Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931015021113.640@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Fri, 15 Oct 1993 11:09:43 +1000
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: vilva
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      Re: TEXT: nu la nunmorsi catlu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To:  <199310141711.AA08241@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU> from "Logical Language
              Group" at Oct 14, 93 01:07:56 pm
Content-Length: 1256
Lines: 30

To Logical Language Group respond I thus:

#                .i mi penmi la nunmorsi le mi purdi ca le cerni

A funny thought occured to me. In eliding anaphora, Japanese and Chinese
are inferential languages --- you have to work out, aided by convention,
who's doing what. In eliding tense information, as is done here, Lojban
is doing the same. I wonder if this will be considered good style, once
Lojban settles down, or whether {le ba cerni} would be preferred. The only
way to find out, I guess, is to use forms like the above and see whether
they'll fly.

#                .ije la nunmorsi terbandu catlu mi

la nunmorsi cu terbandu catlu, I believe.

#                .i mi pacna le nu mi darno gi'e zvati la .isfaxan li'u

Hm. Shouldn't that properly be {djica}?

#                .i mu'i tu'e

Instead of .imu'ibotu'e... does this parse right? I mean, with the right
constituent structure? I guess it does, since you used it :)

"Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`,           N N O  nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au
 kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres,   I I L  IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic
 sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s."              C C A  University of Melbourne.
  K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_  K H S  *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*