From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 06 10:22:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 6 Sep 2002 17:22:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 90525 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2002 17:22:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Sep 2002 17:22:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-14.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.114) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Sep 2002 17:22:59 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-243.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.243]) by mailbox-14.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DDBB490FB for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 19:22:55 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] termsets Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:24:29 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin xorxes: > Termsets group things differently: > > nu'i ge abuboi cy gi by.boi dy prami > {A C} and {B D} love. > > A more natural example in English would be: > > A gives {B to C} and {D to F}. > abu dunda nu'ige by boi cy gi dy boi fy > > Each term in a termset fills a different place. > Does the fact that not even John Cowan can get this straight > prove that termsets are unusable and should be avoided? I don't think so. This sort of coordination is very normal and unmarked in English. It's a shame that GA is not already equivalent to "nu'i GA" (so that all coordination is termset coordination), but the result is just averagely lojbanically clunky, and not downright unusable. --And.