From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Mon Aug 17 13:36:48 1992
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Date: Mon Aug 17 13:36:48 1992
Message-Id: <9208171544.AA28400@relay1.UU.NET>
Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!oasis.icl.co.uk!I.Alexander.bra0122
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
Comments:     <Parser> W: Field "Resent-To:/To:" duplicated. Last occurrence
              was retained.
From: cbmvax!uunet!oasis.icl.co.uk!I.Alexander.bra0122
Subject:      RE: la bradfrd jbogirz / editorial emphasis
X-To:         a.d.m.smith@bradford.ac.uk
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
Status: RO

There are a couple of other grammatical problems with
the text given.  On line 7,

lo'u<< gi'ecabo catlu lesa'a mi bijyjbu >>le'u

and on line 9,

lo'u<< le tarmi naldikni po'usa'a me'esa'a za'e zo varmuvmi'i ku'osa'a>>le'u

Do *these* "editorial deletes" work?  Presumably in a
grammatical {lu ... li'u} quotation, they would delete
the whole phrase, but should the rules for _ungrammatical_
quotations be different?  Or does it help to quote the
inserted word(s) with {to'i ... toi} and/or {zo}?

This might be a way of getting your {ba'e} to work, Colin.
I think it _does_ emphasise the {sa'a} as it stands,
whatever that might mean :) - {sa'a} is just a UI,
after all.  But then, if you're going into a full
editorial unquote, you're probably safer using an observative
{to'isa'a basna toi} - and of course it would go *after*
the word in question, wouldn't it?

And I should probably have used
{to'isa'a setca zo po'u ce'o zo me'e toi}
etc.