From fracture@allusion.net Thu Nov 13 17:37:35 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:37:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.40] helo=ms-smtp-01-eri0.texas.rr.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AKStt-0000TZ-ON for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:37:29 -0800 Received: from fracture (cs24349-133.austin.rr.com [24.243.49.133]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.texas.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id hAE1bk5X004851 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:37:51 -0600 (CST) Received: by fracture (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:50:06 -0600 From: "Jordan DeLong" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:50:06 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] COI, UI (was Re: cfari) Message-ID: <20031114015006.GA44534@allusion.net> References: <20031112230539.GJ4805@digitalkingdom.org> <20031113150545.26970.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> <20031113194942.GL1086@digitalkingdom.org> <20031113202513.GF15777@skunk.reutershealth.com> <20031114010405.GA43646@allusion.net> <20031114005434.GL15718@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031114005434.GL15718@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-archive-position: 6662 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:54:35PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:04:05PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:25:13PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > >=20 > > > > Those of you without time/ability to read the Lojban might > > > > might the topic interesting: xorxes was pointing out four > > > > places where I used a COI cmavo as though it was UI (i.e., > > > > without following it with a name). xorxes expressed his > > > > desire for COI cmavo to actually grammatically be like UI > > > > cmavo (which I'm inclined to agree with). > > >=20 > > > Well, UI binds to the previous word. Is that what you were > > > doing? It's certainly grammatical to have COI by itself now, > > > although you need an explicit "do'u" if the next thing is a name > > > or sumti. > >=20 > > As cowan says, you need a do'u. > >=20 > > This is neccesary because otherwise you wouldn't be able to say > > things like the (extreemly frequent on irc) "coi rodo". =20 >=20 > coi itself is the *only* word I've seen get used properly in COI > that I can recall. This may be true, but it's certainly not an argument for nuking COI in favor of UI. Many people who use lerfu sumti almost never get the boi terminator right. But this doesn't argue in favor of changing the multi-letter rule for lerfu anaphor. Bad usage is just bad usage. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/tDTODrrilS51AZ8RAiTuAJ9cygBVrtPucmZxwi0HmtsaopxILgCfXueI 2ueE4PSmxI1nIZ8fS/yUk4s= =iWgr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM--