From slobin@ice.ru Thu Aug 02 03:22:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: slobin@ice.ru X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 10:22:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 5577 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 10:22:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 10:22:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO party.ice.ru) (213.85.36.62) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 10:22:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (slobin@localhost) by party.ice.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id OAA07522 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:22:34 +0400 X-Authentication-Warning: party.ice.ru: slobin owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:22:34 +0400 (MSD) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] vliju'a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Cyril Slobin On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > That probably says too little, it only says that at least some > event of knowing is an event of being powerful. The maxim claims > more than that. {ro nu djuno cu nu vlipa} sounds too strong, > so I would go with {lo'e nu djuno cu nu vlipa}. I was always confused with the very meaning of {lo'e}. Does it mean the same as {so'a lo} or maybe {so'e lo} or even {rau lo}? If not, why? I am inclined rather not to use {lo'e} until I'll clarify its meaning for me. > Or we can simplify it to: {lo'e djuno cu vlipa}. Very fine! Short, precise, lojbanic. Or just {lo djuno cu vlipa}, regarding my doubts with {lo'e}. -- Cyril Slobin