From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMB.BITNET!LOJBAN Mon Jun 29 14:29:16 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 29 Jun 92 14:29 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA26696; Mon, 29 Jun 92 14:25:40 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA17010; Mon, 29 Jun 92 13:32:14 -0400 Message-Id: <9206291732.AA17010@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6866; Mon, 29 Jun 92 13:31:48 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf033) id 9886; Mon, 29 Jun 92 13:29:53 EDT Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 18:26:04 BST Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: De-emphatic particle X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-Status: I have got hold of a copy of Martin's Dagur grammar, and I am fairly sure that the 'de-emphatic particle' we were told of is a misunderstanding of his admittedly scanty description. I will post a more detailed account in a few days. The question is, if we find that Dagur indeed lacks this linguistic feature that I for one thought very strange, do we remove it from the list of proposed extensions for the next Lojban release, or having thought of it, do we leave it there in case somebody does find a use for it? Colin