From ragnarok@pobox.com Wed Nov 14 18:05:22 2001
Return-Path: <raganok@intrex.net>
X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 15 Nov 2001 02:05:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 34324 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 02:05:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Nov 2001 02:05:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2001 02:05:21 -0000
Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net
  (SMTPD32-5.05) id A2E1960198; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:05:21 -0500
Reply-To: <ragnarok@pobox.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:03:30 -0500
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFAEABCFAA.raganok@intrex.net>
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)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <F95AUfKRfcjcMzfoV1q0000041d@hotmail.com>
Importance: Normal
X-eGroups-From: "Craig" <raganok@intrex.net>
From: "Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12161

>>Why not treat this with a more Sapir-Whorf attitude, and ponder the deep
>>meaning behind the FACT that xu is in UI? Maybe a question is really an
>>attitude after all.
>>

>sure--an attitude of quizzicality.

1. You go. I feel quizzical about this. = do klama .u'esai.ue.a'u

2. Do you go? = do klama xu

They are not the same. Or did you mean a sapir-whorf attitude is quzzical?