*{la mi .crib.} does not work. However, it's perfectly fine to say {la pe mi .crib.} which *is* grammatical, just as {la noi banli [ku'o] .crib.} is also grammatical.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
Am 04.04.2012 15:11, schrieb Michael Turniansky:
--Just checking with people who understand the grammar to make sure that the following is correct:
You are allowed to interpose a sumti between the la and name for those cases where the name is a brivla, such as "la mi cribe cu gerku" -> "la cribe pe mi cu gerku" (My Bear is a dog), or "la ba'u lo ponse be lo gerku kuku pinxe be lo djacu cu taske za'ure'u ku .oi" (The dog owner's "Water-Drinker" is thirsty again *sigh* ) but not where the name is a cmevla, *la mi crib. cu gerku (*My Shreeb is a dog)
Would I have that right? (The permissibility surprised me. I can readily see how the the latter can't be allowed, because it would agglutinate into "la micrib. cu gerku", and how the first can't be ambiguous, but I was surprised to see it was allowed anyhow, simply because of symmetry reasons)
--gejyspa
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.
--
.i da xamgu ganse fi no na'ebo lo risna
.i lo vajrai cu nonselji'u lo kanla
--
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.