From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun May 27 19:59:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 28 May 2001 02:59:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 50810 invoked from network); 28 May 2001 02:59:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 May 2001 02:59:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.7) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 May 2001 02:59:26 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 27 May 2001 19:59:26 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.33 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 28 May 2001 02:59:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.33] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 02:59:26 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2001 02:59:26.0387 (UTC) FILETIME=[349B4830:01C0E722] From: "Jorge Llambias" la rob spir di'e cusku > > Right. {me} is the only way to incorporate the definiteness of {le} > > into the selbri. > >But not {du}? No, {du} is a selbri by itself, in {du le broda}, {le broda} is not part of the selbri, it is just another argument. > > >{mi'o puzi penmi le bradi .ije ri du mi'o}? > > > > That's strictly equivalent to: {mi'o le bradi puzi penmi gi'e du} > >What does that mean? Doesn't there have to be something on the other side >of >{du}? No, you can put the two sumti in front: {da de du} is the same as {da du de}. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.