From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Nov 19 11:40:09 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 19 Nov 2000 19:40:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 82611 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2000 19:40:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Nov 2000 19:40:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Nov 2000 19:40:09 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.225] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Nov 2000 19:40:09 -0000 Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:40:01 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: And? Message-ID: <8v9aah+jmh1@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <0011190250461J.20128@neofelis> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1364 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, Pierre Abbat wrote: > >la'i xekyjaf. jo'e la'i moxak. pu simxa'a klama pa barda terpenmi > > I don't know what the Mohawks call themselves, but Blackfoot for Blackfoot is > piKYni, which I've seen spelled both Pikuni and Pikanii. I'm not familiar with those tribes names (dealt more with Lakota, Haida, Tlingit - and Aztek etc.) Rereading my translated sentences, I discovered some real BS (shame!): .i pe'i e'u le jibri be ge la tcarls. gi la djounz. ba suksa se dicra - (this is *forethought* connective) ta lante je botpi kargau - (the "ke ... ke'e is hardly necessary since the tanru grouping with jeks has higher precedence, additionally there rules left-grouping) le ca djedi ku lo'i kreka'apre ku'a lo'i ka'armikce na mutce barda - ("these days" should at least be {ca loi djedi ku}, maybe the real meaning could be expressed better with something like {... ca ze'upu na'e mutce barda} There might be still more mistakes. :( I'd be interested to find a lujvo for "breeder", have no idea! BTW, what could be the meaning of {le zbasu tu'a loi ninmu}? (How) can {tu'a} be incorporated in a lujvo? Is it allowed to make a brivla from e.g. {le nolraitru} to express "this is *the* King" rather than "this is *a* king" (ti me le nolraitru/ti nolraitru) - Sapir/Whorf might be rolling in their graves! .aulun.