Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

[Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 04:32:25AM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> To be safe, say {ije} instead of 
> {i} the second time (why the first, by the way?). 

In writing multiple sentences, I am in the habit of using some separator
to begin the first sentence. The reason is that otherwise the first word
would be at the "start of text" which does weird things to the scope of
attitudinals. (People didn't believe me the first time I mentioned this
- it was in the heat of the attitudinal debate and they thought it was
my own proposal - but the Book says that an attitudinal at the start
of text applies to the entire text, so if you want it to be an
ordinary attitudinal which applies to the sentence, you have to put .i
before it.)

Even though there was no attitudinal in this case, I find it useful to
simply be in the habit of beginning the text with some sort of
separator.

Anyway, I'm a bit unclear on why .ije would make a difference. Does {.i}
remove the assignments of {da}-cmavo? If so, why do people think {da'o}
needs to be improved?

--
.i la rab.spir
noi sarji zo gumri