From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Aug 03 13:26:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7629 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2000 20:26:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Aug 2000 20:26:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2000 20:26:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.66] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2000 20:26:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 20:26:38 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives Message-ID: <8mckhu+okdh@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 954 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, "Jorge Llambias" wrote: > la aulun cusku di'e > > >.i le botpi be lo xunre vanju se pu spofu > > {se} goes after the tense, but in this case you don't > want {se}, right? Right, I added the /se/ in a last erroneous impulse while posting. Yet, is it real economical to have two gismus for "break/broken" (porpi/spofu)?! > > Also, that means that the bottle was broken in the past > (maybe by now it has been fixed). Do you mean that, or do > you mean that it is now broken {ca spofu}, or that it > broke in the past {pu porpi}? > > >.i .oi mi na ba pinxe le > >selpofbo'i > > That is fine. But don't tell me that {le na ba se pinxe > be do cu se botpi}, which would be confusing, even though > you could weasel out of it by talking of potentialities. :-) Exactly, what I wanted to express, is that the (former!) contents of the bottle, once broken, is spoilt and can no longer be cherished. .aulun.