Re: Always the same?

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>]

>coi xorxes. noi cusku di'e
>[is the above grammatical, I wonder?]

Yes it is.

>> i ta'o mi zmanei zo xlajmisi'u zo si'urxlajmi ki'u le du'u lujvo
>> le du'u simxu le ka xlajmi
>>
>I was thinking "mutual type of bad type of understanding".

It's no big deal, but I think {simxu} makes more sense as
a suffix than as a prefix. I'm changing the example because
{jimpe} is not very good for this, it means "person x1 
understands fact x2" and what we really need here
is "person x1 understands person x2", so using either
{jmisi'u} or {si'ujmi} for "understand each other" is 
stretching the meaning of {jimpe}. 

But consider for example {tavla}, "x1 talks to x2 (about x3)".
I can explain what {ta'arsi'u} means:

                la djan joi la alis cu ta'arsi'u
                John and Alice talk to each other.

                la djan joi la alis cu simxu le ka ce'u tavla ce'uxipa
                John and Alice are mutual in one talking to the other.

You could say that {simta'a} works just as well, "mutual type 
of talking", but how do you explain it in Lojban? How do you 
expand the lujvo, with {tavla} as the primary component? 
You end up with something like:

               la djan joi la alis cu tavla gi'e simxu le ka tavla
               John and Alice are talking, and are mutually talking.

I don't think that's wrong, but I think it's a less straightforward
order for Lojban. 

>> i ji'a lu mi nelci da tu'i de li'u cu se smuni le du'u de stuzi
>> le nu mi nelci da kei i na se smuni le du'u de stuzi da
>
>I don't quite understand this.

You had something like:
    
        mi nelci le smoka jinsru .e le tatyta'u tu'i le tu zarci

I suppose you wanted to say that {le tu zarci} was the 
location of {le jinsru e le tatyta'u}. But as it stands it is the
location of the nelci event. There is nothing binding
{tu'i le zarci} to {le jinsru e le tatyta'u} or to {mi} or to any
other sumti of that bridi. It modifies the selbri. You need
{pe} to bind it to the sumti, and in this case {vu'o pe} so
that it covers both items.

>> >.i pe'u ko terve'u le samselpa me'e la'o copin.plys
>>
>> i lu ko terve'u
>> le samselpla po'u la copin plys li'u i lu copin plys li'u na cmene
>> le nu terve'u
>
>"Shopping Plus" is the name of the program - surely this is 
>what {po'u} implies here?

Yes, but you had {me'e} at bridi level. It was not associated
to {le samselpla} anymore than to {ko}. What you had means
something like "Let Shopping Plus be the name of your buying
the program". 

You could have used {pe me'e lu copin plys li'u}. After {me'e} you 
need something in quotes, not a name used as a reference. 
{lu copin plys li'u cu cmene la copin plys}. 

co'o mi'e xorxes