Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc>
From: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc
Return-Path: <jimc@math.ucla.edu>
Message-Id: <9105122117.AA28069@luna.math.ucla.edu>
To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
Subject: Re: Coranth's letter
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 14:17:02 -0700
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sun May 12 23:48:08 1991
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc

tebe'i -- So that's how it's supposed to be used!  The Whittaker group
guessed that one would say (I can't remember the sentence it came up
in, but somebody needed it)

	le bevri be loi kolme bei xe lo'e trene		(s.b. mubei)
	The carrier of coal by rail

la'edu'i -- Do I interpret this correctly as "the referent set of the 
previous sentence"?  Yes, I guess that is in fact what Coranth was
pleased about, as you explain.  

> However, with the "ko" absorbed,
> there is no sumti to separate, and the "cu" is not needed or allowed.

Is cu an elidable beginning-mark of a bridi-tail?  In Old Loglan this
was the official place of "ga", despite many suggestions to make it an
"honorary tense" that didn't mean much timewise.  But your explanation
suggests that it kind of hangs out in the middle of a jufra -- an
inconvenient place for a word like that.  An alternative (not seriously
proposed) is to require /ku/ to close the preceeding sumti-5 that might
eat the kunbri.  


		-- jimc

------- End of Forwarded Message