Subject: Re: [lojban] da'i (for a change)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:04:39 EDT

Thanks loads, I needed that!
jbofi'e found no fault in all of this , but, since it does not give me a 
daigrammed output, I have no idea what I said.

In a message dated 6/21/2001 1:12:59 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> You have to admit that interpreting you is almost as hard as
> interpreting any one else of us.

Practice makes perfect? I have a reputation to uphold here.

> 
> noda zo'u ge da namcu gi node namcu gi'e balzma da da'o 

Yes, when jbofi'e rejected my forethought form, I shifted to soemthing it 
would take but forgot to get out of forethought. Can one forethought a 
bridi-tail (? or whatever this is)?

<>.iseni'i di goi le sumji be xy bei li

> >pa zo'u ge di numcu gi di balzma xy .
> 
> (Every {iseni'i} should be {iseni'ibo}.)>

Semantic dissonance. I thought about that and looked it up. It said {bo} is 
short scope and, since I wanted the whole sentence in, not just the following 
sumti, I figured that must be what I want. Amoment's thought would have told 
me that, despite what it says, it means something quite different (the 
characteristic of Lojban?).

> 
> Shouldn't it be {di no'u le sumji be ...} instead of {goi} here?
> {le sumji...} is presumably already assigned, and {di} is not
> an assignable variable.
{di}, being KOhA is assignable (see {da} in the first step) but the 
assingment is going the wrong way here, so yes it should be {no'u} -- and so 
generally for "namely riders."

> 
> >..i di'u cipra te zukte
> 
> {la'e di'u}? And is it really {cipra}? I think I have used
> {je'urja'o} for the demonstration sense of proof.

I fell for the oldest joke ("the proof of the pudding ...") so, no, it 
shouldn't be {cipra}, though I am not sure that "showing the truth" is what I 
would use for "proof." But ti works. 

> i melbi nu je'urja'o
Thanks again.