[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban-beginners] Re: A problem with cu

coi .iens.

> coi rodo (or is simply {coi} better?)

both are ok.

> why do you use {cu} in the following sentence:
> {lenu mi cilre fi la lojban. cu xamgu mi}

I could be wrong here, but I think
{lenu mi cilre fi la lojban. xamgu mi} breaks down as:

{le nu mi cilre fi la lojban. xamgu ku mi}

[le (nu mi cilre fi la lojban)(xamgu)][mi] ???
[the (event of my learning lojban) type of (good thing)][me] ???

>{la lojban.} is a cmeme - there is no need for a {cu}?

if you say "la lojban. banli bangu", there is no problem, although {cu} is
often kept either to reinforce the habit or to help the audience know when
the selbri is coming up.

In your previous sentence, the problem came from the abstraction.

> Another {cu}-problem:
> {la daucac. tcika lenu mi klama}
> is OK. If you want to use {se} it becomes something like
> {lenu mi klama cu se tcika la daucac.}
> Why is {se} not enough to separate {klama} and {tcika}?

"john is talking (to someone about smth etc)" -> {la djan [cu] tavla}

"john is talking quickly" -> {la djan [cu] sutra tavla}

"john is being talked to" -> {la djan [cu] se tavla}

"john is being talked to quickly" -> {la djan [cu] sutra se tavla}

the phrases {klama tcika} and {klama se tcika} are syntactically identical.

> mu'o mi'e .iens.gutsait. (or is mi'e ... enough? What is the
> difference?)

{mu'o} means "I've finished talking, I expect you'd like to say something,
you can start doing so now."

Sometimes, you are finished and you expect the whole "conversation" to be
over. In which case you would say {fe'o}.

mi'e greg mu'o