Re: [lojban] Re: Opinions on "mi viska le sa .i mi cusku zo .djan."

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@v21.me.uk>]

Robin:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 02:16:18PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > On the proposed equivalence of "djan" and "me la djan", this would not
> > in fact hold if CMENE=BRIVLA, since brivla "djan" could have more than
> > one sumti. Instead, la/lai/la'i would simply become redundant.
> 
> There's a question for you: what is the place structure of a
> cmene-cum-brivla?
> 
> Not that I actually *care*: proposals that invalidate past usage don't
> get much truck from me.  The question is intended to indicate that the
> idea is a bit silly.

The place structure would entirely depend on the meaning of the
cmene-cum-brivla. Since the meaning is glorked, so is the place
structure.

If the idea were silly, it wouldn't have been suggested by xorxes.

--And.