From phma@webjockey.net Mon Jun 02 20:28:02 2003
Return-Path: <phma@ixazon.dynip.com>
X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 51621 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2003 03:27:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2003 03:27:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO blackcat.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2003 03:27:38 -0000
Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id D34D044A9; Tue,  3 Jun 2003 03:27:36 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: dis
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] I saw three kinds of dogs
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:27:36 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMMEOPICAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMMEOPICAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200306022327.36574.phma@webjockey.net>
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20055

On Monday 02 June 2003 21:25, And Rosta wrote:
> Heaven forfend that we should perpetuate the notion that the former
> is not colloquial, since overt prenexes are often unavoidable, except
> by not saying what one really means.
>
> Seriously, zo'u is *the* way. The Lojban design provides a way to
> say it, and zo'u is it. So the answer to your question is to
> make zo'u colloquial. Then it's easy to say in colloquial Lojban.

What I'm thinking is {ci da zo'u mi viska lo gerku}, or the slightly more 
wordy {ci selge'u zo'u mi viska lo gerku}. I have a similar construction in a 
partially written article about flatfishes: {so'a se mlafi'e pa mlana zo'u 
so'a mlafi'e cu limna fi'o galtu}.

phma
-- 
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.