From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Apr 30 11:21:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7001 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2000 18:21:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Apr 2000 18:21:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.113) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Apr 2000 18:21:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 6711 invoked by uid 0); 30 Apr 2000 18:21:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000430182108.6710.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.36 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:21:08 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.36] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku and najyzme Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:21:08 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e ><< > za'a galfi le jufra (It seems to modify the sentence.)>> [...] > And will {galfi} really work: the sentence is >unchanged and the lojban phrase is hardly an agent? {ve skicu}? [Natural >tight literalism in action] Why can't a sentence be modified? Can't we say: le nu pilno zo ba'o cu galfi lu i sidbo li'u lu i ba'o sidbo li'u The use of "ba'o" changes the sentence "i sidbo" into the sentence "i ba'o sidbo". {le jufra} has to refer to the sentence before the modification, but that would be the case with any object being modified, nothing special about sentences. >.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 le mi vlacku cu xusra to lo cukta ka'e xusra toi le du'u la'e zoi gy musk gy cu mirli se cigla co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com