Return-Path: Received: from fiport.funet.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0raq4M-00001EC; Sat, 4 Feb 95 21:22 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HMNV4K5ZHC001HOE@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sat, 04 Feb 1995 19:18:34 +0200 (EET) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4071; Sat, 4 Feb 1995 20:19:27 +0100 Date: Sat, 04 Feb 1995 14:24:36 -0500 (EST) From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma Sender: Lojban list Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-id: <01HMNV4K6NYQ001HOE@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1383 Lines: 45 la and cusku di'e > > > > > I feel [makau] doesn't increase expressive > > > > > power: it is an optional add-on, a useful convenience. > > > > ie i ku'i pe'i la'e di'u cu jetnu sera'a ro cmavo ^^^^^^^^ i mi na pu cusku lu ro selma'o li'u i mi na pu cusku lu lei ro cmavo li'u i bau la gliban zoi gy It's true about each cmavo gy > > > Surely not most members of, say SE, LE, PA? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ i pau so'e cmima ji lei so'e cmima > Some other cmavo that strike me as especially basic are: > i dei zoi duhu i zo ni'o ka'e basti zo i i <> ka'e basti zo dei i <> ka'e basti <> i zo zoi cu se nitcu i ku'i na'e traji lojbo > & maybe: fiho, goi, to i zo do'e joi zo poi ka'e basti zo fi'o i zo ca'e joi zo du ka'e basti zo goi i zo to na traji se nitcu i roda ka'e se cusku secau ra > Your claim implies that it is possible to express everything > wholly without the use of cmavo. i na go'i i mi xusra la'e di'e i ro cmavo naku traji se nitcu i va'i no cmavo cu traji se nitcu i mi na xusra le du'u kakne le nu claxu ro cmavo i ji'a mi na xusra le du'u no selma'o cu se nitcu > Mind you, I find the pragmatics of email in a foreign lingo > really tough: I may have misunderstood you. i u'i ca'a go'i co'o mi'e xorxes