From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Oct 21 14:22:46 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 21 Oct 2000 21:22:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 25311 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2000 21:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Oct 2000 21:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.107) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Oct 2000 21:22:45 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:22:44 -0700 Received: from 200.42.153.245 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:22:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.153.245] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:literalism Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:22:44 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2000 21:22:44.0690 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D677320:01C03BA5] From: "Jorge Llambias" la adam cusku di'e >For example, a pattern that I've sometimes seen is when the seltau >modifies the entire bridi, as in e.g. 'spaji nerkla' (le nu nerkla cu >spaji). Would it work to consider the place stucture of >'pajykemnerkla' as 'n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 s2 (n=nerkla)'? Would it work to >define this as type of tanru as broda zei brode = brode1 brode2 >brode3 brode4 brode5 broda2 broda3 broda4 broda5? Or maybe >there's another way to analyze it. Yes, that seems like a good analysis, and it is a different pattern than the usual ones: {broda je brode} and {brode be f* lo'e broda} (and also {brode be f* le (nu/ka) broda} as a special case of the second one). I wonder why it is not more common. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.