On The Edge

[cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn]

>di'e te fanva le se sanga beme'e zoi .gy. On the Edge .gy.
>        beifi'e la kolin. fain. be'o ri me'e lu
>                cate'e lo ckape
>li'u

I don't like names hanging loose in predications (I remember having this
argument, or one very similar, with Mark Shoulson six months ago). I'd prefer
{peme'e} to {beme'e}, and {gi'e se cmene lu cate'e lo ckape} (actually, I
think {tcita} rather than {cmene} might become more common in that context.)

You know about {te'e}? Must have a look at the latest PLS ma'oste.

>ti'eni'o

That's {tu'e}

>        .ije pensi ledu'u ma rinka

This is a direct question, meaning "And you're thinking WHAT causes?!" The
intent cannot be phrased succinctly in Lojban: {ma} must be replaced by
{zo'ekaunai}, or say {pensi la'elu ma rinka}

>        .i seltatpe gunka filemu'e jimpe

seltatpi, and I'd say carmi gunka for work hard

>        .i .iacu'i djica da ze'upu so'i nanca
>        .ije ca'o se srana da

To eliminate all ambiguity, replace {.ije} with {gi'e}

>        .i nu cfari seri'i le slilu cnidi

cidni

Well expressed, but I'm getting a bit worried with this obsession with
observatives. I prefer VSO, myself (.i'idoi mark. zo'oru'e)

Nick.