Re: le reroi cuplinfanva cuntu

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

Lojbab:
> It is supposed to mark metalinguistic usage, and so is a bit out
> of place as an adverbifier.  It is rather more the type of
> thing that one would use to make up an ad hoc discursive bridi or even an
> indicator.  It can also manipulate the text without affecting truth value
> or claim, or rather it does so after the mannerof an indicator.

That's really what I had in mind. I was thinking of the use of
adverbs in Esperanto, where they often do the job of Lojban's
discursives and indicators. For example {pe'i} in Esperanto can be
"miaopinie", which could be roughly translated as "my-opinion-ly".
I suppose {sei mi jinvi} would be correct in Lojban meaning something
close to {pe'i}.

In any case, what do you think of {le voksa cu cusku sei krefu sei krefu
lu li'o li'u} for "the voice said over and over again and again ..."
Would that be an appropriate use for an "indicator"?

John:
> It's supposed to be used to manufacture new UI-like objects; decorations on
> the selbri, not modifiers of it.

What's the difference? Is "over and over" a decoration or a modifier of
"said"?

> > The second {sei krefu} gets attached to the first {krefu} according to the
> > parser, but that seems ok: repeatedly repeating.
>
> More like "repeating (I repeat it!)".

Where does the "I" come from? {krefu} is "event x1 is a repetition of
event x2", there is no agent.

Jorge