From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 16:22:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1863 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2000 23:22:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Aug 2000 23:22:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.134) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2000 23:22:41 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:22:41 -0700 Received: from 200.42.118.75 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.118.75] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Careful with noi! Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:22:41 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2000 23:22:41.0747 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFEBB230:01C007D8] From: "Jorge Llambias" la mark cusku di'e >Careful. If I read my Codex Woldemar aright, on page 178 (Section 8.6), >what you have here is a "noi" clause in the "inner" relative clause >position of "lo", which is pretty dangerous. You're right! I think I never take that into account. I always use {noi} and {poi} (and {pe}) as if they were "outer" clauses. It's unfortunate that the most common meaning gets the most complicated way of expressing it. >You either need the "ku" before the "noi", or better, use a restrictive >relative clause ("poi"), which makes more sense anyway. I gave her a >cherry... which one? One of those that lack stones. And so on. I'm not sure. My feeling is that {noi} makes more sense: I gave her a cherry, and what do you know, it had no stone. Of all the cherries in the world I gave her one, and it so happens that it had no stone. And not: of all the cherries with no stone, I gave her one. Maybe I'm being influenced by the way it is written, on a separate line. But {poi} makes sense too. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com