Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:15:10 -0500

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 07:09:49PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> I don't remember the logic of zu'i ever having been explored; which category is
> zu'i typical relative to? The selbri, regardless of the sumti? Or to the
> whole local bridi? Or to the whole sentence? Or to the whole local bridi
> following the zu'i, or what? And what do quantifications of zu'i mean?

In {reda cu kanla mi}, I feel the {da} is unnecessary because of the way
it assigns {da}, which could lead to running out of da/de/di if used too
much.

I thought of {rezo'e kanla mi}, but quantifying {zo'e} doesn't seem
right to me, and it just says that two things are my eyes. This sounded
too general to me - I want to say that they are not two arbitrary
objects but two ordinary eyes. For example, if {ko'a} is someone with
one eye, then {rezo'e kanla ko'a} if, say, one {zo'e} is the retina and
the other {zo'e} is the rest of the eye.

Hence I decided on {zu'i}.

I think the logic of {zu'i} might tie into {lo'e} - {rezu'i kanla mi}
could be {re lo'e kanla cu kanla mi}.

> At any rate, I'd like to see some examples with bogus da, because I'm not aware
> of any. "da" does mean nonspecific something/someone.

Is it not true that if you use {da} in one sentence and again in
another, without using {da'o}, it refers to the same thing?

For example, is this correct?
{.i reda cu kanla mi .i da blanu}
-- 
la rab.spir
noi sarji zo gumri