From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Dec 12 11:43:05 1995
Reply-To: BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM
Date: Tue Dec 12 11:43:05 1995
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Paulo Barreto <BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM>
Subject:      Re: comments on CONN.TXT
X-To:         lojban%cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu@TRSVR.BITNET
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Message-ID: <ps0CsbYUMoC.A.LoF.iu0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la xorxes. di'e cusku

>Yes, I'm not saying that {ko} is not useful. Many commands contain {do}
>in the agent place, so {ko} may be a good shortening device. I'm just
>commenting that it is not the general way of doing imperatives.

We have discussed this before, but the way some threads go complex
I don't feel I understand the conclusions :-(

Jorge, are you saying that {ko} is a shorthand for {do e'o}? If so,
isn't it redundant to say "e'osai ko sarji la lojban."?

(Hmm, insisting so fervorously is perhaps not bad :-)

co'o mi'e paulos.

    Paulo S. L. M. Barreto  --  Software Analyst  --  Unisys Brazil
    Standard disclaimer applies ("I do not speak for Unisys", etc.)
                       do e'osai sarji la lojban.