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 HAA18418 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 07:52:18 -0400 Message-Id: <199510131152.HAA18418@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 92450CC5 ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 7:25:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:25:43 BST Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: "ko" considered bad To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Fri Oct 13 07:52:20 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU 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.