From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Dec 13 14:28:04 1995
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Date: Wed Dec 13 14:28:04 1995
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: comments on CONN.TXT
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Message-ID: <6uZXIrrxCtJ.A.YqF.ku0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la paulos cusku di'e

> Jorge, are you saying that {ko} is a shorthand for {do e'o}?

Yes, or for {do ei}, or {do e'u}, etc. {ko} is not so explicit as to
the nature of the command.

> If so,
> isn't it redundant to say "e'osai ko sarji la lojban."?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. "e'osai do sarji la lojban"
would also be a request.

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

Right, it can be seen as a more emphatic form.

Jorge