Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t3iGC-0000ZOC; Fri, 13 Oct 95 13:26 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 9E4966FC ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:26:43 +0100 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:25:43 BST Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: "ko" considered bad To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 777 Lines: 18 la xorxes. pu cusku di'e > What's more inconsistent is that mi, mi'o, mi'a, ma'a and do'o don't > have an imperative version. But they are not needed, just as {ko} is > not really needed. In my opinion, the "imperativity" does not really > belong in a sumti. Yes, I see what what you mean. Now that I have the imperative using attitudinals, it is a very much better way to do things than using "ko". Is "ko" a relic? It is certainly an easy concept for a beginner to grasp, but a lojbani can achieve much finer gradations of meaning without it. .i mi gi'e pu gi ba na bacru zo ko I previously, and subsequently not, uttered "ko". I spoke "ko", but never will again. (I hope a guessed the right connective and scope - there seems to be so many of them :-) co'o mi'e dn.