From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:50:46 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 18414 invoked from network); 14 Mar 1997 16:39:29 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 14 Mar 1997 16:39:29 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.2155D375@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:39:28 +0100
Date:         Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:24:53 GMT+0
Reply-To:     And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: RET:  tunlo, x2 & zi'o
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 478
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <65BsKgkY5oK.A.llH.Gz0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la markl. cusku di'e:
> Suppose someone performs the action of gulping without necessarily
> swallowing any food or drink.  If {tunlo} had an x2 place, would
> we have to say {tunlo zi'o} in order to describe that action?

Yes. Though I bet noone but cranks like me would bother to.

> I'm wondering whether {tunlo} was denied an x2 place as part of an
> effort to minimize the use of {zi'o}.

I don't know, but that certainly would be a sensible reason, pe'i.

co'o mi'e .and.