From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 17:14:37 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 00:14:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 65440 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 00:14:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 00:14:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 00:14:35 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.33]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010807001433.MFTZ20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:14:33 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:13:32 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCEIPEIAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <F10310uvqHQdQS4VRQY0000fe4a@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9274

Jorge to xod:
> About {lu'e}, I have two semi-objections which may or may not
> add up to one.
> 
> Semi-objection 1: It already has a different meaning.
> The way I understand it, {lu'e} is the reverse operation
> of {la'e}, so {lu'e la'e di'u} = {di'u},
> {lu'e la djan} = {zo djan} and I suppose {lu'e le klama}
> would be {lu le klama li'u} or something like that, i.e.
> essentially a text. I have never seen {lu'e} actually being
> used though, so if you can find a more useful meaning for it
> I won't object very strongly. You would re-define it as
> {lu'e ko'a} = {le du'u makau du ko'a}.
> 
> Semi-objection 2: It only replaces {makau}, not {mokau},
> {xokau}, {jikau}, {peikau}, etc, and even with {makau},
> in many cases it makes the expressions more convoluted.

Not that I yet understand Xod's lu'e, but if your understanding 
of lu'e is correct then Semi-objection 1 seems to me to add up
on its own to a whole objection.

Semi-objection 2, OTOH, is not valid, because the issue at this
stage is to try to sort out the logic. Syntactic and stylistic
obstacles should be faced later.

--And.