Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 22:17:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711040317.WAA19887@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1244 Lines: 37 >For example, Xorxes starts his recent message by saying: > > i le nunsnu be la djef joi la bob > >That is proper use of {le} (unless, as I mentioned in my previous >message, you want to say that our form of electronic message writing >`really is' a discussion/talk). i oi pe'i le do'o nunsnu ja'a ca'a nunsnu >Indeed, you will notice that Xorxes consistently writes about things >`described as'; he tends to expresses himself metaphorically. i ue mi pu krici le nu mi ta'e xusra >He speaks, for example, of people's ongoing use of {le} and {lo} as >{le cuntu}, i na satci i mi pu pilno lu le cuntu li'u le nu sinxa le du'u makau drarai le ka pilno zo le e zo lo ce'u >He does not claim that the usage `really is' organized; indeed,by >using {le}, he makes the subtle suggestion that perhaps it is not >really organized; that the usage is not so well thought out. i do simsa le ka na jimpe i pe'i le cuntu ja'a ca'a cuntu i zoi gy matter, concern gy bau le glico i zoi sy asunto sy bau le spano i mi na pu tavla fi lo te ganzu >But he >does not come out and make a big thing about that, but requests we >write in Lojban. Very clever of him. i ckire i a'o do se pluka le nu mansa mi le ka spuda bau la lojban co'o mi'e xorxes