From phma@oltronics.net Thu Oct 12 13:57:18 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@oltronics.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 12 Oct 2000 20:57:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 10467 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2000 20:57:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Oct 2000 20:57:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.oltronics.net) (204.213.85.8) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2000 20:57:17 -0000 Received: from neofelis (root@localhost) by mail.oltronics.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA29261 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:57:13 -0400 X-BlackMail: 207.15.133.21, neofelis, , 207.15.133.21 X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 16:57:14(EDT) on October 12, 2000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] years & numbers Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:44:23 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29.2] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8s4ooj+9vnk@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <8s4ooj+9vnk@eGroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0010121656300E.08496@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Pierre Abbat On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting) wrote: >{ci [lo] nanca} or better {nanca li ci}?? >{le ci nanca} - {le nanca be li ci}? {le ci nanca} could be the years 1776, 1868, and 1971, but {le nanca be li ci} could not; it is a three-year time span. >{lo nanca xirma} - x2-default=1 >{loi nanca be li ci be'o finpe} (it doesn't work with {crisa} which >would give a German fishery term :-) "Skol'ko tebe let? -Mne chetyre goda." >{lo nanca be li paxa be'o nixli} (le nixli cu nanca li paxa) >{lo nixli co nanca li paxa} > or (worse?) >{lo paxa [bo] nanca nixli} The first one seems correct, the second also sounds correct but jbofi'e seems to think it's 16 yearling girls, and it barfs on the third. phma