From rob@twcny.rr.com Mon May 28 12:00:15 2001
Return-Path: <rob@twcny.rr.com>
X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 28 May 2001 19:00:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 7151 invoked from network); 28 May 2001 19:00:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 May 2001 19:00:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.168) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 May 2001 19:00:14 -0000
Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4SIwaA28874 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:58:35 -0400
Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154SCk-0002cq-00 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:57:26 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:57:23 -0400
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications
Message-ID: <20010528145723.A10074@twcny.rr.com>
Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com
References: <F138IVvLVKi3s1wsXZZ00015ddc@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i
In-Reply-To: <F138IVvLVKi3s1wsXZZ00015ddc@hotmail.com>; from graywyvern@hotmail.com on Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:56:19PM +0000
X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com
From: Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>

On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 04:56:19PM +0000, michael helsem wrote:
> >From: Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>
> li'o
> >Perhaps a better example would be the Walt Kelly quote, "We have met the 
> >enemy,
> >and he is us." Is there any better way to translate that than {mi'o puzi 
> >penmi
> >le bradi .ije ri du mi'o}?
> >
> 
> using MI'O ZEI PRENU or just MIBYPRE as the bridi? e.g.
> 
> LE POI MI'O BA'O PENMI KE'A KU'O BRADI CU BA'E MIBYPRE

"The enemy which we have met is we the people."

I don't think that flows very well, and it doesn't especially emphasize the
idea that, in meeting the enemy, they met themselves. What was wrong with the
version with {du}? (besides things like the tense)
-- 
Rob Speer


