Date:  Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:50:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801051450.JAA10165@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>
Subject:      Re: <djuno>
X-To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU> "<djuno>" (Jan  3, 12:13am)
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 911
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan  5 09:50:42 1998
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

la stivn. spuda mi di'e

> > I agree with you there, but I can't resist pointing out
> > that Lojban grammar allows us to leave sumti unspecified
> > when the speaker considers them either irrelevant or
> > pragmatically obvious.
>
> Certainly. But this use of <djuno> is so odd, that I don't
> consider the elided sumti to be either irrelevant or obvious.

la markl spuda la stivn. di'e

By "this use of <djuno>", are you referring to _any_ use of
{djuno} with something other than {mi} in the x1 place?  Or
are you referring only to my statement:

{le kavbu cu djuno lo du'u le renro [ku] ba'o renro le bolci}

Perhaps you should restate what it is that you consider so
odd about "this use of <djuno>".

My (obviously fallible) understanding of your position is
that you consider {djuno} to be suspect when it isn't in
the first person, that any x1 other than {mi} requires an
explicit x4 epistemology place.