Subject: Re: [lojban] le pamoi nu la brojbogirz. penmi

From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:53:53 -0500

On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Avital Oliver wrote:
>pu nu'i re lo djedi 

{re djedi} is sufficient, but {lo djedi be li re} is the proper way to say it.
After {pu nu'i} they are equivalent, but after {ca'o} (during) they are not.
{ca'o re djedi} means "during two days (which may or may not be adjacent)", but
{ca'o lo djedi be li re} means "during a two-day interval". Without the
termset, {pu re djedi} means "before two days"; some languages (e.g. Greek -
pro duó émeras) actually say this for "two days ago".

>mi penmi loi pendo be mi le zdeni be mi tezu'e le

zo zdani cu basti zo zdeni

>nu cilre la lojban. .i le girzu fi ze lo prenu .e re lo prenu ba jorne le
>gy. 

That means "the group will join something at seven people and at two people the
G", with the G being in fourth place which {jorne} does not have.

>.i puki mi tavla fi le citri nu la lojban. .e ba fe mi'a nunsnu fi

"I talked (and use the time of talking as a reference point for future tenses)
about the historical event that Lojban and will we discussion..." I
can't figure out what you're saying Lojban and the future discussion are doing.

>le se smadi nu la sapir,uorf. ku je loi mupli be le nu la lojban.
>xamgu mau le glibau .i 

>Two days ago [how could I have done this better?] I met with some of my
>friends in my house in order to learn Lojban. The group consists of 7
>people, and two more will join. I talked about the history of Lojban, and
>then we discussed the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and some examples on how
>Lojban is better than English.

pu nu'i re djedi mi penmi pisu'o loi pendo be mi le zdani be mi tezu'e le
nu cilre fi la lojban. .i gy girzu fi ze prenu .ije re prenu ba jorne
gy. .i mi pu tavla fi le citri be la lojban. .ibabo mi'a casnu
le se smadi be la sapiruorf. be'o .e lo mupli be le su'u la lojban.
xagmau le glibau

co'omi'e pier.