Thanks for the guidance.
In a message dated 6/27/2001 1:22:55 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: la pycyn cusku di'e Maybe even {ze'e}? I am feeling my way with some of these cmavo still. I argued about {ai} v {ba}: it is intent here, but the simple future is stronger. The Hebrew is no help, so far a I can see (nor is the English, of course).
I been having this trouble with "they," does {le se go'i} really work? I think this needs some systematic device for this problem, but can't find it. Could we really have left it out? {no'u} is a real possibility in the Hebrew apparently, but I like the stress that the {a} gives.
Worse: as written, it goes as parallel to {le cevni}, if I've counted parentheses right this time, so it needs {ku ku} (didn't we once have a "super ku," to lop off back to the selbri level?
"shamar" seems to have more the idea of protecting, defending, etc. than simply doing it -- but doing what is promises is also involved. I need to work on a good lujvo here. Thanks again. |