(no subject)

[der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>]

(First, a small meta-issue: your mail was marked as a MIME message,
Content-Type: text/plain with charset us-ascii, and no
Content-Transfer-Encoding, but it contained a non-ASCII octet (in the
footer).  I'd appreciate it if you could avoid doing that.)

> That being said, the first thing I notice is your translation of
> "Lupin" to {lupin.}.  [...]

As I read the phonetics, Lojban doesn't have the vowel in question
(which I would describe as `short i': the vowel in pin, bit, sift, and
various other words).  I picked the Lojban i as the least inaccurate
available approximation - though I don't know the lanugage of the
original name; if it's French rather than English, then {lupan.}
probably is the least inaccurate available approximation.

> Also, {zunle kanla la lupan.} is an entire bridi and must be
> relativized to use it as a sumti with {poi}:

It is?  I see it as a compound selbri ({zunle kanla}) with its x2 place
filled in ({la lupan.}) but its x1 place left vacant, and thus a
perfect opportunity to apply {le} (though adding a {be} is necessary to
keep it all together when doing that).

When I wrote {le la lupin. zunle kanla}, though, I was using - or at
least intending to use - the possessive construct that inserts a
possessor between an article and a possessed thing (instead of using
{pe}), not trying to fill a place of {zunle kanla} with {la lupin.}.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B