From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Wed Oct  7 18:35:24 1992
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:35:24 -0400
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 8210; Wed, 07 Oct 92 18:33:54 EDT
Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 4668; Wed, 07 Oct 92 18:33:53 EDT
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:16:46 BST
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK
Subject:      RE: Re: TECH vrici
X-To:         c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
Message-ID: <OKWfig8vorI.A.sNB.930kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> > Mark/Colin:  TEST: CAFE: lo lisri pe le ckafybarja
> > > >> .i tu'a di'u xe ctuca fi ledu'u do cu .ei zgana pu lenu do jdice
> > > >I think "do" is out of place here. ".ei zgana pu lenu [vo'a] jdice" or
> > > >"da zgana .ei pu lenu da jdice", or more lojbanically pe'i
> > > >"jdice nagi'apubo .e'ucai zgana"
> > >
> > > Definitely.  {do} here is malglico.  It should be a general injunction,
 and
> > > use {zo'e} (possibly elided) or maybe {le'e prenu} or something.  {da} is
> > > not quantified right, it'd mean "There's something that should...."
> >
> > Yes, it would have to be {roda}.  And {.ei} seems to have
> > the usual problem of referring to the narrator:
> >         roda zgana sei bilga pu lenu da jdice
Colin:
> But it is the narrator who's saying it.

So the narrator's saying "I oblige all to observe before deciding"?

> And I still prefer my version.

You're entitled :)

Colin:
> I see nothing wrong with su'osu'epa

Anyone else like to state an opinion?

Iain.