From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Feb 10 09:09:17 2001
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 10 Feb 2001 17:09:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 45693 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 17:09:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2001 17:09:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 17:09:08 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.10.125] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Feb 2001 17:09:07 -0000
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:09:05 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: kau
Message-ID: <963sjh+7nc7@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <57.1166baff.27b6b2be@aol.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 843
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

--- 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 ...)