Subject: Re: [lojban] years & numbers

From: Richard Curnow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 06:27:22 +0100

On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:44:23PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> 
> >{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.

The 2nd one is just two independent terms, because the 'li paxa' is not
coupled to nanca at all. The 3rd is just ungrammatical. Maybe

lo paxamei nanca nixli

is the nearest thing that will parse.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Curnow [email-masked]
Weston-super-Mare
United Kingdom http://go.to/richard.curnow/