On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
I could say
{mi gaukla to ko'a gasnu lonu ko'e klama kei toi re gerku fu le cerni snodzu to nu masno cadzu toi .i roda poi gerku me ra pe mi ku'o cmene la.bernerd. fa'u la.djenivas.}, but that's really freaking long and takes forever for me to express and everyone else to comprehend. So, instead, I'd probably say something more like this:
{mi gaukla re gerku fu le cerni snodzu .i roda cu cmene la.bernerd. fa'u la.djenivas.}
and leave it to context to determine what makes sense for {roda poi zo'e}.
It took me a while to understand what you were trying to say, but then I realized you meant "klagau", not "gaukla", and it all became clear (and you also wanted. Although what you are actully saying in that second sentence is that the two of them are each named everything (you probably meant to say "roda se cmene zo bernerd. fau ze djenivas" (the X1 of cmene is the name, and it's in the form of a string, not "la___" which is the actual thing named ____. But why even go through all that verbiage, when you could simply say, "mi klagau re gerku poi se cmene zo .bernerd. fa'u zo.djenivas."? But if you wanted two sentences, the second one is simply ".i lo se go'i se cmene zo .bernerd. fa'u zo.djenivas" (or "ra" rather than "lo se go'i", which is even one syllable shorter than roda, and means what you want instead of "everything")
--gejyspa