From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Jul 29 12:05:34 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 13014 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2003 19:05:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jul 2003 19:05:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2003 19:05:33 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19hZmv-0007gU-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:05:33 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hZmU-0007g6-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:05:06 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hZmH-0007fk-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:04:53 -0700 Message-ID: <20030729190421.39500.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:04:21 PDT Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: le du To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20030729143339.G95597-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 6001 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20483 la xod cusku di'e > The fact that "le du" is being used instead of ko'a or ra indicates in the > spirit of cooperation that it is not only different but better than the > obvious choices. {ra} is never an obvious choice for me. It involves determining where previous sumti start and end, and with any but the most trivial of sentences this is a pain. Besides {le du} need not refer to something already mentioned with a previous sumti. {ko'a} is assignable, so if you use it you expect your interlocutor to keep its reference in memory. A waste of effort if you are not planning to refer to the same thing again. > But we haven't heard any such justifications yet. Without > any, it remains verbose and to be avoided. I don't think it needs justification, given that it is grammatical and meaningful, but nobody has to use it if they don't want to either. At two syllables, it doesn't seem all that verbose to me. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com