From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Jul 21 06:32:33 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 41813 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2003 13:32:32 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19eamG-0004Rx-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:32:32 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eam8-0004Ra-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:32:24 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs24349-133.austin.rr.com ([24.243.49.133] helo=cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ealy-0004RP-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:32:14 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6LDgVxN057156 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:42:31 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h6LDgVlc057155 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:42:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:42:31 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: use of ko'a Message-ID: <20030721134231.GA57104@allusion.net> References: <0HID0000CLTCWA@mxout4.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0HID0000CLTCWA@mxout4.netvision.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 5931 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20413 --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:09:03PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > de'i li 2003-07-19 ti'u li 16:43:00 la'o zoi. Craig .zoi cusku di'e >=20 > >>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 meaningf= ul. > >To those of you who argue for unbound ko'a, if that is your reason, I ha= ve a > >question for you. i pei xu cu'e xo ma mo? If not, then what is your reas= on? >=20 > 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 But I reject that it is useful, since you can get the same use with less syllables using existing anaphora. > completely unambiguous; in fact, every use of 'le' is potentially ambiguo= us > in much the same way that unbound ko'a is (note that And uses 'le du'=20 > 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). --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline [Attachment content not displayed.] --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF--