From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Wed Jul 23 08:58:11 2003
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 9650 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2003 15:58:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Jul 2003 15:58:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2003 15:58:10 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12)
	id 19fM0I-0007Nv-00
	for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:58:10 -0700
Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19fM05-0007Lk-00; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:57:57 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19fLzd-0007FQ-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:57:29 -0700
Message-ID: <20030723155658.18532.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:56:58 PDT
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [lojban] Re: le du
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <20030723113612.J33722-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 5968
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" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20450


la xod cusku di'e

> le du means le du zo'e, not le du da, right?

I guess you mean {le du be zo'e/da}. What would be the difference
in this case? Whatever zo'e adds to da is already contemplated 
in {le}, isn't it? 

> le du is null. It's overly verbose, but I can't justify the rejection of
> senseless verbosity on any grounds other than style.

I'm not sure what you mean by null here. It is as verbose as its main
alternative, ko'a, at least if we measure by number of syllables. 
It may have advantages in some cases over ko'a, for example it 
allows an inner quantifier: {le ci du}. In that case you could also 
just say {le ci da}, but then maybe you don't want to waste a 
variable.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com