From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Nov 08 08:40:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 16:40:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 51602 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 16:40:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 16:40:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 16:40:16 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18ACB5-0004rN-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:40:15 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18ACAV-0004qc-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:39:39 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:39:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18ACAQ-0004qO-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:39:34 -0800 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 gA8GjRiR085546 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:45:27 -0600 (CST) (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 gA8GjPQd085545 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:45:25 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:45:25 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro Message-ID: <20021108164524.GA85425@allusion.net> References: <0H590044T5YDYU@mxout1.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0H590044T5YDYU@mxout1.netvision.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2538 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 --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 12:18:43PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > de'i li 2002-11-07 ti'u li 16:34:00 la'o zoi. Robin Lee Powell .zoi cusku= di'e > >Since ro is in PA, this obviously applies. I don't see that there's any= thing > >to argue about. >=20 > Close, but this doesn't necessarily imply that 'PA broda' is equivalent t= o > 'PA lo broda'. As I noted on jboske, ch. 8 sec. 6 says "so-called indefin= ite=20 > sumti like ``re karce'' [..] [mean] almost the same as ``re lo karce''". = I'm=20 > not sure whether "almost the same" was just caution John's part, in case = they=20 > turn out to be different, or whether he was maybe referring to some esote= ric=20 > difference, such as the fact that 're karce' can only have a relative cla= use=20 > after the 'ku', whereas 're lo karce' can have it both before and after, = or=20 > whether there was really supposed to be some small difference. "By a quirk of Lojban syntax, it is possible to omit the descriptor ``lo'', but never any other descriptor.... is equivalent in meaning..." Chap6, section 8 says it straight out, with examples. I didn't know chap8 section 6 also reinforced the issue ;) A good point about the ku being a difference though. --=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 --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9y+okDrrilS51AZ8RAq4SAKDN61eo4BGuoZxSFWEX10746wemdwCeKh9/ LrsMYUoQJ5szbpLej8vvU8o= =HR1V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi--