From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 11:02:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 19:02:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 55029 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 19:02:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 19:02:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.176) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 19:02:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:02:39 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.23 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:02:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.23] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Train catching ut nunc Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:02:39 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2001 19:02:39.0380 (UTC) FILETIME=[56EEED40:01C0ACB9] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >pu ki mi pu'o je banai snada tu'a le trene > >I believe this is the way I would express it myself. That works too. The {je banai} part will in many cases be obvious from the context, just as you are relying on context to sort out what {tu'a} stands for, but there is no harm in expressing it. >My problem with this is that I can never remember if a ja'a ru'e is a >success or a failure. It's a {ja'a}, what else? {ja'a snada} success, {ja'a fliba} failure. My problem with it is the sense in which it is weak. I'm not sure "barely" is the only possible interpretation. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.