From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Jul 07 08:42:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2582 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 15:42:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 15:42:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 15:42:42 -0000 Received: from m75-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.75] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13Aa7y-00007w-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:33:18 +0100 To: Subject: RE: li [date] (was: RE: [lojban] Lojban / Most translated Web Page Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:42:35 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000706022229.32729.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > coi ui doi and ki'e [I mean to say "thank you", not "mi na jimpe"] > > > {li 2000;05;07} can be nothing but May 7th of this year, > > > >In any context, or as a date sumti of certain predicates? > > I think I meant it as a date. Given the two choices YYYYMMDD > and DDMMYYYY it could not be doubted which convention was > being used. > > >Presumably the latter. I presume "ca li 2000;05;07" is > >nonsense? If so, what is the concisest way to rephrase it > >sensically? > > {de'i li 2000;05;07} in this case. > > However, {co'a de'i li 2000;05;07} doesn't work, it > breaks as {co'a ku de'i li 2000;05;07}. > > Maybe {co'a ko'a goi de'i li 2000;05;07}. > > But I won't complain at {co'a li 2000;05;07}. What else > could it mean? Would you complain at {co'a li 2000}? I presume the reason for you not complaining is that it is unlikely to be misunderstood, rather than that it makes literal sense. --And.