Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from fiport.funet.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rbA94-00001EC; Sun, 5 Feb 95 18:49 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN)
 by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494)
 id <01HMP42776V4002HAC@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sun, 05 Feb 1995 16:44:45 +0200 (EET)
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN)
 by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8418; Sun,
 5 Feb 1995 17:45:38 +0100
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 1995 16:48:10 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
In-reply-to: (Your message of Sat, 04 Feb 95 14:24:36 EST.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HMP4278X0Y002HAC@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1742
Lines: 54

Jorge:
> > > > Surely not most members of, say SE, LE, PA?
>                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> i pau so'e cmima ji lei so'e cmima

I don't understand the question.

> Some other cmavo that strike me as especially basic are:
>    i dei zoi duhu
> i zo ni'o ka'e basti zo i

Iff there's a new topic.

> i <<lu le jufra poi mi ca cusku ke'a li'u>> ka'e basti zo dei

They're not equivalent in meaning, I think, because (and I
may be wrong here) the expressing is located at a region of
time that includes the punctual present, but the expressing
needn't be located exactly at the punctual present.
The meanings of {mi} and {ca} have to be defined in terms of
{dei}, so the circumlocution doesn't show {dei} isn't basic.

> i <<lu la'e lu broda li'u li'u>> ka'e basti <<lu le du'u broda li'u>>

I'm inclined to agree. Add {lu} to my list.

> > & maybe: fiho, goi, to
> i zo do'e joi zo poi ka'e basti zo fi'o

How would that work? (E.g. if a selbri has 3 fiho modals)

> i zo ca'e joi zo du ka'e basti zo goi

Maybe I'd misunderstood {goi}. I thought {X goi Y}
assigns the referent of X to Y, replacing any previous
referent Y previously had.

> > 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

I wonder if you genuinely misunderstand me. If we have 2 ways
of saying the same thing, only one of them is motivated by
requirements of expressiveness. It may be that (and this is
true of SE/LE vs NOI) that neither is plainly more basic than
the other, but one of them is redundant.

----
And