From ragnarok@pobox.com Sat Jul 19 13:44:02 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 46022 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2003 20:44:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Jul 2003 20:44:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jul 2003 20:44:02 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19dyYk-0000bn-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:44:02 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dyYb-0000bN-00; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:43:53 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dyYS-0000az-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:43:44 -0700 Received: from craig [209.42.200.92] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id AD60E0201BC; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:43:12 -0400 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: use of ko'a Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 16:43:19 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: <20030719204624.GA45417@allusion.net> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.92] X-archive-position: 5925 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20407 >> > When I said "you would only use it", I didn't mean "you can never >> > use it in any other way." Unbound ko'a is grammatical, but >> > stylistically I think it's malglico. >> >> I disagree. >> >> le mi mamta mamta cu mutce nelci le karce .i ko'a ji'a nelci le >> ladru >> >> I don't see that anyone's going to have much confusion there, and >> since I presumably intend to deliver a bunch more sentences >> involving le mi mamta mamta, it seems a reasonable thing to do. >I agree with robin. >Errr. The other robin. >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? -- mi'e .kreig.daniyl. "Well, well, well. It seems that the Martial Penis has fallen asleep." -rlpowell ragnarok@pobox.com teucer@bnomic.org