RE: [jboske] la, lai, me

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

pc:
> {me} is a waste of a good cmavo. JCB had it right 
> originally and it was foolish (not to mention superfluous) to have 
> changed it. {me} should be the brivla relativized in {pe}, as intended.
> 
> (Maybe I should quit bitching and just invent a new -- longer -- 
> cmavo for the purpose:
> {pe'e'e} sounds to me like "posesses" (with a bad lisp) 

On the whole I think it is more profitable to create new cmavo in
these cases, because it separates out the "we need a way to say X"
issue from the "expression Y should mean X" issue.

In this particular instance, though, we don't need a cmavo -- a
lujvo would do. (Same goes for my construal of {me}, too.)

> and sorta fits in with And's most useful recent weirdness, {poi'i} 
> -- which I like a lot.) 

Thanks. These kind remarks you keep slipping in in passing don't
go unremarked!

--And.