From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Tue Dec 13 20:00:56 1994
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA09760
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Tue, 13 Dec 1994 20:00:53 -0500
Message-Id: <199412140100.AA09760@nfs2.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 7301; Tue, 13 Dec 94 19:47:31 EST
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0022; Tue, 13 Dec 1994 18:50:57 -0500
Date:         Tue, 13 Dec 1994 18:53:03 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: jei
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

And:
> We don't have a gadri version of Q-kau in general;

and there can't be one, because Q can be different things: a sumti,
a selbri, a number, etc., each with different grammar. I don't think
you can make all that compatible with a single Q-kau.

> we only have lojei
> short for "loduhu xukau".

{lojei} is not short for {lodu'u xukau}. {tu'a lojei} is "short" for that,
and it is shorter only because jei has one syllable while du'u has two,
not because the expresion itself is any more compact.

(In theory. In practice, {lojei} has been used like that a few times,
but that is not compatible with it being a number.)

> I think what I'd actually like to see is an
> intrrogative sumti, "xahu", so we can get "mi djuno xahu mamta do" (I
> know who is your mother).

But what grammar would it have? There is no current selmaho that would
allow you that form, I think. And that would only work for makau, what
would you do with mokau, xokau, xukau, jikau, etc?

> This wouldn't handle all uses of Q-kau, by any means, but it would
> often afford considerable brevity. Maybe someone more ingenious can think
> of a more general abbreviatory device, but at any rate such would be
> welcome.

Why do you need to abbreviate? {mi djuno le du'u makau mamta do} is not
unbearably long, just three more syllables than what you propose (which
doesn't really work as it is). And if the du'u phrase is longer, the two
extra syllables just become irrelevant.

What would have been nice is that {du'u} be a monosyllable, but I guess
it's too late for that.

Jorge