From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Dec 16 09:42:31 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 17:42:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 69796 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 17:42:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 17:42:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 17:42:30 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.2.113] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 17:42:28 -0000
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:42:23 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: detri
Message-ID: <91g9hv+u0m7@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <F243813LlkHT9UaEI8R000012ac@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1350
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

--- In lojban@egroups.com, "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:

> i la lojban so'iroi se pajmanci

je'e .i go'i

> {fi'o se nenri ko'a} means "inside ko'a".
> {fi'o nenri ko'a} means "having ko'a inside".
> 
> In general {fi'o broda ko'a} puts ko'a in the x1 place of
> broda, that is explained in the book. You may be suggesting
> a different interpretation, but in that case please be more
> explicit on how it would work in general. I suppose you don't
> want {nenri} to be an exception to the general rule.
> 
> If you don't include {be}, then what you are saying is that
> the discovery occurs inside the soup, not that the fly is
> inside the soup. Xod's use of {be} was correct.

You're right, of course! I should have looked into the Book before!
1) I didn't consider the different 1st places of fi'o nenri and ne'i,
2) was puzzled by the use of {be} and {fi'o}/{ne'i} together. My (erroneous) feeling was, that {be} just can "activate" a given 
selbri place, whereas {fi'o} /{ne'i} create an additional one. So, since {facki} doesn't have this place, {be} seemed inappropriate 
together with {fi'o}. Yet, now I see, it's the other way round:

ti sfani ne'i le mi stasu/ti sfani fi'o se nenri le mi stasu (step 1)
mi viska pa sfani be fi'o se nenri le mi stasu/mi viska lo sfani be ne'i le mi stasu (step 2)

ki'e co'o mi'e la .aulun.