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

[lojban-beginners] Re: A problem with cu

la iens cusku di'e

Thanks for your answers. If I would recognize {nu mi cilre fi
la lojban.} in {lenu mi cilre fi la lojban. cu xamgu mi} as a
selbri the {cu} in this sentence would be clear. Let's see what
I understand with my little knowledge about Lojban. If I don't
use {cu} {xamgu} would be x5 of {cilre}. Then the sentence doesn't
make any sense to me.

No, it's not that. {xamgu} is not a sumti, so it cannot fill
a sumti place. {xamgu} is a selbri. What you are missing is
that if you put two selbri words together, you get another
selbri. You need {cu} in {le broda cu brode} so that {broda}
and {brode} don't form a tanru. The same situation
occurs if you replace {broda} with {nu mi cilre fi la lojban}.

Now take:

{lenu mi cilre fi la lojban. (by a method x5) xamgu mi}

Just replace "(by a method x5)" with a good Lojban phrase. There
are no more places of {cilre}. Do I still need the {cu}?

Yes. The parser doesn't count arguments anyway, and it doesn't
take into account the meaning of the words. Whether or not
a sentence parses does not depend on the number of arguments
that the selbri takes.

Unfortunatly I don't understand the answers for my other {cu}-
problem with {lenu mi klama cu se tcika la daucac.} Probably
because I don't know what a tanru is (not yet!). Can I use the
following rule as long as I don't know it:

Use {cu se} instead of {se} when in doubt.

{se} never indicates the beginning of a selbri. {broda se brode}
is a selbri.

mu'o mi'e .iens. (Why is {mu'omi'e .iens.} correct, too?)

You can always write two cmavo together if you like. It makes
no difference to the grammar. The meaning doesn't change.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail