On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:41:02PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> xod:
> > > > > {le du} is a perfectly acceptable translation of "they". The
> question
> > > is:
> > > > > is unbound ko'a meaningless, or is it equivalent to {le du}.
> > > >
> > > > How do you use le du?
> > >
> > > As a specific reference without any identificatory description -- much
> like
> > > English "them".
> >
> > Could you give an example text in Lojban?
>
> le du cu frili
>
> -- where "le du" might here refer to the act of giving an example text in
> Lojban.
How does {le du} (something like the thing which I describe as being
equal to some thing(s) (which are obviously itself, because they
are equal to it...)) differ from {le co'e}?
(That is, aside from being more esoteric).
It seems to me like they are the same, except that {le co'e} is
more "honest" (for lack of a better word).
Of course, in *real* usage, in a case where the referent wasn't
recently mentioned, you'd probably say "zo'e". (If it were mentioned,
you'd use zo'e or ri/ra/ru/lerfu).
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00509.pgp
Description: PGP signature