From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Jun 11 11:48:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 18:48:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 47459 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 18:48:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 18:48:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 18:48:21 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A276BD9B0076; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:48:22 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Purpose of bridi Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:48:23 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <32.1643102f.285669c3@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" >{bengo} means Bengali -- {cnita}? {sisma} is {simsa} (welcome to the I read the wrong lime of the second column in the gismu list - I do mean cnita. >independent-finger typing school). {simsa} is weaker that {dunli} or {mintu} >and I think the passage can take the stronger form. {gi'e} is for brid-tails, I was taking it as "they are similar" but knowing alchemical doctrine it does need a stronger form. I didn't think of dunli, and I have never heard of mintu before, but it does fit rather nicely. >I think (though I am not sure what they are) and this seems to connect >complete bridi. I am unsure how to use {nei} except in {nei jetfa} but I nei = this bridi, it seemed to fit. But it makes me wonder - if I just say .i nei haven't I just told you about an infinite string of .i's? or have I not said anything? >don't think it is actually in the preceding bridi -- so you want an {.i} >(which, in this context, you don't need at the beginning) and then {di'u}. >The rest then says "this utterance planned that someone do the one and only >thing-({dacni} > {dacti}) function (? {facnu} > {fancu})" Minimally, I >suspect that {pa} modifies {dacti} and is not the internal quantifier with >{le}, so maybe {pa zei dacti} or {dacti pamei}. And I think that {prupla} is >either the wrong brivla altogether or that you need a different choice of My copy of the lujvo list says it means to intend or to purpose so nei prupla would be 'this sentence has the purpose of' >places to use, {di'u se prupla fi le nu...}? >Good first shot in that it brings out nicely where the big problems are and >gets some things tacked down. Thanks. Now as for the message that just showed up while I was typing this, you're right Michael, it does need to be two sentences. Thanks for all the input everyone! --la kreig.daniyl 'segu temci fa le bavli gi mi'o ba renvi lo purci .i ga la fonxa cu janbe gi du mi' -la djimis.BYFet xy.sy. gubmau ckiku cmesanji: 0x5C3A1E74