[lojban-beginners] Re: Intonation of xu (was Re: (no subject))

[Jan Pilgenroeder <pille@mac.com>]

Am Donnerstag, 06.02.03 um 12:26 Uhr schrieb Theodore Reed:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:13:17 +0100
> "Newton, Philip" <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de> wrote:
>
> > coi .ian. do cusku di'e
> > > .i.e'u ko troci tu'a la jbofi'e .i.o'acu'i mi ta'e pilno ri lepu'u
> > > cipra pu mi gubyternoi
> >
> > Maybe you should use it a bit more :)

Hmm, well, at least I should look more carefully at it's output LOL.

> > "I habitually use it for the purpose of (the <process-of [testing
> > before me]>-type-of public-message-author)" looks a bit strange to me.
> > Things aren't grouping the way you probably intended them to.
> >
> > I'm not too hot on pu'u (nor grammar in general), but maybe you want
> > something more along the lines of {mi ta'e pilno ri lepu'u cipra kei
> > pu lenu mi gubyternoi} with an extra {kei} to close of the {le pu'u}
> > abstraction and a {le nu} after {pu}?

Just adding "lenu" before "mi gubyternoi" should do. I did want to say 
"the process of (testing before I publish)". And it seems to me that

	.i mi ta'e pilno ri lepu'u cipra pu lenu mi gubyternoi

groups fine.

> Am I the only one that noticed his usage of "ri"? Doesn't "ri" mean the
> last sumti? ie "mi pilno ri" would be "I use myself".

"mi pilno ri" is not really that much shorter than "mi pilno mi", so 
the "mi" is ignored by ri. (Lojban Reference Grammar, Chapter 7, 6.3)

> Or am I just way off my rocker?

Yes ;-)

Bye,
   Jan.

--
Jan Pilgenroeder
Theaterstr. 59
52062 Aachen