Subject: Re: kau

From: "A.W.T." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:09:05 -0000

--- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/10/2001 4:23:16 AM Central Standard Time, 
> Ti@f... writes:
> 
> 
> > co'o mi'e *la* .aulun.
> > (BTW, don't you think that "la" is necessary with names to indicate that it 
> > isn't just the name/label etc. itself but a person referred 
> > to by it?)
> > 
> Nope, not in this case. {mi'e} is used to introduce the label to be applied 
> to the speaker, not to introduce the speaker, and that label is "aulun" The 
> {la} is needed in other contexts to show its function there, as a sumti, but 
> here the label is mentioned, not used.

je'e .ui ki'ecai

.i mi'e .aulun. poi bebna jbopre
(I'm wondering how - other than in vocative constructions - a relative clause or phrase could be attached to a sumti altered to a 
selbri by {me} e.g. in: ti me le la kraislr. karce ...)