[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: la bradfrd jbogirz / editorial emphasis
- To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
- Subject: RE: la bradfrd jbogirz / editorial emphasis
- From: cbmvax!uunet!oasis.icl.co.uk!I.Alexander.bra0122
- Comments: <Parser> W: Field "Resent-To:/To:" duplicated. Last occurrence was retained.
- Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!oasis.icl.co.uk!I.Alexander.bra0122
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
There are a couple of other grammatical problems with
the text given. On line 7,
lo'u<< gi'ecabo catlu lesa'a mi bijyjbu >>le'u
and on line 9,
lo'u<< le tarmi naldikni po'usa'a me'esa'a za'e zo varmuvmi'i ku'osa'a>>le'u
Do *these* "editorial deletes" work? Presumably in a
grammatical {lu ... li'u} quotation, they would delete
the whole phrase, but should the rules for _ungrammatical_
quotations be different? Or does it help to quote the
inserted word(s) with {to'i ... toi} and/or {zo}?
This might be a way of getting your {ba'e} to work, Colin.
I think it _does_ emphasise the {sa'a} as it stands,
whatever that might mean :) - {sa'a} is just a UI,
after all. But then, if you're going into a full
editorial unquote, you're probably safer using an observative
{to'isa'a basna toi} - and of course it would go *after*
the word in question, wouldn't it?
And I should probably have used
{to'isa'a setca zo po'u ce'o zo me'e toi}
etc.