From jcowan@reutershealth.com Mon Sep 30 12:42:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 30 Sep 2002 19:42:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 33332 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 19:42:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2002 19:42:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.151) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 19:42:43 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail2.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA24895; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200209301954.PAA24895@mail2.reutershealth.com> Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:42:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] LOI PRENU GO PA MEI GI KA'E NAI TE JINGA? To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk (And Rosta) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com (lojban) In-Reply-To: from "And Rosta" at Sep 30, 2002 08:40:01 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan And Rosta scripsit: > 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". No, ka'enai is ungrammatical. But it so happens that "ka'e na" will work, since tenses and NAs can be interchanged. -- Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known; John Cowan Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone; jcowan@reutershealth.com Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind; www.ccil.org/~cowan Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind. --Tao 33 (Bynner)