From lojban@65536.org Tue Feb 11 10:31:06 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:31:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 18ifBR-0003m9-00
	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:31:05 -0800
Received: from [212.227.126.202] (helo=mrvnet.kundenserver.de)
	by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 18ifBQ-00006B-00
	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:31:04 +0100
Received: from [172.23.4.132] (helo=config5.kundenserver.de)
	by mrvnet.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 18ifBQ-0007EQ-00
	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:31:04 +0100
Received: from www-data by config5.kundenserver.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18ifBQ-0006GP-00
	for <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:31:04 +0100
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] A problem with cu
From: lojban@65536.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-From: 5391625
Received: from 217.87.10.210 by webmail.puretec.de via HTTP
X-Binford: 6100 (more power)
Message-Id: <E18ifBQ-0006GP-00@config5.kundenserver.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:31:04 +0100
X-archive-position: 85
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: lojban@65536.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

coi rodo (or is simply {coi} better?)

After some Lojban lessons I have still some problems with {cu}. As far
as I understand it {cu} indicates that the following word is a selbri.
It separate two gismu: 

{le nanmu cu klama}

OK, but why do you use {cu} in the following sentence:

{lenu mi cilre fi la lojban. cu xamgu mi}

{xamgu} is a selbri, so you can use {cu}, but is

{lenu mi cilre fi la lojban. xamgu mi}

correct? {la lojban.} is a cmeme - there is no need for a {cu}?
Another {cu}-problem:

{la daucac. tcika lenu mi klama}

is OK. If you want to use {se} it becomes something like

{lenu mi klama cu se tcika la daucac.}

Why is {se} not enough to separate {klama} and {tcika}?

mu'o mi'e .iens.gutsait. (or is mi'e ... enough? What is the
difference?)