Still catching up on emails... On the two issues of this thread:
1) I am in concord with John Clifford (for a change). I think "xu dai" is close to meaningless, despite being grammatical. I quote from the glico jbovlaste entry for "dai": "*attitudinal* modifier: marks empathetic use of preceding *attitudinal* [emphasis added]" And xu is " discursive: true-false question." Not all UI are attitudinals (chapter 13 of CLL parts 1-10 refer to attitudinals, and, as part 11 says, "Now we proceed from the attitudinal indicators and their relatives to the other, semantically unrelated, categories of indicators" ) Xu is not an an attitudinal, and therefore the sentence "xu dai broda" has no more meaning than "dai broda" (after all, "dai" can grammaticaly appear by itself) (incidentally, CLL classifies xu as a "miscellaneous", not a "discursive", but in either case, not a "attitudinal")
2) "mi cadzu" does indeed mean "I walk" or "I am a walker". To be more precise, it means "walks(me,zo'e,zo'e)". There is no significant difference in meaning in this case between "mi cadzu" and "mi me lo cadzu", as lojban does not distinguish nouns and verbs. It describes functions and relationships. Where the "me lo" construction DOES become useful is in relation to things that can only be linked to sumti and not selbri, such as NOI and GOI: "la xank. me lo gerku po mi" "Hank is one of my dogs" (dog-belonging-to-me(Hank)) (since we can't directly attach NOI/GOI to selbri as I've always maintained would be a Good Thing (tm).
--gejyspa
A possible actually useful use of 'dai' away from home would be with the FAhA 2s to indicate whose left or right, etc. you mean.