From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jun 21 09:06:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 21 Jun 2001 16:06:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 54171 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2001 16:04:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jun 2001 16:04:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2001 16:04:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.9.173039d8 (4465) for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9.173039d8.28637517@aol.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:04:39 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] da'i (for a change) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9.173039d8.28637517_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_9.173039d8.28637517_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks loads, I needed that! jbofi'e found no fault in all of this , but, since it does not give me a daigrammed output, I have no idea what I said. In a message dated 6/21/2001 1:12:59 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > You have to admit that interpreting you is almost as hard as > interpreting any one else of us. Practice makes perfect? I have a reputation to uphold here. > > noda zo'u ge da namcu gi node namcu gi'e balzma da da'o Yes, when jbofi'e rejected my forethought form, I shifted to soemthing it would take but forgot to get out of forethought. Can one forethought a bridi-tail (? or whatever this is)? <>.iseni'i di goi le sumji be xy bei li > >pa zo'u ge di numcu gi di balzma xy . > > (Every {iseni'i} should be {iseni'ibo}.)> Semantic dissonance. I thought about that and looked it up. It said {bo} is short scope and, since I wanted the whole sentence in, not just the following sumti, I figured that must be what I want. Amoment's thought would have told me that, despite what it says, it means something quite different (the characteristic of Lojban?). > > Shouldn't it be {di no'u le sumji be ...} instead of {goi} here? > {le sumji...} is presumably already assigned, and {di} is not > an assignable variable. {di}, being KOhA is assignable (see {da} in the first step) but the assingment is going the wrong way here, so yes it should be {no'u} -- and so generally for "namely riders." > > >..i di'u cipra te zukte > > {la'e di'u}? And is it really {cipra}? I think I have used > {je'urja'o} for the demonstration sense of proof. I fell for the oldest joke ("the proof of the pudding ...") so, no, it shouldn't be {cipra}, though I am not sure that "showing the truth" is what I would use for "proof." But ti works. > > i melbi nu je'urja'o > Thanks again. --part1_9.173039d8.28637517_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks loads, I needed that!
jbofi'e found no fault in all of this , but, since it does not give me a
daigrammed output, I have no idea what I said.

In a message dated 6/21/2001 1:12:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


You have to admit that interpreting you is almost as hard as
interpreting any one else of us.


Practice makes perfect?  I have a reputation to uphold here.

 My interpretation:

noda zo'u ge da namcu gi node namcu gi'e balzma da da'o


Yes, when  jbofi'e rejected my forethought form, I shifted to soemthing it
would take but forgot to get out of forethought.  Can one forethought a
bridi-tail (? or whatever this is)?


<>.iseni'i di goi le sumji be xy bei li

>pa zo'u ge di numcu  gi di balzma xy .

(Every {iseni'i} should be {iseni'ibo}.)>


Semantic dissonance.  I thought about that and looked it up.  It said {bo} is
short scope and, since I wanted the whole sentence in, not just the following
sumti, I figured that must be what I want. Amoment's thought would have told
me that, despite what it says, it means something quite different (the
characteristic of Lojban?).



Shouldn't it be {di no'u le sumji be ...} instead of {goi} here?
{le sumji...} is presumably already assigned, and {di} is not
an assignable variable.

{di}, being KOhA is assignable (see {da} in the first step) but the
assingment is going the wrong way here, so yes it should be {no'u} -- and so
generally for "namely riders."




>..i di'u cipra te zukte

{la'e di'u}? And is it really {cipra}? I think I have used
{je'urja'o} for the demonstration sense of proof.


I fell for the oldest joke ("the proof of the pudding ...") so, no, it
shouldn't be {cipra}, though I am not sure that "showing the truth" is what I
would use for "proof." But ti works.  




i melbi nu je'urja'o

Thanks again.
--part1_9.173039d8.28637517_boundary--