From araizen@newmail.net Mon Jul 21 06:09:36 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout4.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.27]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eaPw-00037B-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:09:28 -0700 Received: from default ([62.0.115.147]) by mxout4.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with SMTP id <0HID00008LSLWA@mxout4.netvision.net.il> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:08:56 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:09:03 +0200 From: Adam Raizen Subject: [lojban] Re: use of ko'a To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" Message-id: <0HID0000CLTCWA@mxout4.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5930 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: araizen@newmail.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list de'i li 2003-07-19 ti'u li 16:43:00 la'o zoi. Craig .zoi cusku di'e >>Unbound malglico. Either use my. or le go'i or ra or bind the ko'a. >>my. and ra even cost less syllables, so I don't see what argument >>there is for the unbound ko'a. > >The argument is, pe'i, that it is grammatical so it ought to be meaningful. >To those of you who argue for unbound ko'a, if that is your reason, I have a >question for you. i pei xu cu'e xo ma mo? If not, then what is your reason? That's not the argument. The argument is that it is grammatical, it has an obvious meaning, and it is useful. Not every sumti place has to be completely unambiguous; in fact, every use of 'le' is potentially ambiguous in much the same way that unbound ko'a is (note that And uses 'le du' instead of unbound ko'a). If we wanted to get rid of every ambiguous sumti, we should start with ra/ru and zo'e, even implicitly (i.e., no ellipsis). mu'o mi'e .adam.