From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Fri Mar  6 18:49:56 1992
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN>
Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19)
	id <m0lMofe-0001TJC@snark.thyrsus.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 92 18:49 EST
Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91)
	id AA29469; Fri, 6 Mar 92 18:45:31 EST
Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AB20969; Fri, 6 Mar 92 18:29:12 -0500
Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB)
	id AA23023; Fri, 6 Mar 92 15:56:54 EST
Message-Id: <9203062056.AA23023@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 9279; Fri, 06 Mar 92 15:55:14 EST
Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 1623; Fri, 06 Mar 92 15:54:14 EST
Date:         Fri, 6 Mar 1992 15:53:02 -0500
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Subject:      mela'ezoiby. MARTenitsa.
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
In-Reply-To:  Ivan A Derzhanski's message of Thu, 5 Mar 1992 17:18:48 GMT
Status: RO

Ivan:

>I certainly don't mind using an exotic cmavo now and then, as an
>illustration of which here's an Oriental anecdote for you:
>{  lu  ju'i. lamxa'u  .i zo'e cava bevri lo gunse  li'u
>.i lu  go'i fi'a mi  li'u
>.i lu  go'i fi ledo selxa'u  li'u
>.i lu  go'i fi'a do  li'u }
>By {fi'a mi/do} I mean something like `How does this concern me/you?',
>`What business is this of mine/yours?' or `Where do I/you come in?'.
>No attitudinals, because they would spoil the parallelism.

I like it.  Good use on "fi'a".

>>  le gernylanlyske tozoi gy. syntaxis gy.toi
>Isn't that {zoi gy. sintaksis. gy.}?  Doesn't Lojban spelling holds
>within {zoi}?

It's my understanding that *nothing* holds inside {zoi}, not even
typography.  That sounds weird, especially since someone reading something
with {zoi}s won't know how to pronounce something even if it's written in
Lojban orthography, 'cause how does he *know* it is?  But so I recall from
lojbab and John.  Is it so?

Sorry for brief message, I'm short on time.

~mark