Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA29436 for <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:53:25 +0200
Message-Id: <199512202253.AAA29436@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id D0BEE762 ; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 23:53:25 +0100
Date:         Wed, 20 Dec 1995 18:24:39 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      TECH: PROPOSAL: KUhAhU & KIhAhI
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 682
Lines: 17

I propose two cmavo, {kuau} (in selmao KUhAhU) and its corresponding
terminator {kiai} (in selmao KIhAhI). They contain a bridi and yield
a sumti.

At present one must use LE + duu ... kei. There is no good reason
to involve a selbri (duu). The resulting mismatch between syntax
and semantics is very offensive.

Jorge suggested (in effect) that {kuau} should be in LU. I have
not proposed that, because LU ... LIhU contain not just bridi.

I realize that Lojban Central will be unswayed by the case for these
new cmavo, but when I have to use {duu} I experience a mental nausea
so acute that it is almost visceral too. So for my own health I must
start using {suau}.

coo, mie And