From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Jun 24 03:50:44 2001
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 24 Jun 2001 10:50:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 45560 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2001 10:50:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jun 2001 10:50:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2001 10:50:44 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.2.4] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Jun 2001 10:50:44 -0000
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:50:42 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: koko & jai
Message-ID: <9h4gm2+8cmb@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length:1010
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 62.104.218.87
From: "A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8276

I'd like to know your opinions on two topics.

1) ko ko kurji:

Isn't it pleonasm using {ko} two times here? Shouldn't this case be treated like other phrases with {ko} e.g. ko prami mi, da/lo 
renma (cu) prami ko, hence: ko kurji do or do kurji ko?

2) Is it the fact that {jai} only can be used to go around a 1-place abstraction? And also, not allowed to go with {se} etc.? 

le nu do tavla bau la lojban cu fenki -> tu'a do fenki -> do jai fenki fai tavla bau la lojban. but
mi djuno le du'u do tavla bau la lojban. -> mi djuno tu'a do //-> mi jai djuno do fai... 
le du'u do tavla bau la lojban. cu se djuno mi -> tu'a do se djuno mi -> do jai ... ????

or: mi morji zo'e do -> mi morji tu'a do -> mi jai morji do ????

Since {jai} switches the places, I fear there arise heavy problems with some of the above constructions.
So, e.g. referring to the last example, there seems to be no other way than stick to the canonical construction:
mi morji le du'u blahblah kei do

mu'o mi'e .aulun.