Delivery error notice sent to list LOJBAN

[Revised List Processor (1.7b) <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LISTSERV>]

The enclosed mail file, found in the LOJBAN reader and shown under the spoolid
1532 in  the console  log, has  been identified as  a possible  delivery error
notice for the following reason: mail subject indicates a delivery problem.

------------------------- Message in error (49 lines) -------------------------
Received: from CUVMB by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7089;
 Fri, 21 Feb 92 12:50:40 EST
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 12:50:37 EST
From: SMTP@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
To: LOJBAN@CUVMA.BITNET
Subject: Undeliverable Mail

CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU unable to deliver following mail to recipient(s):
    <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@UUNET.UU.NET>
CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU unable to connect for 3 days to host:
    137.39.1.2

           ** Text of Mail follows **
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1)
 with BSMTP id 0502; Tue, 18 Feb 92 12:47:59 EST
Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7670; Tue, 18 Feb 92 12:47:27 EST
Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 1992 12:47:31 EST
Reply-To:     "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson%CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMA.BITNET@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU>
From:         "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson%CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      lojbab comments
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@UUNET.UU.NET>
In-Reply-To:  "F. Schulz"'s message of Sun, 16 Feb 1992 20:39:24 -0800

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