[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> > > > > {mi nelci lo'ei cakla} does not mean that I like the most common
> > > > > type of chocolate.
> > > >
> > > >But you think lo'e does, right?
> > >
> > > No, I don't. To me {lo'e} is {lo'ei}. I don't understand why
> > > you are attributing this notion of associating the mode with
> > > {lo'e} to me. What did I say that led you to this?
> >
> >This below. In my understanding, lo would have been just fine in both
> >cases.
>
> But the examples you cite have nothing to do with the mode...
Perhaps I misunderstood you. But what is it you're trying to achieve with
darxi lo'e nanmu, which isn't expressed with lo nanmu?
>
> I know you use {lo} in cases like that, but your use of {lo}
> is as much against CLL as my use of {lo'e}. You use {lo} as
> if it had no quantifier.
But it's true that la djan cu darxi su'o lo ro nanmu, so what mistake am I
making?
> I would not be surprized if your
> {lo} matches my {lo'e} very closely.
>
> >On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I would translate {lo'e remna cu zmadu ti} as "this is
> > > man-made", and not as "the typical human made this".
> > > "Humans made this" also works as a translation though,
> > > but it is not really meant as a property of humans, it
> > > doesn't really say that humans are such that they made this.
> >
> > > la djan cu darxi lo'e nanmu ze'a le jeftu
> > > John has been hitting men all week.
--
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."