Re: [lojban] da'i (for a change)

[pycyn@aol.com]

Thanks loads, I needed that!
jbofi'e found no fault in all of this , but, since it does not give me a
daigrammed output, I have no idea what I said.

In a message dated 6/21/2001 1:12:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

You have to admit that interpreting you is almost as hard as
interpreting any one else of us.

Practice makes perfect?  I have a reputation to uphold here.

 My interpretation:

noda zo'u ge da namcu gi node namcu gi'e balzma da da'o

Yes, when  jbofi'e rejected my forethought form, I shifted to soemthing it
would take but forgot to get out of forethought.  Can one forethought a
bridi-tail (? or whatever this is)?


<>.iseni'i di goi le sumji be xy bei li

>pa zo'u ge di numcu  gi di balzma xy .

(Every {iseni'i} should be {iseni'ibo}.)>

Semantic dissonance.  I thought about that and looked it up.  It said {bo} is
short scope and, since I wanted the whole sentence in, not just the following
sumti, I figured that must be what I want. Amoment's thought would have told
me that, despite what it says, it means something quite different (the
characteristic of Lojban?).

Shouldn't it be {di no'u le sumji be ...} instead of {goi} here?
{le sumji...} is presumably already assigned, and {di} is not
an assignable variable.

{di}, being KOhA is assignable (see {da} in the first step) but the
assingment is going the wrong way here, so yes it should be {no'u} -- and so
generally for "namely riders."

>..i di'u cipra te zukte

{la'e di'u}? And is it really {cipra}? I think I have used
{je'urja'o} for the demonstration sense of proof.

I fell for the oldest joke ("the proof of the pudding ...") so, no, it
shouldn't be {cipra}, though I am not sure that "showing the truth" is what I
would use for "proof." But ti works.  

i melbi nu je'urja'o

Thanks again.