From phma@webjockey.net Wed Dec 04 04:31:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 4 Dec 2002 12:31:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 70003 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 12:31:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2002 12:31:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 12:31:05 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18JYgD-0007py-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 04:31:05 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JYg8-0007pe-00; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 04:31:00 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 Dec 2002 04:30:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=neofelis.ixazon.lan) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JYg3-0007pK-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 04:30:55 -0800 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1C0BE3C477; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:30:21 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:30:19 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <20021204070122.GA60012@allusion.net> In-Reply-To: <20021204070122.GA60012@allusion.net> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <02120407301901.01986@neofelis> X-archive-position: 3002 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Wednesday 04 December 2002 02:01, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:42:28PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > >pa re nai ci? > > >(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser) > > > > That could be used in this context, for example: > > > > A: pa re xu ci > > B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci > > I dunno what ja'ai is and don't feel like looking it up. This seems > highly contrived though. Anyway, there's certainly tons of weird > things which would need to be explained (ku nai, pi'e nai, la/le/etc nai, > .inai, mi nai, la'e nai di'u, jai nai, etc etc). This calls for {na'i}, not {nai}. phma