From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Mon Dec  5 21:47:11 1994
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA11641
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:47:07 -0500
Message-Id: <199412060247.AA11641@nfs2.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 7388; Mon, 05 Dec 94 21:41:52 EST
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1159; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:35:56 -0500
Date:         Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:36:15 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH.GRAM.PROPOSAL: require KU after free-floating tense/modal
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

I'm mildly against this proposal because I like to elide terminators
as often as possible. However, I don't think it matters much, because
in most cases this {ku} has to be used anyway.

I don't think that the risk of confusion is enough reason to force its
use when it wouldn't be otherwise required. If the statement is confusing,
then it is not good style, but that's a different problem. There is an
unambiguous interpretation, and if it is not obvious then the {ku} can
always be added or the phrase reworked.

Jorge