lojbab comments

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

Frank has trouble with Lojbab's:

.i mi ba   tcidu le  do  mulno    ke lojbo  se cusku .o'acai
   I  will read  the you complete    lojban is-expressed

and asks:

>Sentence (3) is tough. Why is "do" after the "le"? I expect
>a bridi here. Woops, "do" must attach to the whole "le" construct,
>ok. A complex 3 term tanru at the end. The last two terms group.
>The thing which is expressed, lojbanically expressed. What does
>"complete" mean here?

lojbab was using the "forethought possessive form."  It seems you're
allowed to stick a sumti in after the "le" of another sumti to indicate
restrictive association, like {pe}.  In other words, {le mi cukta} is
equivalent to {le cukta pe mi} which is, loosely, "my book" (or "the my
book", if you follow).  This is *not* a tanru, though it almost looks like
one.  Bear in mind that "mi" is not a brivla.  So {le do mulno ke lojbo se
cusku} is "the your complete kind-of lojbanic thing-expressed", or "your
complete lojban expression", or, expanding the tanru and all, "the complete
thing you said in Lojban."

~mark