Message-Id: <199602110654.IAA11065@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 01:35:04 +0100
Reply-To: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Subject:      Re: PLI: pe'a & tanru
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1478
Lines: 35

> coi doi skat.
> .ui mi mutce ckire do le pinka be le skami se mrilu be mi ku ku bei fo do
>
> (is that right? do I need 2 ku to join [bei fo do] to [le pinka] or just
> one? [mi ku] and [le skami .. ku])

.i tu'a pa zo ku se ke nitcu je curmi

> >Likewise, the relative size of a {cmalu plini} may be described as
> >{plini cmalu}, though one would hardly say a {plini} could be {cmalu}.
>
> Likewise again, a {cmalu plini} is a planet, and {plini cmalu} is small.
> It has to be small, in aspect x2, compared to x3. Otherwise it isn't cmalu.

.i .ie .imu'a le me la .aifel. galdinju ka'e plini cmalu gi'enai ka'e
cmalu plini

> Fair enough, but does it have a place in lojban? I'm still troubled by
> {pe'a kakfe} meaning interruption.
> OK, {pe'a besna} could stand for reason in my mind, but would
> it in everybody's? Is it *very* different to {pe'a risna} for love?
> And why use them anyway, when we've got {dicra}, {pensi} and {prami}?

.i nabmi ma'a falenu na djuno ledu'u se tcita bezo pe'a ka'e klute'i
.i .e'u do te preti fo la lojbab. ku joi la djan. .i ri so'oroi tcidu
lo ciska be mi ki'ulenu mi ciska bau la lojban.

> I'd prefer that lojbo said what they meant exactly, rather than use {pe'a}.
> There's a gismu for everything somewhere, it's just a matter of finding it!
> (probably not strictly true, but you know what I mean)

.iecai .i lo na'e kakne co pilno be loi gismu be'o cusku roroi ka'eju'o
se cusku pi'o loi fu'ivla kujoi zo zei

co'o mi'e. goran.