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 m0tNKv6-0000ZUC; Wed, 6 Dec 95 16:34 EET
Message-Id: <m0tNKv6-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id BC9125F1 ; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:34:03 +0100
Date:         Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:41:20 -0500
Reply-To:     John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Subject:      Re: TECH: new cmavo "ju'e"
To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To:  <199512061203.HAA26414@locke.ccil.org> from "Logical Language
              Group" at Dec 6, 95 06:52:13 am
Content-Length: 506
Lines: 16

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.