From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Jul 31 15:12:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 31 Jul 2001 22:12:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 25653 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 22:12:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jul 2001 22:12:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2001 22:12:33 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:12:33 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.43 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:12:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.43] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:12:33 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2001 22:12:33.0260 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5A24AC0:01C11A0D] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >Not germane to your point, but I wd interpret {bi'u le nanmu} as >"a (certain) man", as opposed to "the man" (= {bi'u nai le nanmu}), >and {le bi'u nanmu} as indicating that le nanmu has not hitherto >been described as a man (which implies that the man has already >been referred to). But {bi'u} attaches to the preceding word, so in {bi'u le nanmu} it has no relationship to {le nanmu}. We could make your distinction between {le bi'u nanmu} = {le nanmu ku bi'u} and {le nanmu bi'u [ku]}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp