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 m0sonIv-0000ZKC; Sat, 2 Sep 95 10:47 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0sonIv-0000ZKC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from segate.sunet.se by segate.sunet.se (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id A2C835A4 ; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 9:47:52 +0200
Date:         Sat, 2 Sep 1995 10:37:41 +0300
Reply-To:     veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject:      Re: Names
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 885
Lines: 33

la xorxes xcusku di'e
> Date:         Fri, 1 Sep 1995 12:19:45 EDT
> Subject:      Re: Names

> la veion cusku di'e

>>   I don't especially like using <cu> as the first component because
>>   it is all too easy to write bridi which don't parse as expected.
>
> Yes, I agree with that. If the first sumti is of the "le broda" type
> it would absorb the supposed predicate, unless a second {cu} is used,
> which doesn't sound very nice. I like your idea of having the name
> first:
>
>>            mi veion zeime'e
>
> but I would prefer to use something other than {me'e}. I don't want
> the predicate to mean "x1 is called 'Veijo'", but rather "x1 is Veijo".
> {me'e} brings out the name aspect too much. Other possibilities
> to consider:
>
>        do veion zeiku
>        do veion zeivau
>        do veion zeizei
>
> Jorge

  How about

         mi veion zeidu


  co'o mi'e veion