From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:54:28 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 8878 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1997 18:08:28 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 19 Aug 1997 18:08:28 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.17420728@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:08:15 +0100
Date:         Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:53:16 -0600
Reply-To:     Chris A Bogart <cbogart@INDRA.COM>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Chris A Bogart <cbogart@INDRA.COM>
Subject:      Re: response on Peek-A-Boo game - old
X-To:         lojban%cuvmb.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199708191639.KAA03153@indra.com>
Content-Length: 773
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <bwuDNBpKBDG.A.Cw.k20kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Logical Language Group wrote:
> I would be going for the simplest wordings possible to convet the meaning.
> We want to be grammatically correct, but ellipsis and other short cuts are
> fine.

Plus, if you're a politically correct lojbanist
who doesn't want the child's lojban to have too much of
a malglico feel to it, you could
occasionally include simple but nalglico word orderings:

> >PB03  I see you!
> >        .ui mi viska do
>
> The mi is probably redundant:
> .ui viska do

Good example.  Or also, .ui mi do viska

> la. erin. vi ma
> la. erin. zvati ma

la .erin. ma zvati

> strive for, maybe with use of za'a, ti'e, and maybe in some cases ba'a
> on an otherwise bare predicate (or maybe a "me la" or "me le".)

.ie zabna

co'o mi'e kris