Wallops #8

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!iad>]

>  Date:        Wed, 1 Jul 1992 17:08:50 -0400
>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>
>  >Date:         Wed, 1 Jul 1992 12:11:54 +1000
>  >From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
>
>  I don't like your usage of {ko'a me mi} for "he's mine".  {me} is one of
>  lojban's ambiguity-flags; the converted sumti could mean just about
>  anything.  In general, I'd be *far* more likely to figure that {me mi}
>  meant "is me" (similar to {du mi} or {mi'e}) than "is mine".

True, although I think it would be plausible for someone to say {ko'a
me la xrist.} for `he is a Christian', which supports {ko'a me mi}
with the same meaning as uttered by Christ.

>  Stylistically, I'm not sure I like the {selcru}.
>  In this case, you really mean a plain {bacru}, just with inverted places.

True again, although `were the words of' is an idea simple enough to
have a lujvo.

>  Maybe {cusku}'s better than {bacru}, too.

I'm afraid {bacru lu ... li'u} means {cusku la'e lu ... li'u} - you
utter the words to express their meaning.

>  You seem fond of doubling brivla in tanru for emphasis, I'm not
>  sure it's a good idea.

I'm sure it isn't.  There are umpty-eleven ways in which the two
halves of a tanru may be related, and things don't become any simpler
from the head and the modifier being the same word.  You know, {catra
catra} may be a killer of killers (say, an officer whose job is to
execute death sentences of murderers), not a great murderer.

Ivan