:15:07 -0000
Received: from spree.gedas.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
  by spree.gedas.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01921
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:15:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg (blnsem05.gedas.de [139.1.84.49])
  by spree.gedas.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01917
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:15:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: by blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
  id <3W810GX8>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:15:05 +0200
Message-ID: <C9A98F2128EDD411B0920008C7B337A13DCE6B@hamsem01.de.gedas.vwg>
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Phrases for language learners
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:14:59 +0200
Return-Receipt-To: "Newton, Philip" <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Newton, Philip" <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=23036112
X-Yahoo-Profile: elder_newton

John Cowan wrote:
> Newton, Philip scripsit:
> 
> > Maybe I'll think about it a bit more, but it seems to me at 
> > the moment that lo'u...le'u is more general (and perhaps more
> > useful especially in such asking-about-language-and-usage
> > contexts) than lu...li'u.
> 
> For human interlocutors, it makes little difference which one you use.

OK, thanks.

I'll assume this applies only when the quoted portion is grammatically
correct -- for example, you couldn't say {lu leka li'u} or {lu ganai li'u}.

Or could you? I suppose a human listener would understand what you are
saying even if your utterance violates the traditional grammar, since the
intent appears fairly obvious.

mu'omi'e filip.
[email copies appreciated, since I read the digest]
{ko fukpi mrilu .i'o fi mi ki'u le du'u mi te mrilu loi notseljmaji}
-- 
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

