From jcowan@reutershealth.com Fri Oct 29 04:35:50 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 79206 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2004 11:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2004 11:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ratanakiri.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.37) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2004 11:35:50 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (mail [65.246.141.36]) by ratanakiri.reutershealth.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id i9TBZlui000367; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:35:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:35:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:35:45 -0400 To: Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Norb=E4ck?= Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20041029113545.GC7102@skunk.reutershealth.com> References: <1099044518.23542.3.camel@ludvig.safelogic.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1099044518.23542.3.camel@ludvig.safelogic.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 65.246.141.37 From: John Cowan Subject: Re: [lojban] "act so that" without ko? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23278 Martin Norbäck scripsit: > 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"? Because it lets you express two meanings simultaneously: "Take care of yourself" "Be taken care of by yourself" -- The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan free-range chickens (except they have http://www.reutershealth.com teeth, arms instead of wings, and http://www.ccil.org/~cowan dinosaurlike tails). --Elyse Grasso