Message-Id: <199502040151.AA03866@nfs1.digex.net>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri Feb  3 20:51:09 1995
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Feb  3 20:51:09 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

Jorge:
> > Indeed so. The question is whether {mi ponse lo nomei ku e
> > no da} is a contradiction: I have no idea.
> i go'ira'o

The answer surely has to be that it isn't a contradiction,
else all sort of confusion would arise.

> > > > 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
> > Surely not most members of, say SE, LE, PA?
> le se broda = da voi broda ke'a => {se} is an optional add-on convenience.
> le broda = da voi broda => {le} is an optional add-on convenience.
> pa broda = za'uno broda e me'ire broda => {pa} is an add-on convenience.
> i ma cmima zo se a zo le a zo pa gi'e traji se nitcu

As for LE and SE, either they or NOI and keha are OACs;
either {LE & SE} x-or {NOI & keha} aren't OACs.
As for PA, your circumlocution used PAs.

Some other cmavo that strike me as especially basic are:
   i dei zoi duhu
& maybe: fiho, goi, to

Your claim implies that it is possible to express everything
wholly without the use of cmavo. That seems really weird.
Mind you, I find the pragmatics of email in a foreign lingo
really tough: I may have misunderstood you.

---
And