From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat May 27 12:12:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3356 invoked from network); 27 May 2000 19:12:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 May 2000 19:12:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 May 2000 19:12:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 2509 invoked by uid 0); 27 May 2000 19:12:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20000527191236.2508.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.152.86 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 27 May 2000 12:12:36 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.152.86] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] coi rodo - mi'e .aulun. Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:12:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la ivAn cusku di'e >All things considered, I'd go for {tcuan,ts} and {xuei,ts}. Sounds good to me. >{do na finpe} vs {do na du mi} does not quite get across the >parallelism of the original, which had, I take it, something >like _ni3 bu4shi4 yu2_ vs _ni3 bu4shi4 wo3_. There should >be a way of making the two utterances more similar. ... {do na me mi} maybe. The lack of parallelism makes it more clear what is the flaw in the argument, which the formal parallelism of the Chinese expression perhaps helps to cloud. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com