Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 23:27:10 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
In-reply-to: (Your message of Thu, 02 Feb 95 18:43:48 EST.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HMMPIU40D2002S6B@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-Length: 1203
Lines: 32

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