Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rIKhh-00007DC; Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:15 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1257; Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:15:13 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1255; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:14:10 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9536; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 18:33:59 +0100 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 632 Lines: 17 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