From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Mar 30 16:56:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@shiva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 31 Mar 2001 00:56:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 58137 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2001 00:56:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Mar 2001 00:56:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shiva.sixgirls.org) (206.252.141.232) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Mar 2001 00:56:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by shiva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3+3.4W/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2V0v5212641 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:57:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:57:05 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] jbofi'e bug or I just don't get it. In-Reply-To: <01033019362009.00929@neofelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Value Yourself On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >And why does > > > >le nu mi pinxe xy. ba na lakne > > > >not pars but Shouldn't it parse? > >le nu mi pinxe xy. ku ba na lakne > > > >does? > > The first one means "that I drink x after is not likely" - "ba" is modifying > "pinxe" and expecting a sumti, presumably an event. In the second, "ku" closes > "le" and "le nu mi pinxe xy. ku" is the subject of "ba na lakne". You could > have equally used "kei" which closes "nu". I agree with your grammar, but disagree with your English. I think the 1st one says "The event of (I drink after X isn't likely)", and the 2nd reads "the event of me drinking isn't likely in the future". But, doesn't this next one parse? 3. le nu mi pinxe xy. na ba lakne If not, why not? ----- "The trees are green, since green is good for the eyes". I agreed with him, and added, that God had created cattle, since beef soups strengthen man; that he created the donkey, so that it might give man something with which to compare himself; and he had created man, to eat beef soup and not be a donkey.