From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Feb 19 12:03:24 2003
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 19 Feb 2003 20:03:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 68855 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 20:03:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2003 20:03:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 20:03:18 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12)
  id 18laR2-0004aB-00
  for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:16 -0800
Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
  id 18laQz-0004Zs-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:13 -0800
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12)
  id 18laQt-0004Zf-00
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:07 -0800
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:07 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: skiji
Message-ID: <20030219200307.GF30112@digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <1045670709.3e53ab3584b6a@imp.free.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1045670709.3e53ab3584b6a@imp.free.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
X-archive-position: 4105
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: lojban-list
X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
From: Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 05:05:09PM +0100, jexOm. wrote:
> coi. rodo .i mi'e jexOm.
> 
> Do you understand the following?
> 
> {.i le nu mi pu klama le cmana poi se cmene zo .alp. tezu'e mi te skiji loi snime}

The event of I went to the mountains called the alps with goal mi is the
skier on snow.

Ummm...

Remove the le nu at the front and add a le nu after tezu'e gives you:

.i mi pu klama le cmana poi se cmene zo .alp. tezu'e le nu mi te skiji
loi snime

which is

I went to the mountains with name Alp for the goal of I ski on the snow.

Which I think is what you want.

> Would there be a better way of saying it?
> For example, would {le la .alp. cmana} be better than {le cmana poi se cmene zo
> .alp.}?

Nope; that's the mountains owned by someone named Alp, conventionally at
least.

I'd use "be me'e".

> Is {loi} appropriate for {snime} here?

Absolutely.

> Is the construction {le nu ... tezu'e ...} correct for saying "I have
> done this for/in_order_to do that"?

See above.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
.i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu
.i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai
http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi




