Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sB4SB-0009acC; Mon, 15 May 95 21:01 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 17B41E8F ; Mon, 15 May 1995 20:01:12 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 13:43:46 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Questions X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199505131903.PAA10297@locke.ccil.org> from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at May 13, 95 12:23:01 pm Content-Length: 874 Lines: 24 la xorxes. joi da cusku be di'e casnu > > >> Could I say > > >> > > >> mi ckire sei rapli > > >> > > > > > >I don't really feel comfortable with {sei}. I don't fully understand it. > > > > I don't know I do either, but that is consistent with how I use it. I tend > > to think of it as simply a way of attatching something to a sentence without > > any precise logical relationship to the sentence. > > The problem (or maybe not) that I see is that inside a quotation, sei > talks about the text, but here it talks about the action described by > the text. Maybe it is not a problem, but Lojban tends to distinguish > these two things carefully, and here we seem to be ignoring the > distinction. How about "mi ckire sei la'edei rapli"? -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.