Date:  Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:32:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710170032.TAA24670@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: tremau
To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1406
Lines: 35

And:
>> There are two different
>> definitions of {le ni broda}: one is {le jaila'u broda} and the other
>> is {le ka broda la'u makau}.
>
>1. Why {le ka broda la`u makau} (assuming no ce`u there) and not
>   {le du`u broda la`u makau}?

By John's recent dictum the second would be a special case of
the first. But you're right, when there's no ce'u it would be {le du'u}.
Since I was mostly considering places where the gi'uste suggests
ka/ni, the right expansion would be with {ka}.

My definitions should be corrected though, changing {la'u} to
{sela'u}. I was using an old printed gi'uste where the x1 and x2
of klani were reversed from their current order.

>2. If {ni} was "clarified" to Option 2, could {jei} be redefined
>   as "whether"? At the moment {jei} is parallel to option 1,
>   but Option 2 seems usefuller.

I suppose I agree. But I've been complaining about this
dichotomy for years without much success. Both modalities
of jei and ni made it to the refgram examples. Personally
I never use {jei}, and I think I will abandon {ni} as well,
which I haven't used much anyway.

>3. Are ni and ka redundant, strictly speaking? Given du`u and nu
>   and ce`u, is there anything that they can't do but ni and ka
>   can?

Well, du'u would be redundant to ka, since ce'u is supposed
to be used with ka. And yes, ni is definitely redundant.

 co'o mi'e xorxes