From lojbab Tue Dec  6 03:46:25 1994
Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA29683
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@nfs1.digex.net>); Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:46:21 -0500
Received: by access1.digex.net id AA08202
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:46:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:46:03 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412060846.AA08202@access1.digex.net>
To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: cmavo hit-list
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

>la djan cusku di'e
>
>> > For example, if someone says {mi jinvi le du'u ba carvi}, then is
>> > {mi tugni la'e di'u} a good response? Am I agreeing that it will rain,
>> > or that the first speaker thinks so?
>>
>> The latter, alas.  But you can say "mi go'i" instead (or "mi go'ira'o" in
>> more complex cases where the speaker appears at both levels of abstraction.
>
>Yes, or I could just say "ie". But sometimes it's necessary to refer
>to a part of a bridi. If I wanted to respond "do you think that is good
>or bad?", I couldn't use {la'e di'u} for "that".
>
>Since {di'u} is vague anyway, it doesn't refer to the last bridi, but
>the last "utterance", I think it would be better to allow partial >things like "le du'u ba carvi" to be possible referents of {la'e di'u}.
>I don't think that introduces much more vagueness than what di'u already
>has, and makes it easier to say things like "this" or "that" when
>referring to utterances.
>
>Jorge

What is wrong with "mi tugni ri", or if you disagree  "mi go'i na'ebo ri"?

lojbab