From martin@norpan.org Fri Oct 29 03:11:53 2004
Return-Path: <martin@norpan.org>
X-Sender: martin@norpan.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 81030 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2004 10:11:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2004 10:11:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.safelogic.se) (62.181.193.121)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2004 10:11:51 -0000
Received: from ludvig.safelogic.se (unknown [192.168.100.16])
	by mail.safelogic.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22319F51B
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:08:39 +0200 (CEST)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <clsmit+fj75@eGroups.com>
References: <clsmit+fj75@eGroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:08:38 +0200
Message-Id: <1099044518.23542.3.camel@ludvig.safelogic.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 62.181.193.121
From: Martin =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Norb=E4ck?= <martin@norpan.org>
Subject: Re: [lojban] "act so that" without ko?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=167787865
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23276

I have always thought that the "ko" construct is a bit of a kludge. What
especially bugged me was the example in CLL "ko ko kurji". Why replace
both "do" with "ko"?

To me, it would seem better just to have a cmavo that works like "xu",
meaning "act so that the following bridi will be true".

It could well belong to the same selma'o as "xu".

Regards,

	Martin