Return-Path: <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t3tDs-0000ZOC; Sat, 14 Oct 95 01:09 EET
Message-Id: <m0t3tDs-0000ZOC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id BC0858BA ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 0:09:03 +0100
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:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 352
Lines: 11

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