la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> This seems essentially backward prractice to me. {lo karce} refers to
> the salient car(s). After it has been used o9nce, that forces the
> car(s) there referred to to be the salient ones.
It doesn't have to, however. Consider:
"I just saw a dog. Dogs are so cute!"
mi pu zi viska lo gerku .i lo gerku cu tai ci'omle
Nothing forbids one to use {lo} twice with different referents each time. (Or one could say that the referent is always the same, it's Dog.)
It might not be super obvious in such a case if the second {lo gerku} is the same as the one I just saw, but it's nevertheless "legal" to say it like that.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to lojban+
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.