> Then that statement of LfB is wrong.
Which statement are you referring to?
"Simply put, if you see a Lojban letter being used as a sumti, you take it as referring to the last sumti whose selbri starts with that letter."
This one.
If I'm thinking of the right sentence, I can only say in our defence
that it starts "Simply put ...". I don't think the intention was to
imply that for every sumti there is a selbri, but you'd have to ask Nick for clarification on that point.
Summa summarum - cmene are different
from selbri and the method described in
LfB works with any kind of sumti.
It's clear to me now, so I don't know if we
are just arguing about nothing or does
someone still not understand what's going
on with selbri and non-selbri valsi. :)
> doi bebna
> I was agreeing with you!
> My analogy was to disagree with Jay.
That means I am not bebna in any way,
and my assertion was logically OK.
doi bebna zo'o
mi'e darves.