From xod@thestonecutters.net Mon Jul 21 07:56:25 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ec5J-0006Xr-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:56:17 -0700 Received: from granite.thestonecutters.net (localhost.thestonecutters.net [127.0.0.1]) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6LEqEVH073005 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:52:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h6LEqE31073002 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:52:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) X-Authentication-Warning: granite.thestonecutters.net: xod owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:52:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Invent Yourself To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: use of ko'a In-Reply-To: <20030721134231.GA57104@allusion.net> Message-ID: <20030721105147.G72693-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5934 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:09:03PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > > de'i li 2003-07-19 ti'u li 16:43:00 la'o zoi. Craig .zoi cusku di'e > > > > >>Unbound malglico. Either use my. or le go'i or ra or bind the ko'a. > > >>my. and ra even cost less syllables, so I don't see what argument > > >>there is for the unbound ko'a. > > > > > >The argument is, pe'i, that it is grammatical so it ought to be meaningful. > > >To those of you who argue for unbound ko'a, if that is your reason, I have a > > >question for you. i pei xu cu'e xo ma mo? If not, then what is your reason? > > > > That's not the argument. The argument is that it is grammatical, it has > > an obvious meaning, and it is useful. Not every sumti place has to be > > But I reject that it is useful, since you can get the same use with > less syllables using existing anaphora. Back this up by rearranging my example text with fewer syllables. -- The Pentagon group believed it had a visionary strategy that would transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies...