From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Sep 30 12:45:16 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 19:45:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 21622 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 19:45:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2002 19:45:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-5.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.105)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 19:45:15 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-149.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.149])
  by mailbox-5.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C54614E5E
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:45:12 +0200 (DST)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] LOI PRENU GO PA MEI GI KA'E NAI TE JINGA?
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:46:50 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEMHGJAA.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: <F76RuMrzpeSKR8kfgU100008fa6@hotmail.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

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >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.
> 
> Yes, but {lei prenu} rather than {loi prenu}. Any individual
> person, any pair, any threesome, can instantiate {loi prenu}.
> That says "Some people, united, can never be defeated", not
> what we mean.

What about {ro pregri}? I don't quite want to say "a certain mass of 
people", either. Well, it's not wrong, I guess.

> {ka'enai} is not grammatical officially, but it has wide usage
> support. John's {ginai ka'e} alternative is good too.

requires stress as: gi NAI ka'E te JINga
-- so I'm not sure if that'd work.

> The causal relationship has to be groked from context, I suppose.

More than in the original?

--And.