Okay, first off, let me apologize again. I have managed to mangle the lojban once more. The lo should have gone after the pu'e, not after the ku'i. There were so many message flying back and forth I typo'ed. Here is the clean copy of how it should read:
la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u
.i la meris cusku lu ku'i pu'e lo na'e cpina jukpa li'u
And the answer to your first question is: No, it just follows straight on. She is continuing the sentence started by John. So the answer to second question is Yes, it's one sentence that is spoken by two people acting together.
Had Mary said ".i" at the beginning, she would have been saying "However, by the process of non-spicy cooking," which is a clause, but not a sentence in its own right (It has no predicate), and may or may not relate to anything John said. In actual conversation, of course, the two examples would have probably been interpreted to have the same effective result, but that will not always be the case. Here's a non-curry example:
la djan cusku lu ko dunda fi mi fe le xunre li'u
.i la meris cusku lu karce li'u
versus:
la djan cusku lu ko dunda fi mi fe le xunre li'u
.i la meris cusku lu .i karce li'u
The first is: John says, "Give me the red…" Mary says, "….car". (that is, I have finished your thought, you wanted me to give you the red car. (trust me, as a spouse of 15 years, finishing another person's sentences is automatic ;-)
The second is: John says "Give me the red…" Mary says, "Car!" (as in, get out of the road you jerk!)
But again, and in casual conversation, ESPECIALLY if Mary's utterance is a complete sentence (bridi) or more in its own right, the ".i" can be elided, and everyone understands that Mary was starting her own thoughts, not finishing John's….
--gejyspa
From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:12 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu"
Shouldn't Mary's quote (the one without ".i" at the beginning), then, have some connective to relate the sumti "lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa" with "lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba"? Can we say " mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba ku'i lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa" as presented in the sequence of the quotes, "la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u .i la meris cusku lu ku'i lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u"?
On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:
No, that's not John's sentence. John's sentence (as finished by Mary) is (putting back in the "lo" I left out): " mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba ku'i lo pu'e na'e cpina jukpa" Remember. This is two people talking.. One starts the setnence, the other finishes it, exactly as in the English. If you and I were in a room, and you said, "Hey, we know that girl" and I said, "From the party last night", you would not say that together we are saying "Hey, we know that girl Michael said, 'From the party last night' " (which even in English makes no sense). You would say that together we said, "Hey we know that girl from the party last night".
I as the authoer of those sentence about John and Mary are just reporting what THEY SAID. To the characters themselves, there is no "John said"/"Mary said" in their lives.
Understand?
--Michael "gejyspa" Turniansky
From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:42 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: the ".i" after "lu"
I see.
Just to make sure, if there's no ".i" and the sentence of John continues...
la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u la meris cusku lu ku'i pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u
... that doesn't bear any logical meaning, right?
Or can the second "cusku" be the second selbri of "la djan" ("la meris" being the x2 of the first "cusku"), even though there's no connective like "gi'e" between the two bridi?
On 5/18/07, Turniansky, Michael [UNK] <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:
Remember that ".i" is not so much a sentence _terminator_ as a sentence _separator_. It's often found at the beginning of utterances to show that what you say has no connection to the previous utterance (by you or another person) (and NOT usually at the end). So the first sentence says:
Ranjit says, "I want beef curry and onion bread"
The second says:
Ranjit said, "Jhoti greeted me" Either could have used or not used the .i at the beginning. It just makes it clear in the course of conversation that you are not piling onto the previous utterance. For example, consider this valid excahnge:
la djan cusku lu mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u
.i la meris cusku lu ku'i pu'e na'e cpina jukpa li'u
John says, "I want beefy curre and onion bread"
Mary says, "….but not cooked spicily".
Without the ".i" in Mary's quote it continues the sentence of John.
--gejyspa
From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Vid Sintef
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 7:18 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] the ".i" after "lu"
Along the course "Lojban For Beginners" I saw sentences with the direct quotation word being followed by the sentence terminator ".i", like this:
la ranjit cu cusku lu .i mi djica lo bakni cidjrkari .e lo sluni nanba li'u
On the other hand, there are also sentences without ".i" after "lu":
la ranjit. pu cusku lu la djiotis. pu rinsa mi li'u
What is the difference between them?