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 (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA20618 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:49:18 +0200 Message-Id: <199512121049.MAA20618@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 555E63BC ; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:49:18 +0100 Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 05:46:00 LCL Reply-To: BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM Sender: Lojban list From: Paulo Barreto Subject: Re: comments on CONN.TXT X-To: lojban%cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu@TRSVR.BITNET To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 732 Lines: 19 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.