Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id PAA01009 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:33:49 -0400
Message-Id: <199510131933.PAA01009@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id E5C65DD1 ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:51:53 -0400
Date:         Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:38:43 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: "ko" considered bad
X-To:         dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Oct 13 15:33:54 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

I think your approach was not incorrect:
>This is were this problem came from - I was trying to say
>    *.i ko po'u mi'o ku'o citka
>    Let's eat.

Though I think I would be more inclined to use  "ko goi mi'o" since we are
redefining rather than restrictively identifying ko.

But I would understand what you said correctly in most contexts.

lojbab