From Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de Thu Jan 02 09:26:29 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Jan 2003 17:26:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 69495 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 17:26:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jan 2003 17:26:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 2003 17:26:15 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18U96k-00024L-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:26:14 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18U96U-000241-00; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:25:59 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:25:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw6.gedas.de ([139.1.44.12] helo=spree.gedas.de) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18U96P-00023s-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:25:53 -0800 Received: from spree.gedas.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spree.gedas.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11829 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:25:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg (blnsem05.gedas.de [139.1.84.49]) by spree.gedas.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11825 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:25:21 +0100 (MET) Received: by blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:25:21 +0100 Message-ID: To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: I am the man who wrote you a letter Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:25:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-archive-position: 3686 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Newton, Philip" Reply-To: Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=23036112 X-Yahoo-Profile: elder_newton Robin Turner wrote: > Newton, Philip wrote: > > > If the sex is not important, only the letter-writing, > > then {mi pu te xatra be do} works, but if you want to > > include "man" then you have to bring the {poi}-ness > > in somehow. And then {mi du lo nanmu poi pu te xatra > > be do} sounds wrong again -- and {mi nanmu gi'e pu te > > xatra be do} sounds more like a {noi} connection than > > a {poi} one to me. Maybe {mi du pa le ro nanmu poi pu > > te xatra be do} or something? Not sure whether {du} is > > correct in such a case, since I'm not thinking of one > > letter-writing man in particular, only stating that I > > am one such. > > I'd say it was logically the same as {mi nanmu gi'e pu te > xatra be do} - "I am a man and I wrote a letter to you." That sounds to me like a {noi}-type connection (I am a man, oh, and incidentally, I am a writer-of-letter to you) rather than a {poi}-type connection (I am one of those who "are men and wrote a letter to you"). For a {noi}-type connection, I would probably write what you suggested. But I'm not sure whether it's the right thing to say for a {poi}-type connection. Or whether there is even a difference? But I think there must be. mu'omi'e filip. [email copies appreciated, since I read the digest] {ko fukpi mrilu fi mi ki'u le du'u mi te mrilu le notseljmaji} -- filip.niutyn. All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.