From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Aug 03 13:26:42 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
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: <F135b5YI9IJsaJbqJGN00006148@hotmail.com>
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)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

--- In lojban@egroups.com, "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> 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.