From gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch Thu Sep 19 21:43:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 04:43:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 40013 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 04:43:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 04:43:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta3n.bluewin.ch) (195.186.1.212) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 04:43:48 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (213.3.164.180) by mta3n.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 6.5.027) id 3D887F3A0002A3DB for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:43:47 +0200 Message-ID: <011d01c26060$56b49f80$919aca3e@oemcomputer> To: "jboste" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] lessons in french Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:22:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "G. Dyke" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=81437350 X-Yahoo-Profile: gregvdyke la xorxes cusku di'e teta'a le fraso ve cilre pe mi > Très bon! The only petit objection I have is to your use of {ianai} > and {ienai}. For me they are more likely to express disbelief and > disagreement with the current bridi (the one they are attached to) > rather than with the previous one, but your interpretation is > probably closer to the official one, so... In ordinary usage, I would separate these from the bridi: ienai i blanu I presume a ianai on it's own would express disbelief of a previous bridi? I thought it pointless to go that far and I chose to neither introduce {i} or (and which I thought might be more controversial) {.} the latter two we shall get to either next lesson or the one after, and more explicit description of attitudinals will come later as well mu'o mi'e greg