Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: Beginners question (was: Re: coi za'e jboterymri)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HVP0MH63PG000ZB4@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 985
Lines: 30

la kir cusku di'e
 
> Trying to read (and understand :-) some lojban posting I have found this:
>
> > i le do se ciska na mutce nitcu le nu cikre  i ku'i lo do lojbo zirpu ki'a
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I haven't found this pattern in The Draft Reference Grammar. :-(
 
I think that is because this would be explained in the paper about
relative clauses, which is not yet done. I think John Cowan will have
it ready any time now, right John?  :)
 
 
> I guess it is equal to {le se ciska be do}. Am I right?
 
Almost. It is usually equal to that, but the general definition is
that it is equal to {le se ciska pe do}: "the writing that is associated
with you". Probably the one you wrote, but possibly the one written on
you, or about you, etc.
 
> And if yes, does the way to do the same thing with x3 etc. exists?
 
There is a way to be precise, but it is longer: {le pe fe do se ciska},
{le pe fi do se ciska}, etc.
 
{le fe do se ciska} is not grammatical, for some reason.
 
Jorge