Re: self-descriptions?

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> > > .i ku'i le mi dansu kansa co'a kansa na'ebo mi
> > Shd it be {le mi dansu kansa cu coa kansa}?
> Could. Not "Should". They're equivalent.

What I mean is: "is {dansu kansa coa kansa} a complex selbri"?
It seems to me that it should be.

> > > .i mi nunxeldraco kelci
> > I'd have thought {nu xe draci} and {nu draci} are synonymous and that
> > therefore {nundraci} is preferable. The only difference is that I'd
> > expect x2 and x6 of {nundraci} and {nunxeldraci} to be swapped.
> I guess I'd say nunxeldraci (yes, typo, sorry) kelci is nearest to
> "acting (i.e. role-playing) game", while nundraci kelci is more like
> "game of something being a drama". It is a very subtle difference,
> and one mainly of pragmatics and subjective understanding, not of
> officially established semantics, but that is just me, of course. It
> appealed to the author, if you will vauzo'o.

Hmm. You need {mi ka fu xeu da draci kei kelci}, really. Or - worse -
{mi se xi pa nundraci kelci}. But I don't think your preferences
should be allowed to establish usage unchallenged, however fluent
that usage is.

> co'o mi'e. noi srera ku'o goran.

Is COI + relative clause legal? I forget whether COI featured in
John's new proposal. Do you intend to dub yourself Goran the Errer?

> > coo, mie noi friko ninmu tordu marksista kuo and
> ??? And the African-womanly short Marxist ??? ki'acai?

fi la pou lojbab ralju fe lei jai fau skicu be fo lo jbovla bei fe
maa bei fai ro da poi kea me maa bei fi da fa diu tinbe

coo mie lao lao and