From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:50:38 2010
Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Mon Mar 10 10:07:17 1997
From: Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>
Subject:      Re: Some how-do-you-says
X-To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 789
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 10 10:07:17 1997
X-From-Space-Address: -
Message-ID: <qtEUdOWE9UE.A.ajH.-y0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

coidoi lobypli

la xorxes. spuda mi di'e

> > Because I'm only a beginner, my suggestions
> > may be less than reliable, but I have a
> > suggestion regarding 2a ... & that is to use
> > {vrici}:
> >
> > 2a  le vrici mamta be la xorxes. je la .and.
> > ...
> > If my suggestion is incorrect or suboptimal,
> > I hope someone will say so.
>
> I don't think that works. In 2a you're describing
> each of the things as being vrici mamta of both
> Jorge and And.

Okay, but what is responsible for this unintended
result?  I assume that {vrici}, altho perhaps
unhelpful, is not the problem.  I assume that {le}
should be {lei} or {loi}.  What else needs to be
changed in order to produce the intended result?
Should I have used a conjunction other than {je}?
If so, which one?

co'omi'e markl