(Same reply, reposted in English, for those who are too lazy to bother reading the original Lojban or at the least using
jboski to translate it for them.)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Lindar
<lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > .i mi zanfri lonu traji sampu se cusku lu lo tirxe cu broda .i go'i lonu
> claxu zo cu
>
> --
> mu'o mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu
As grand as your argument is, I'm sure, I have no idea what you are
saying because none of that is valid Lojban. You seem to be saying
something to the effect of "I am enjoying being an extremely simple
_expression_, expressed by "A *{tirxe} broda's. (Something) broda's an
event of being free of "cu".". Now, unfortunately, this doesn't
actually make any sense, and I'm a bit insulted.
What I wrote was valid. Not being valid is not the same as not making sense.
I was missing {li'u}. What I wanted to say was "I'd love to a more simple way to say {lo tirxu cu broda} without using {cu}".
So, back to my original point, you should never have to use {cu}. If
you find that you do not know how to construct a sentence without
using {cu}, then you need to not use it and look up how to phrase
something without it. This is a tried-and-true method of learning
Lojban -properly- and understanding exactly how it works. If you -
know- all of your terminators, then I have little/no problem with its
use, but it still looks lazy/ignorant/archaic (from the barbaric
yonder days of CLL being the only way to learn Lojban) to say {.i lo
broda cu brode} instead of {.i lo broda ku brode}.
So, to OP who has trouble with Lojban, please do try to avoid the use
of {cu} as it's the lazy way out, which is not good written form for a
religious document.
-Lindar
I don't understand your reason for preferring {ku} over {cu}.
I don't understand why using {cu} is being lazy.
{ku} is an elidable terminator for a reason.
I disagree that {ku} is better than {cu} in {lo broda (ku) cu brode}.