From cowan Wed Dec  6 09:41:20 1995
Subject: Re: TECH: new cmavo "ju'e"
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:41:20 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199512061203.HAA26414@locke.ccil.org> from "Logical Language Group" at Dec 6, 95 06:52:13 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length:        460
Status: OR
Message-ID: <lNKBoojYBCL.A.0uF.ou0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> Even WITH the current design, there are no JOIK equivalents
> for GUhEks and GIhEks (forethought tanru and bridi-tail connection).

Jorge has proposed (his X2) the use of GI+JOI as a non-logical gihek.
I'm still mulling this in conjunction with his X4.

> Jorge's proposal to allow JE the full range of usage of JOI is
> unacceptable.

I agree.  Proposal X3 is rejected.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.