[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> Xod:
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > >
> > > la xod cusku di'e
> > >
> > > > > la djan cu darxi lo'e nanmu ze'a le jeftu
> > > > > John has been hitting men all week
> > > >
> > > >I'm not sure that you care why, but I don't agree with either of these two
> > > >uses of lo'e. And I think that the CLL and Standard Lojban is on my side
> > >
> > > Ok. How would you say it without {lo'e}?
> >
> > He's hitting real men, and not many of them compared to the number of
> > humans around. What is wrong with le?
>
> {le} would invite the question "Which ones?", which is probably
> not fully appropriate. But I don't see why {lo nanmu} or {za'u nanmu}
> wouldn't work here.
>
> I guess that behind Jorge's question is a point about scope,
> and with {lo/za'u} the ordering would need to change to:
>
> la djan cu darxi ze'a le jeftu lo/za'u nanmu
> "All week it has been the case that there is a man (are men) that
> John hits"
But those 2 sentences are identical:
la djan cu darxi lo nanmu ze'a le jeftu
la djan cu darxi ze'a le jeftu lo nanmu
--
Henry McCullers, an affable Plano, TX-area anti-Semite, praised the
Jewish people Monday for doing "a bang-up job" running the media.
"This has been such a great year for movies, and the new crop of fall
TV shows looks to be one of the best in years," McCullers said.
"And the cable news channels are doing a terrific job, too. Admittedly,
they're not reporting on the Jewish stranglehold on world finance,
but, hey, that's understandable."