Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA17835 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 15 Dec 1994 18:04:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199412152304.AA17835@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1321; Thu, 15 Dec 94 18:04:47 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5706; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:54:23 -0500 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: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 15 18:05:14 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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