From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 22 10:37:22 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 22 Nov 2001 18:37:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 7776 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2001 18:37:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2001 18:37:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2001 18:37:22 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.91.171]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.13 201-229-121-113) with SMTP
          id <20011118030807.KSIL9742.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 03:08:07 +0000
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 03:07:17 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMMEECFAAA.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
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011116132744.051fd920@pop.cais.com>
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12235

Lojbab:
> At 12:36 AM 11/16/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >Not a bad answer, but in {du'u xu kau broda} the {xu kau} is to be
> >replaced with {ja'a} or {na}, and by the usual rule of replacing
> >like with like, that would mean that {xu} should be in JAhA.
> 
> Remember that all applications of kau are back-formations, since it was 
> added well after the bulk of the language was complete.

I do remember that. When I say "{xu} should be in JAhA" I mean
that purely by rational criteria that should be so; I don't mean
that the designers screwed up unpardonably.
 
> But also I don't think that "du'u mi broda xukau le brode" would be 
> replaced by "du'u mi broda ja'a/na[ku] le brode" 

I think that technically that is what the replacement is supposed
to be. What do you think it should be?

> (and I'd hate to have to 
> say "xuku" with a straight face anyway %^).

?

--And.