From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:50 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 1993 11:44:18 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4194; Thu, 18 Mar 93 11:43:10 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8915; Thu, 18 Mar 93 11:44:09 EST Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 10:40:27 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: *mo'u X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9303180900.AB10557@relay1.UU.NET> from "I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk" at Mar 18, 93 09:01:04 am Status: O X-From-Space-Date: Thu Mar 18 05:40:27 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: la .i,n. cusku di'e > According to the version of the grammar I checked in, > we can already have a non-logical termset, > if we don't mind using forethought: Correct. However, that was considered an artifact of the grammatical equivalence of geks and joigiks. Now that there is a reason for non-logical termsets, it is probably worthwhile to allow (afterthought) joiks explicitly. > Colin's use of {fa'u} balancing a {ce} (or whatever) > rather than another {fa'u} is interesting, > and yes, I think it _does_ work. I think a "ce'o" is needed rather than a "ce", otherwise there is no inherent order: A ce B === B ce A. -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.