On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM, .alyn.post.
.i mi na cusku zo ka ki'u lo mi ro bridi porsi .i di'u pe mi tolsnuti
cizra (to dei snuti cirzu toi)
.i mu'o mi'e .alyn.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:54:23AM -0400, Ian Johnson wrote:
> (By the way, that's not entirely supposed to make sense, and I don't think
> it was intended to make that much sense originally either.)
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Ian Johnson <[1]blindbravado@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The implication is the following:
> lo ka bu'a cu rokci
>
> Does that clear it up?
>
> mu'o mi'e latros
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:45 AM, djandus <[2]
jandew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:51:14 AM UTC-5, .alyn.post. wrote:
>
> .i la camgusmis cu ckaji lo rokci
>
> So, I'm confused. I thought that even though {ckaji} is defined to
> that not the case, or is this just a special case of eliding {ka} when
> it's usage would be obvious? (something which I thought would be left
> to {tu'a}...)
> mu'o mi'e djandus
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "lojban" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> [3]https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/sO5NJ1VPoCIJ.
> To post to this group, send email to [4]lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [5]lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> [6]http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. mailto:blindbravado@gmail.com
> 2. mailto:jandew@gmail.com
> 3. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/sO5NJ1VPoCIJ