From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Fri Aug 21 14:52:32 1992 Return-Path: Date: Fri Aug 21 14:52:32 1992 Message-Id: <9208211432.AA01939@relay2.UU.NET> Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: le le la jbotur. ckafyzda ku jbofitpla X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:46:23 +1000 Status: RO >Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:46:23 +1000 >From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >>>Subject: le la kalevalas. jbofitpla >> ^^ >>Tell me, Nick, you do this just to see if I'm still reading? :-) >Why, yes :) >Btw, is there any good reason why a {la} in a cmene like {la'adan.} is >illegal? There's no ambiguity there. The restriction, I believe, doesn't explicitly permit this (as it does explicitly permit {mlat.}; but you're right, there is no obvious ambiguity, now that cmene are more restricted to lojbanic structure. Time was, you could have impermissible medials and all sorts of non-lojbanic constructions in a cmene; somewhere in some lesson I remember seeing "Gandhi" made into {*gand'is.} I'm not sure I'd support permitting {?la'adan.}, as it seems pretty close to the edge, but I'm not sure. >>I understood the words but not the meaning of that last bit. "and [it's] >>near the cards which I was mailed by Ivan from London on something (humor) >>which is (no humor) something-to-do-with my shelf." What's the deal with >>the "fizo'ezo'ono'uzo'onai"? >I meant to say: "Oh, it's next to Ivan's card... somewhere :) ... only >joking, it's on my shelf." Oh, now I see. Hmmmm. Maybe some UIs could do the trick. Maybe {fidakaunaizo'o no'uzo'onai}? Not that much better, and I'm misusing {kau}. Wasn't it originally proposed as a cmavo for "known!"? What should be used for that meaning now? ~mark