From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Sep 30 12:38:27 2002
Return-Path: <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 30 Sep 2002 19:38:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 93754 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 19:38:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2002 19:38:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-15.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 19:38:26 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-149.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.149])
  by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809B720174
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:38:23 +0200 (DST)
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] LOI PRENU GO PA MEI GI KA'E NAI TE JINGA?
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:40:01 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGEMHGJAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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: <200209301558.LAA20589@mail2.reutershealth.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin

From: John Cowan 
> And Rosta scripsit:
> 
> > How about {loi prenu go pa mei gi ka'e nai te jinga}
> > that sounds pretty coolass to me -- something John might consent to chant.
> 
> Indeed I would. Alas, "gi nai" are about as united as any two cmavo can
> possibly be, and "ka'e" can't intervene. A UI can intervene,
> but the result is that the "nai" binds to the UI.

Is {ka'e nai} not standard Lojban for "cannot"? The meaning I intended
was "is a unity iff cannot be defeated" -- makes a stronger claim than
the original, but not inappropriately so. That is, the meaning is
"go pa mei gi na ka'e te jinga".

> I think the best we can do is "loi prenu. go pamei. giNAI ka'E te jinga."
> 
> > But it won't work if GA can occur tanru internally, which it probably can.
> 
> No, that's why GUhA exists -- to eliminate the ambiguity.

So I reckon "LOI PRENU GO PA MEI GI KA'E NAI TE JINGA" should do the
job, then, right?

--And.