Polish story, Paragraph 6 (penultimate)

la nitcion. cusku di'e:
>ni'o la numam. lafti leko'a flira ne seci'o le kazycaicpe fo lei srasu noi se
>gacru lo ctejau gi'e fracru sepi'o lo preti
>Numa lifted He1's face (which had emotion the quality of intense request)
>from the grass which was covered by night water and react-said using a question.

Is this legal for {sepi'o}?  Somehow the meaning here seems too abstract
for {sepi'o} to give the right meaning.  Whatever.

>.i le nalci be lemi cipnrakuila. tcena do .i le go'i cu ganra je ranti
>The wing of my (bird) eagle stretches to you. The same is wide and soft.

Can you use {go'i} this way?  I've been a bit troubled by {go'i} lately,
working on the Marquis' journal using some of Nick's suggestions.  Does
{go'i} mean a repeat of the last bridi, or the last jufra?  And exactly
what do you mean by the last bridi?  "mi klama le zdani" "go'i".  Now,
"zdani" here is a bridi (with everything ellipsiszed).  Is this the bridi
that go'i refers to?  I doubt it.  What about "mi xenru lenu do cu klama"
"go'i".  Here, we have "do klama", which is in some sense a more complete
seeming bridi than the previous example (and not just because it has more
sumti).  Is *this* go'i?  I don't think so either.  I think go'i refers to
jufra, not bridi.  Thus, Nick's uses of it in his corrections of Twery's
journal don't really work any better than mine (i.e.  they're both wrong.)
Unless you're using it as you do later on, "le go'i"=="the first sumti in
the previous jufra."  I wasn't aware of that capability.  Actually, I was
going to ask if there was a way to refer to a given sumti of a previous
jufra.  Maybe this is my answer.

>.ilu do pujecaca'a pensi ri .ue .i ko pensi lado .egeriam. i ri goi ko'i 
>tsanyxa'u .i do xabju le tedyplini
>"You were and are now actually thinking of them (surprised). Think of the one
>called Aegeria associated with you. She (She3) is a heaven inhabitant. You
>inhabit the earth planet. (le terdi does not mean the earth. In fact, le
>jegvo does not mean JHVH [according to the 1990 list John Cowan has been
>following], but "that which pertains to...").

Using {lado} is asking for trouble.  I couldn't find proof that the grammar
forbids it, but consider what would happen if the following word hadn't
begun with a vowel.  How would you tell "lado mark." from "la domark."?  I
suppose "lado .mark." would require a pause before the name.  I'd use la
.egeriam. ne do or something.
"jegvo" is now just "pertains to"?  You just re-used the gismu for a
totally unrelated meaning?  Yow.  Oh, well.  I can't complain.  I just
can't wait 'til Bob gets a chance to send us the new gismu and cmavo lists.

~mark