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 m0rEouM-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 03:41 EET
Message-Id: <m0rEouM-00007GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 4204; Tue, 06 Dec 94 03:41:45 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4201; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:41:44 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5319; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 02:38:27 +0100
Date:         Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:36:15 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH.GRAM.PROPOSAL: require KU after free-floating tense/modal
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 522
Lines: 11

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