From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 19 06:14:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 19 Aug 2002 13:14:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 96013 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 13:14:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2002 13:14:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 13:14:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.28.2b565b15 (3980) for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <28.2b565b15.2a924949@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:14:49 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: .uanai ne'i le velcli To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_28.2b565b15.2a924949_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_28.2b565b15.2a924949_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2002 5:57:20 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > .i lenu mi tavla sepi'o la .irycys. ku tolcafne .i mi ze'u finti lo se > cusku .i ni'i lenu mi sutra lenu finto lo lojbo kei lo se srera be mi cu > .ii to'e cmalu .iku'i .ei mi ba troci > Probably {lonu} since the cases are pretty clearly not in mind at this point. {lo'i se srera} is probably better -- but I am not sure just what you meant. My suggestion -- mirroring djordn's original -- would say that the number of errors is unsmall. Your original says that the errors themselves are unsmall, apparently meaning that they cover wide swaths of text (an interpretation that is open to challenge depending upon what seems to be the natural fill for {cmalu2}). The safe way to do what I think you mean is something like {le ni mi srera cu to'e cmalu}: "I screw up mightily" (you don't, by the way). Do you really feel an obligation to try or are you merely taking that as another opportunity -- no more urgent that posting to the list, for example -- to experiment with the language? --part1_28.2b565b15.2a924949_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2002 5:57:20 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:


.i lenu mi tavla sepi'o la .irycys. ku tolcafne .i mi ze'u finti lo se
cusku .i ni'i lenu mi sutra lenu finto lo lojbo kei lo se srera be mi cu
.ii to'e cmalu .iku'i .ei mi ba troci


Probably {lonu} since the cases are pretty clearly not in mind at this point.
{lo'i se srera} is probably better -- but I am not sure just what you meant.  My suggestion -- mirroring djordn's original -- would say that the number of errors is unsmall.  Your original says that the errors themselves are unsmall, apparently meaning that they cover wide swaths of text (an interpretation that is open to challenge depending upon what seems to be the natural fill for {cmalu2}).  The safe way to do what I think you mean is something like {le ni mi srera cu to'e cmalu}: "I screw up mightily" (you don't, by the way).  Do you really feel an obligation to try or are you merely taking that as another opportunity -- no more urgent that posting to the list, for example -- to experiment with the language? --part1_28.2b565b15.2a924949_boundary--