Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA15759 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 15 Dec 1994 17:31:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199412152231.AA15759@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1146; Thu, 15 Dec 94 17:25:56 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0331; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:29:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:32:26 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: kau obverse X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 15 17:31:59 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu la djer cusku di'e > I might add that if xa'a were accepted, we could say: > .i mi djuno xa'a dakau klama le zarci. That would be ungrammatical, you have two selbri in the sentence. Probably you want {poi klama le zarci}, but you wouldn't need the {kau}. > xa'a would allow x2 djuno to accept an object/person. x3 and x4 djuno > are left intact giving djuno a different definition than sanji. xa'a > would really add a lot of expressive power to the language as well as > allowing very natural (for E-speakers at least) expressions, such as > "Alas, poor Yorik, I knew *him* well". uu la iorik i mi ri selsau co'o mi'e xorxes