mu'o mi'e la .cribe.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Ian Johnson
<blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
Why is:
mi klama sei ko'a cusku be dei bei ko'e le zarci
different from:
mi klama sei ko'a cusku dei ko'e se'u le zarci
(which isn't grammatical, even, but I think you see what I'm trying to do with it)?
I understand wanting to elide terminators when possible, and I also understand that a common usage of {sei} would be to simply have a selbri and then be done with it, like in the CLL's example:
la frank. prami sei gleki la djein.
But this still seems unnecessarily awkward to avoid a terminator. It doesn't...flow. You're already breaking the flow of the text by using {sei} in the first place, but then on top of that the grammar inside the {sei} is forced to work differently just to avoid having to use a terminator every time. (Yes, doing it this way in a regular bridi would work too, but no one actually talks like that in regular bridi.)
In short, in my opinion having to say:
mi klama sei ko'a gleki se'u le zarci
is worth it to be able to say:
mi klama sei ko'a cusku dei ko'e se'u le zarci
Any thoughts on this?
mu'o mi'e .latros.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.