It would not be valid. It may only be used between two vowels.

Could you use some sort of phonetic alphabet please? I can imagine several very different pronunciations of "eyezayh".

Use X.

Chemical reactions are more electron-swapping than anything.
{dicka'u nunbasti} or something along those lines. I have a feeling I just made a rubbish tanru but that's the idea.

culno lo fa'orma'o

i.e. "Our kittens got cute and began to leave the lair": {le mi citmlatu mo'u co'a melbi gi'e co'a di'i cliva le zdani}

Latter, due to http://dag.github.com/cll/17/9/
If you want to say the former, you can always quote the lefru with {me'o}, as mentioned in http://dag.github.com/cll/17/10/:

{me'o .abu [cu] melbi}

NB what {me'o} quotes {.abu} as a mex and makes it into a sumti representing that mex itself (as opposed to {li .abu}, which is a sumti representing the value of "a"), as described in http://dag.github.com/cll/18/19/

So the literal meaning would be

> "a" is the beautiful [mex]

But http://dag.github.com/cll/17/10/ mentions that this will be interpreted as

> "a" is the beautiful [letteral]

, as a special case.

".abu", on the other hand, is not a letteral at all, but is a word. (Okay, it IS also the letteral, referenced by lerfu-string "denpa bu.abuby.ubu"). You can say ".abu is a beautiful [word]" quoting it with, for instance, {zo}.

but don't just post your email address on here publically. go on the IRC and give it to someone in a query, instead.

Retranslating your translation: "I reflect not the light illuminating your face, but your ["heart" and most] hoped-for-thing." Using {minra} is trouble. The translation seems like the mirror is reflecting light from some hidden source to illuminate your face. Possibly "your face" should be the source of the light {lo gusni be fi lo do flira}. Also, the translation carefully has the mirror reflecting light on one hand, but directly reflecting a desired thing (as opposed to generating an image of a desired thing) on the other hand.

I suggest: {mi jarco tu'a ge nai lo do flira gi ku'i lo do cnise'i seldji}

You could write {lo seldji be lo do cnise'i} and move the two {do} into {be} clauses for more precision, but I don't think that's necessary.

Written backwards: ijdlesi'esincodoli'ukigarilfodolianega'utocrajim
I'd try to break this into morphologically valid lojban words, using as few cmene and fu'ivla as possible. E.g., "ijdle si'e sinco do li'u ki ga rilfo do li a ne ga'u tocra jim".

Using your translation: "ancaple si jarte ji'e sinco de li'u ki go'e ba rilfo de le binsu ge li a ne garni mim".

>>1627

>Alright! That's the main thing that was bothering me. I'm glad to see we agree they aren't equivalent statements. Will you be updating http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Aspect ?

I changed the "==" to "(approximately)==". I suppose I could try to find an "approximately equals" symbol but I don't know if it will display properly in all browsers.

>Incidentally, the first example on that page has a small error: either the {ze'a} should be replaced with {pu za} or the translation should be "The years-long war is over, but the pain is still with us.", since {ze'a} specifies the duration of the main event, not the length of the imaginary journey to reach the event. If you think {ze'a} can specify the duration of the aftermath when the main event is tagged with {ba'o}, then {ze'a ko'a co'a broda} would be equivalent to {ze'a ko'a broda krasi} instead of {ze'a ko'a cfari broda}. (You've already said the latter is better than the former. >>1622)

I think "ze'a" specifies the duration of the aftermath stage:

Comment is too long. Go here to view the full text.

>>1628

Right. This is some of the stuff I didn't want to argue about because it was distracting from the main point... but now that's sorted out, I guess we might as well have at it.

I'm fairly certain {ze'a co'a broda} means that broda is beginning now (i.e., the reference point, whatever that is, is coincident with the beginning of broda) and broda has a medium (or unspecified, whichever interpretation you use) duration. Note that I think the ZEhA specifies the duration of the whole event, not the duration of its beginning. In short, I believe when a ZEhA and a ZAhO appear in the same tag, the combined meaning is the intersection of the meanings of the solitary ZEhA and the solitary ZAhO, not "select the ZAhO part of the event, then use the ZEhA to describe the duration of that part of the event."

Statements like "Aspects are not about temporal relationships." seem utterly nonsensical to me (assuming you mean ZAhO where you wrote "Aspects"). Of course ZAhO are about temporal relationships. They specify where the imaginary journey ends relative to the event being discussed (in the aftermath, at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, etc.). They very much resemble English tenses, unlike PU. http://dag.github.com/cll/10/6/

>>1629

>I'm fairly certain {ze'a co'a broda} means that broda is beginning now (i.e., the reference point, whatever that is, is coincident with the beginning of broda)

I don't think "co'a broda" really says anything about time. It only says that broda is beginning, but not when. It may be that "now" is usually the most obvious time, but that's not part of what is being stated. "co'a broda" also doesn't say that the beginning is coincident with the reference point. "ca co'a broda" says that, but "pu co'a broda" says the beginning is before the reference point, and "ba co'a broda" says the beginning is after the reference point. "co'a broda" does nothing to respond "when?", only PU does that.

> and broda has a medium (or unspecified, whichever interpretation you use) duration.

"co'a ze'a broda" is the beginning of medium/unspecified duration broda. "ze'a co'a broda" is a medium/unspecified duration beginning of broda.

Comment is too long. Go here to view the full text.