From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 31 10:10:03 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 31 May 2005 10:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DdAFX-0008B1-TG
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 10:09:56 -0700
Received: from web81302.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.77])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DdAFV-0008At-BE
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 10:09:55 -0700
Message-ID: <20050531170952.2573.qmail@web81302.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [68.88.37.184] by web81302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2005 10:09:52 PDT
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: le zdilisre
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 10095
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:12:40PM +0400,
> Aleksej R. Serdyukov wrote:
> > John E Clifford wrote:
> > >>ca lenu do pu sipna li'u ju'e
> > > 
> > > ?change speakers? 
> 
> Yes, that's how I've been using it.

I like it; should there be a note somewhere in
the various revisions of  parts of CLL.  Might
{ju'e} still have other (more vague) uses?  I
{ju'e} clearly sentential, so that the two quotes
cannot be taken as two statements by the woman,
joined in some vague way?
> 
> > > probably no connective needed 
> 
> I have to do *something*, otherwise the second
> quote would take the
> third place of cusku.  :-)

Well, {vau} after {li'u} or {.i} before {lu}
would also work. 
> 
> > Robin Lee Powell had been using this in {la
> nicte cadzu}
> > everywhere?
> 
> Yes, it's my own personal coinage, so you
> theoretically risk
> confusion if you use it.  So far, though,
> no-one seems to have any
> real trouble understanding what it means.
> 
I think this about trumps any problems, unless
there is a really big one hidden away somewhere. Clever.