Print

Print


Petry pontificated:
> > I'll quote just this:
> >
> > > It es cert que li L.I. ne es fat por illiterates, ma por personnes
> > > queles have international contactes e posedent un medial
> > > instruction.
>
>I understood what was written there perfectly. And, the point is, so did you.
>Otherwise, you couldn't make an argument pro or con about it. And, thus,
>you prove
>what I've been saying all along. The folks here can read it.

No.  SOME folks here can read it.  But make no assumptions, because I can't
read it.  Without the Romance language background, I see fat poor
illiterates.  I KNOW that is not what it means - I know that "por" is some
kind of cmavo because "por que" is a phrase I had to memorize 35 years ago
in Spanish and don't remember what it means other than it is not the meat
of a pig; I have no idea at all about "fat" (but it is probably not the
meat of a pig either %^).

Of the rest, "queles" gives me not a clue, nor does "posedent", and
"medial" coupled with instruction suggests that it could either be
"middle-level" or "medium of".

This is too much guesswork.  With 4 words that I don't know at all, and one
that has two quite plausible meanings, I cannot say that I understand what
was written there at all, much less "perfectly".

And I've told you this before, both humorously and not humorously.  You
refuse to accept my statements - that is calling me a liar, which you have
in effect done to me and several others with the above post.  And then YOU
have the nerve to accuse me of "misusing your name".  People who throw
stones ...

lojbab

--
lojbab                                             [log in to unmask]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org