From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Tue Jul 31 19:01:41 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 02:01:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 87305 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 02:01:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 02:01:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 02:01:10 -0000
Received: from m22-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.22] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15Rl4e-0004ls-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 01 Aug 2001 02:45:24 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi}
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 03:00:20 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEPKEHAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <F51emuwlPStYuVrPHIa0000b6b4@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Jorge:
> 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]}.

Ah, sorry. I've made this mistake in the past too. I can't shake
off the notion that bi'u works like ba'e.

--And.