Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rIKkj-00007DC; Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:18 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1559; Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:18:22 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1556; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:16:12 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0923; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 18:50:06 +0100 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:52:25 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: My use of lekau X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 760 Lines: 26 la lojbab cusku di'e > Marking the "le" is roughly equivalent to making the whole sumti, with > focus on the specificity that "le" indicates. Since I am focussing on > an identity issue, this might expand as follows: > > mi na djuno tu'a lekau se cmene be <> > mi na djuno tu'a [le se cmene be <> ku]kau > mi na djuno tu'a [[cy]kau No argument up to here, but then: > mi na djuno ledu'u [[cy]kau du ma[kau] is uncomprehensible to me. Eliding the last {kau} changes the meaning completely. mi na djuno le du'u cykau du ma I don't know what is what? mi na djuno le du'u cykau du makau I don't know what is what. The first one is a question, the second one isn't. Jorge