From rob@twcny.rr.com Mon May 28 18:59:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 29 May 2001 01:59:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 14413 invoked from network); 29 May 2001 01:59:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 May 2001 01:59:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.146) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 May 2001 01:59:10 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4T1vX028585 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:57:33 -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 ; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:57:32 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154YkC-0002nR-00 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:56:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:56:24 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Enemy [Was: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications Message-ID: <20010528215624.A10740@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: ; from jjllambias@hotmail.com on Tue, May 29, 2001 at 01:47:03AM +0000 X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 01:47:03AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >On "We have me the enemy and they are us," > [...] > >"We have met the enemy and they are ours" > [...] > >It won't work in Lojban with the same economy and spelling it all out > >loses the punch. > > Well, I think I'll try it anyway: > > i mi'o ba'o penmi le bradi i za'a ri me mi'o moi > > i mi'o ba'o penmi le bradi i za'a ri me mi'o "... and he pertains to us." Could you give me a simple reason why that is preferrable to {ri du mi'o}? -- Rob Speer