Message-Id: <199509241833.OAA21759@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:12:16 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Beginners question (was: Re: coi za'e jboterymri)
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

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