"mun" : useless ?

[Kuti]

jan Koala, pona mute a! \o/

[jan-ante]

besides that, some people use mun to refer to crescent shape, e.g. they say mun lili for bracket
also mun is very useful for poetry, like in this tokiponic hokku:

tenpo pimeja
li open e sinpin mun
walo li lete

[janPel]

interesting
i'm unsure about how to translate it
there may be some ambiguity or i may be mistaken

Night
Opens the moon's white face
(and) cools down.

or

Night
Opens the moon's face
(and) Whitens the coldness.

[janKipo]

latter would be 'li walo e lete'. Could put a period at the end of line two and make 3 "White is cold"

[jan-ante]

i'm unsure about how to translate it
there may be some ambiguity or i may be mistaken

this is my mistake. should be

tenpo pimeja
li open e sinpin mun.
walo li lete

[Delphij]

mi pilin e ni: nimi monsuta li ike. mi jo e nimi jan ike anu nimi akesi. taso mi wile e nimi ni: nimi "reason".
Reason seme = why
Reason = because

mi wile kin e ni: jan ken toki e ni: nimi 'e' monsi nimi 'pi'.
jan meli pi olin e jan meli = a lesbian.
soweli pi alasa e soweli lili = a cat.

mi nasa ala nasa? jan ken toki e ni anu seme?

[jan-ante]

mi pilin e ni: nimi monsuta li ike.

mi pilin e ni kin
but it is not an official word

mi wile kin e ni: jan ken toki e ni: nimi 'e' monsi nimi 'pi'.
jan meli pi olin e jan meli = a lesbian.
soweli pi alasa e soweli lili = a cat.

mi nasa ala nasa? jan ken toki e ni anu seme?

sina nasa.
note that nasa means also "complex". so, according to the tp philosophy it should be simple (i.e.
pona) but your suggestion might cause some complication.

[janMato]

mi wile kin e ni: jan ken toki e ni: nimi 'e' monsi nimi 'pi'.
jan meli pi olin e jan meli = a lesbian.
soweli pi alasa e soweli lili = a cat.

mi nasa ala nasa? jan ken toki e ni anu seme?

I said the exact same thing, except I suggested using the undefine "pu" to serve that role. It would work essentially like Scandinavian "sem" or English "that" Who ever formalized the syntax rules first seems to have had a formal or intuitive understanding of two models of syntax, one that is sometimes called "beads-on-a-string" and the regular one that requires recursion and trees. When ever you see chains of pi, or chains e, or chains of repeating prep-phrases, you are seeing what a syntax might look like if there wasn't any recursion going on. The beads-on-a-string sentences still can be re-analyzed as recursion and string with possibly different meanings and we are so used to processing syntactical trees that it is effortless as breathing. So it takes extra effort to get in a mode where we give up on recursion in favor of "beads-on-a-string".

jan Meli en jan Pali li tawa li music li lape kepeken sijelo wawa kepeken sinpin pi pilin pona. Chains of subjects, verbs, and "kepeken" phrases. This of course could still be analyzed recursively instead, i.e. Subject = noun phrase, Subject = noun phrase + another subject.

[janSilipu]

While I suppose it would be possible to make an item-and- arrangement grammar withou recursion, it would certainly be hard and inevitably incomplete, since we can always add one more word to a string and get a legitimate sentence not covered by the non-recursive rules. The interesting differences in grammars are between mere acceptance grammars, which are basically item and arrangement with recursion,and which tell you that a string is a sentence and what it's parts are, but relatively little about how it comes together or what it means. For this you need a transformational grammar (maybe even a Montague one, but you can do a lot without all that fuss). Crucial to this is the derivation of non sentential components from sententials or generally of components of one sort from those of another. So, in the case at hand, what is wanted is a way to talk abou lesbians as women who love or have sex with women ("fuck" doesn't ge rally seem to apply). So you want at hsome place in a sentence a phrase that says that, that is that incorporates the information of 'meli li Olin e meli'. In English, we have, besides some words that carry that information,a variety of syntactic structures: restrictive relative clauses. And verbal adjective phrases,to name two, both of which are derived from "woman loves women' and attach to an occurrence of "woman" in the matrix sentence: "that loves women" after OT "women loving" before. Tp doesn't have the formr, desire you best efforts with 'pu'. But it has the latter, formed regularly as 'pi Olin meli'. That this can mean a number of other things just means that other transformations have the same output, maybe even from the same input. We have done very little about transformations in tp -- the rules about multiple main verbs and direct objects are about all, so far. (Lojban occasionally claims that all it's transformations are uniquely represented or that all but a narrow group are but demonstration of this are not forthcoming. Given tp's limited resources, we should expect that most most surface structures are ambiguous in many ways and correctly working out the right reading og a given phrase may take running through a number of possibilities.)