From pycyn@aol.com Sat Apr 29 15:50:30 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
Received: (qmail 1743 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO qh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.28) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 12795 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (152.163.225.7) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2000 22:50:29 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.11.3110cb6 (8329) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:50:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <11.3110cb6.263cc12c@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 18:50:20 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku and najyzme
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33
From: pycyn@aol.com

In a message dated 4/29/00 0:55:43 AM CST, xod@sixgirls.org writes:


> How should I read the observatives (well, I don't suppose you can observe 
a 
> perfective)? 


za'a galfi le jufra (It seems to modify the sentence.)>>

Makes sense, but not grammar: the preceding English is not a sumti (needs 
quotes or, better, a linguistic deixis, {de'u} say) And will {galfi} really 
work: the sentence is
unchanged and the lojban phrase is hardly an agent? {ve skicu}? [Natural 
tight literalism in action]

<<zo nazyzme cu valsi le nazbi guzme .i zo najyzme cu valsi
le narju guzme>>


u'u .i mi dukse pensi loi nazbi .i mi pu'o ciksi zo nazyzme fo la'e lu kanba 
se cigla panci guzme li'u no'u la'e zoi gy. muskmelon .gy .i ma sinxa zoi 
gy. pumpkin.gy

Is it time for the occasional worry about the lack of redundancy (= the 
packedness of some word spaces) in Lojban?
pc