From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:48:54 2010
Reply-To: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Tue Apr 15 11:20:50 1997
From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: ma'oste
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1854
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Apr 15 11:20:50 1997
X-From-Space-Address: -
Message-ID: <5kEeXqaEiHM.A.zFH.Wx0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la esteban di'e cusku

> I think one way would be to say
>
> ma goi ko'a djica lenu mi benji ti ko'a
>
> Does anyone know a shorter way (for I could think of *longer* ways!) ;-)

One possibility:

        ma djica le nu ri ti mi te benji

> =======================================
> A note for recreational lojban-grammar:
>
> 'ma' questions are supposed to be answered with a sumti; and in any sentence
> 'di'e' refers to the next utterance; then there could be a (funny) compact
> way to express (2):
>
> ma djica lenu mi benji ti di'e
>
> What do you think?

I don't think it works. Suppose I respond {mi}. Then I would be
saying that I want you to send it to the utterance "mi", not to me.
Unfortunately di'u, di'e et al don't refer to the referent of the
utterance but to the utterance itself. (Unfortunate because the
other meaning is much more frequently needed.) Perhaps you could
say:

        ma djica le nu mi benji ti la'e di'e

but even that is not really optimal, because a question can always
be answered with a full sentence, e.g. {mi go'i}. Also, even if
you just answer with a single sumti {mi}, I think {di'e} is the
_sentence_ {mi}, equivalent to the sentence {mi co'e}, and not just
the sumti {mi}.

> >That brings up an interesting point: While you're correct that {ma}
> >was probably intended here, would {mo} be a valid question anyway,
> >where it is asking not for a whole selbri, but for part of a tanru?
> >In other words, could I ask "mo zdani do" for "what kind of house
> >do you live in" or "ta blanu mo" for "what is that blue thing"?
>
> I think you're right; and if this is not ungrammatical, it would give an
> elegant, compact form of making precisely those questions you are putting as
> example.

It is indeed grammatical. Any member of selma'o GOhA, e.g. {mo}, has
the same grammar as a brivla.

co'o mi'e xorxes