le le la jbotur. ckafyzda ku jbofitpla

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

>Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:46:23 +1000
>From: nsn%MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>>>Subject: le la kalevalas. jbofitpla
>>                      ^^
>>Tell me, Nick, you do this just to see if I'm still reading? :-)

>Why, yes :)

>Btw, is there any good reason why a {la} in a cmene like {la'adan.} is
>illegal? There's no ambiguity there.

The restriction, I believe, doesn't explicitly permit this (as it does
explicitly permit {mlat.}; but you're right, there is no obvious ambiguity,
now that cmene are more restricted to lojbanic structure.  Time was, you
could have impermissible medials and all sorts of non-lojbanic
constructions in a cmene; somewhere in some lesson I remember seeing
"Gandhi" made into {*gand'is.}  I'm not sure I'd support permitting
{?la'adan.}, as it seems pretty close to the edge, but I'm not sure.

>>I understood the words but not the meaning of that last bit.  "and [it's]
>>near the cards which I was mailed by Ivan from London on something (humor)
>>which is (no humor) something-to-do-with my shelf."  What's the deal with
>>the "fizo'ezo'ono'uzo'onai"?

>I meant to say: "Oh, it's next to Ivan's card... somewhere :) ... only
>joking, it's on my shelf."

Oh, now I see.  Hmmmm.  Maybe some UIs could do the trick.  Maybe
{fidakaunaizo'o no'uzo'onai}?  Not that much better, and I'm misusing
{kau}.  Wasn't it originally proposed as a cmavo for "known!"?  What should
be used for that meaning now?

~mark