Re: Lojban analogies and kennings

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

>From: Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@apocalypse.org>
>
>   L1. menske : menli :: ji'eske : xadni
>
>   L2. .i ke menske tai menli ke'e tai ke ji'eske tai xadni ke'e
>
>   L3. .i menske du menli ji'eske
>
>I'm pretty sure L3 is ungrammatical; what's wrong with it?

It is grammatical, but it doesn't say what you want.
It is a four component tanru. {du} is just another brivla,
like {menske}, {menli} and {ji'eske}. You might say:

      zo menske cu munsi'u lu menli ji'eske li'u
      {menske} has the same meaning as {menli ji'eske}.

>And how about L2?

L2 is ungrammatical. The cmavo of selmaho BAI, like {tai},
can be used to tag a sumti or a selbri, much like tenses.
They don't work as connectives by themselves. You might
say something like:

  zo menske peki'i zo menli zo ji'eske peki'i zo xadni panra
  {menske} in relationship to {menli} is parallel to
  {ji'eske} in relationship to {xadni}.

In my last mail in reponse to Mark I wanted to express
the relationship ja'ai:ja'a::nai:na, where ja'ai is the
new cmavo Mark was proposing. I wrote:

  zo ja'ai joi zo ja'a zo nai joi zo na mintu le ka ckini simxu
  "ja'ai"&"ja'a" are the same as "nai"&"na" in the relationship
  between them.

co'o mi'e xorxes