Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:06:12 -0200
Message-ID: <CALMa68qddROnjBs-HBeR4C_eZwXikkb26KRHHgYShQHg+mVpQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] [oz] Use of elidable {cu}
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c250565b99af04ef554eb4
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--001a11c250565b99af04ef554eb4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

coi selpa'i

I know about the "cmevla as brivla" rule in the translation grammar. But
still there remains a great amount of elidable {cu} occurrences throughout
the text. E.g.,

(1) {lo zd=E0ni cu pu se cintypu'i}
(2) {la nakf=E0mti .x=E8nris. cu no roi cm=ECla}
(3) {xy ji'a cu gr=F9si}
(4) {ca lo c=E0bdei cu na k=E8lci}

Granted, these are perfectly correct. It just made me curious to hear any
thoughts you have on the usage of {cu}.

In any case, the common usage exemplified above seems inconsistent with
more rare examples such as

(5) {sei ny sp=F9da}
(6) {sei ny sp=F9sku} (3 times)
(7) {pa la m=E0xpre pu p=F2nse}
(8) {la .oz. na d=F9nda lo b=E8sna do}
(9) {la .t=F2tos. ca lo n=F9ncfa na n=E8lci lo vi ziljm=ECna be lo b=E8nde}
(10) {la .d=F2rotis. na sai ka'e v=ECska}
(11) {la .t=F2tos. ja'a ka'e go'i}

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--001a11c250565b99af04ef554eb4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br>coi selpa&#39;i<br><br>I know about the &quot;cme=
vla as brivla&quot; rule in the translation grammar. But still there remain=
s a great amount of elidable {cu} occurrences throughout the text. E.g.,<br=
>
<br>(1) {lo zd=E0ni cu pu se cintypu&#39;i}<br>


(2) {la nakf=E0mti .x=E8nris. cu no roi cm=ECla}<br>(3) {xy ji&#39;a cu gr=
=F9si}<br>(4) {ca lo c=E0bdei cu na k=E8lci}<br><br>Granted, these are perf=
ectly correct. It just made me curious to hear any thoughts you have on the=
 usage of {cu}.<br>


<br>In any case, the common usage exemplified above seems inconsistent with=
 more rare examples such as<br><br>(5) {sei ny sp=F9da}<br>(6) {sei ny sp=
=F9sku} (3 times)<br>(7) {pa la m=E0xpre pu p=F2nse}<br>(8) {la .oz. na d=
=F9nda lo b=E8sna do}<br>

(9) {la .t=F2tos. ca lo n=F9ncfa na n=E8lci lo vi ziljm=ECna be lo b=E8nde}=
<br>(10) {la .d=F2rotis. na sai ka&#39;e v=ECska}<br>(11) {la .t=F2tos. ja&=
#39;a ka&#39;e go&#39;i}<br><br></div>mu&#39;o<br>mi&#39;e .asiz.<br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--001a11c250565b99af04ef554eb4--