Re: <djuno>

[Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>]

la stivn. spuda mi di'e

> > I agree with you there, but I can't resist pointing out
> > that Lojban grammar allows us to leave sumti unspecified
> > when the speaker considers them either irrelevant or
> > pragmatically obvious.
>
> Certainly. But this use of <djuno> is so odd, that I don't
> consider the elided sumti to be either irrelevant or obvious.

la markl spuda la stivn. di'e

By "this use of <djuno>", are you referring to _any_ use of
{djuno} with something other than {mi} in the x1 place?  Or
are you referring only to my statement:

{le kavbu cu djuno lo du'u le renro [ku] ba'o renro le bolci}

Perhaps you should restate what it is that you consider so
odd about "this use of <djuno>".

My (obviously fallible) understanding of your position is
that you consider {djuno} to be suspect when it isn't in
the first person, that any x1 other than {mi} requires an
explicit x4 epistemology place.