From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Sep 27 08:47:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 15:47:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 73381 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 15:47:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 15:47:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 15:47:58 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17uxO1-0002j2-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:50:37 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17uxNL-0002iK-00; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:49:55 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17uxNG-0002i9-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:49:50 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8RFs2GZ028258 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:54:02 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8RFs2TC028257 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:54:02 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:54:02 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Message-ID: <20020927155402.GA28188@allusion.net> References: <20020927153100.GA27573@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1615 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 03:41:54PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e > > People also frequently forget boi when there's two lerfu sumti in > > a row, or ku when there's a joi for sumti.=20 >=20 > Yes, but that seems to be a different type of error. Once you=20 > understand the reason why the terminator is needed you don't=20 > have to give a second thought to it. [I think numbers and lerfu > should not have been allowed to merge together, but that's for > some other day. Even so, the rule is learnable.] {na} is different. > Every time I see or write {na} in a longuish or a little bit complex=20 > sentence I have to spend some time analyzing it before I can > be sure of what it says. And for the next sentence I have to > start from scratch, I haven't developed any intuition about it. [...] It's actually pretty simple: there's no need to do real thinking about the sentence: - if you can rephrase it as "It is false that: foo", the na is fine. - if not, you can make it a "naku" and get position defined scope - also consider a cmavo from NAhE, which is frequently better anyway. This is easier for me than remembering {boi}! :) --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9lH8ZDrrilS51AZ8RAt7nAJ99VVOCqQ6pq7uxT1LcjBVZH26VLgCgjK37 jAZUKaiciiwG6f27SroRVh8= =x54+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO--