Re: la mark,l fraba'u fi la xorxes

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

>Kris:
>> mi pu cusku:
>> >> mi ponse le la lei'ydan cukta       gi'e milxe      tadni
>> .i la .and. cu troci lenu cikre
>> >                                ^^ku?            ^^se?
>> .i pe'i na go'i .i pe'i na nitcu zo ku .i ku'i na birti
>
>gohi rao
>
>> .i zo se cu na drani --> that would mean "I have the lojban book
>> and am somewhat studied"
>
>I thought it would mean "I have the Laadan book and mild studyee".
>At present is seems to mean "I have the Laadan book and mild student".

Only {je} could connect cukta and milxe tadni within the context of {le}.  I
don't think {gi'e} can do that -- it is a sentence level construct.  I would
think it ought to at least be allowed to be nested inside abstractors, but
apparently it can't even do that.  It always refers to the outermost
sentence.  My sentence should be logically interchangeable with: {mi ponse
le la lei'ydan cukta .ije mi milxe tadni}.

>> >> .i za'a le nimbau la lojban cu mleca leka mulno se skicu
>> >fi ri juosai       ro gerna le jbogerna cu mleca
>>               ^^fa?
>
>NO!!? Are you telling me that use of FA affects the x-numbering
>of subsequent suivla? So without that added {fa} it's as if there
>were a {fo} there? No! Mercy!

Yes.  Sorry, no mercy for the wicked. :-)

>From the reference grammar:

]What if some sumti have FA tags and others do not?  The rule is that after
]a tagged sumti, any sumti following it occupy the places succeeding it,
]subject to the proviso that an already-filled place is skipped:

(I love quoting from the reference grammar -- it's not because I'm trying to
be didactic or something, it's just that it forces me to look it up and make
sure I'm right.  Lots of times I've deleted stuff unsent because I looked it
up to quote it and realized I was wrong.)
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
                      \/   cbogart@quetzal.com