From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Dec 02 13:42:16 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 21:42:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 36231 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 21:42:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 21:42:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 21:42:11 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.2.230] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2000 21:42:11 -0000
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:42:05 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: common words
Message-ID: <90bqbd+5p86@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 953
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

reply to xorxes.
(somehow cannot post an answer to your posting - getting failure messages all the time!)

da tolcri le da zgike selsau [pendo] makau
da facki fi le da zgike selsau [pendo] vi makau


I like the idea of using {kau} here. But, as for {tolcri}, I somehow prefer using {facki} despite its place structure being less 
pleasing (is it symptomatic that _to lose_/{cirko} fits much better?):
In my opinion, Lojban seems to somehow design a negative mirror-like counter-world:

{cirko} -> {tolcri} - it's looking and sounding not badly, yet the concept behind!!
{dapma} -> {toldapma} !!!
{cliva} -> {tolcliva} What an advent! (le nuntolcliva pe la jegvon.)
etc.

Why not: {tolmro} instead of {jmive} !

I somehow wanted to *pick out* a piece of time/point of event for "One day.../It was then that..." (It was then that he lifted his axe 
and finally killed him... :-)):
maybe it could be expressed with {.i co'iki ku...}


co'o mi'e .aulun.