From araizen@newmail.net Sat Aug 04 18:56:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 01:56:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 17616 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 01:56:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 01:56:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n1.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 01:56:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.67] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2001 01:56:20 -0000 Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 01:56:17 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: lo, ku, and poi Message-ID: <9ki941+jkvo@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 531 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.181.246 From: "Adam Raizen" The book ch. 8.6 (p. 178-179), makes a distinction between a relative clause before and after the "ku" which terminates the sumti, especially when the relative clause is introduced by "noi". Does this distinction still hold up when the relative clause is introduced by "poi"? For example (from the lessons), does lo jgita poi zo'e bevri vi le janco claim that all jgita are carried on the shoulder, or does it take at least one thing from among the set of all jgita that are carried on the shoulder? mu'o mi'e adam