From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Jan 5 16:44:55 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:46:35 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5111; Tue, 05 Jan 93 11:47:43 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1294; Tue, 05 Jan 93 11:47:23 EST Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:44:55 GMT Reply-To: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK Subject: Re: TECH: more on ZAhO To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: John Cowan replies to my material on tcita: > As to the remaining material, I agree that "seba'o" is bogus, and I agree > that there is a problem. I don't think that using ZAhO+KU will fix it, > because currently that is defined (by IJ) to mean the same as the selbri > tcita. I will ponder the matter further. I think that in the light of my argument, that definition should be changed. Syntactically, is a , and so the tag should function the same as in other terms (such as ). At least one version of the draft textbook introduces selbri tcita in this way. The difference does not matter much except for BAhO. (You may note a further instance of my campaign to make the semantic structure agree with the syntactic structure. I think this is important as a principle). I don't know what "IJ" means. Colin