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?