[lojban-beginners] Re: more le lo

[Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>]

de'i li 13 pi'e 11 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Jon Top Hat Jones .fy. cusku zoi
skamyxatra.
> As a side note, would the following also work?
>
> le nanmu noi ny. cu tcidu
.skamyxatra

No.  "{ny.}" and other {lerfu} strings act as pro-{sumti}, not pro-{selbri}.
If you want to equate two {sumti}, you can use "{no'u}," though without a
previous explicit assignment, "{ny.}" will default to referring to "{le
nanmu}," and so "{le nanmu no'u ny.}" will mean "the man who happens to be
himself."

de'i li 13 pi'e 11 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Luke Bergen .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> or how about "le nanmu noi ri cu tcidu"?  Or does "ri" refer to the last
> sumti from the previous selbri?  Or does "ri" refer to "le nanmu"?  In which
> case we're just being redundent.
.skamyxatra

Again, "{ri}" is a pro-{sumti}, so "{no'u}" should be used instead of "{noi}."
While I'm pretty sure that "{ri}" will not refer to the object of an enclosing
relative clause and so in this case will refer to whatever {sumti} came before
"{le nanmu}," unless that {sumti} is "{lo nanmu}," this construct will not work
as intended.

Regardless, if you want to explicitly say that the thing you have in mind
actually *is* an instance of its descriptor, I believe that "{le nanmu noi
nanmu}" (or, more precisely, "{le nanmu noi ca'a nanmu}") is the best way to do
it.  However, there isn't really any need to be that explicit; you can use
either "{le}" or "{lo}" here and, unless you're discussing both men and some
kind of "pseudo-men," the listener should be able to figure out the nature of
what you're referring to from context.

mu'omi'e la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy.

-- 
do ganai ka'e tcidu dei gi djuno lo dukse