Subject: [lojban] Re: I am the man who wrote you a letter

From: Nora LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 20:12:03 -0500

At 04:38 PM 1/1/03 +0000, Phillip wrote:
>How to say something like "I am the man who wrote you a letter"?
>
>Specifically, I'm having trouble with "I am the man who...". {mi
>nanmu} means for me "I am *a* man", and anyway, I don't think I can
>attach a {poi}-phrase to that. And {mi du le nanmu poi pu te xatra
>do} sounds malglico to me.

I am a prime opponent of "du" in most cases. However, when there are two 
descriptions that yield "known" entities, and you wish to express the 
*claim* that they both actually identify the same entity, then it's 
valid. The case I think of as a good example is "Clark Kent is Superman" 
(to the people who know Clark Kent and also know Superman). I think it is 
valid here for the same purpose.

However, I agree with Robin Turner that "nanmu" would only be used if that 
were important; otherwise, I'd leave it out altogether, getting:
mi du le te xatra be do

-- 
mi'e noras [email-masked]
Nora LeChevalier