Message-Id: <199406250043.AA11994@nfs1.digex.net>
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Date: Fri Jun 24 20:43:11 1994
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: nunsucta sidbo
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jun 24 20:43:11 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

la veion cusku di'e

> >         mi zmadu do le ka ke'a citka xokau plise
> >
>
> I played with the same idea for a couple of days but there will be
> conflicts: just add "poi mi te vecnu ke'a". Here the "ke'a" isn't quite
> mandatory but there are cases where it cannot be avoided. The idea was
> VERY tempting, though :-)

That still doesn't create a conflict, as long as the ke'a applies to
the nearest structure. The problem of nested {ke'a} already exists
for subordinate clauses, and subindices have to be used (if anyone
would ever want to complicate themselves to such an extent).

Another possibility is to reserve a KOhA like ko'u or fo'u for this.
I don't think anyone would miss them in their other function.

mi'e xorxes