Message-Id: <199412070300.AA16661@nfs2.digex.net>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue Dec  6 22:00:18 1994
Subject:      Re: lo terspu be la Nik. .e la Xorxes .e la Goran
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Tue, 06 Dec 94 15:38:40 EST.)
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec  6 22:00:18 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

Jorge:
> > > Also, {se ja te temci} is probably not what you meant. {seja} means the
> > > same as {ja}, because it is a symmetric connector.
> >
> > Would "seljavtertemci" make a difference? How does one conjoin members
> > of SE (surely something one might often wish to do)?
>
> Whyever would one wish to do that? You can always say {se temci ja te temci},
> but I don't really see a need for a more compact form. The lujvo is probably
> understandable too.

One may well with to neutralize a distinction between two sumti by
conjoining them. The need for a more compact form is simply the need
for brevity. If we wish to conjoin two sumti of a very long selbri
we would have to repeat the entire selbri; one function of conjunction
it to avoid the need for this.

> > XU do doi Nik. penmi le selnei gihe pendo vau be mi beho pohu lehi kosta
> > gehu ku la melbi borno tcadu ckule bantadni stura?
>
> la melbi borno ????
> (to noi ciska to'o la pitsi burgo toi)

One of the many likeable features of Lojban is that the grammar generates
every possible lexeme, even those with no sense. "borno" "pitsi" and
"burgo" are gismu & are grammatical - the only problem is they haven't
been assigned a sense. But within a la-sumti, this doesn't really
matter.

---
And