From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue May 29 15:47:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 29 May 2001 22:47:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 39509 invoked from network); 29 May 2001 22:47:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 May 2001 22:47:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.75) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 May 2001 22:47:33 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 29 May 2001 15:47:33 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.80 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:47:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.80] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: Enemy [Was: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:47:33 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2001 22:47:33.0731 (UTC) FILETIME=[59967B30:01C0E891] From: "Jorge Llambias" la rab spir di'e cusku > > >On "We have me the enemy and they are us," > > >"We have met the enemy and they are ours" > > 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." That's the old meaning of {me}. The current meaning (according to The Book, see pg. 98) would give "...and they are us". >Could you give me a simple reason why that is preferrable to {ri du mi'o}? In the above example, just for the wordplay. In general, {du} and {me} mean practically the same thing when the sumti has a single referent (as in this case). Both {me lo broda} and {du lo broda} are basically longwinded ways of saying {broda}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.