RE: RE: [jboske] carving the lo'e debate into shape (was: RE: My lastwillandtestament on lo'e

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

Adam:
> de'i li 2002-10-25 ti'u li 01:42:00 la xorxes. cusku di'e
> 
> >> > > (Hopefully we won't waste {lo'e} on this. It is not the
> >> > > kind of thing we say all the time such that it requires
> >> > > a special gadri.)
> >> > 
> >> > It's not a very gadri-ish meaning, so for that reason isn't
> >> > a prime candidate for {lo'e}, but I don't see why the form
> >> > {lo'e} is so precious that we mustn't waste it. Monosyllabic
> >> > cmavo are ultraprecious (& with hindsight, many of those
> >> > were squandered), but oodles of disyllabics are available 
> >> 
> >> {lo'e} has a couple of practical advantages over other
> >> disyllabics: (1) it is recognized by parsers, so that you can
> >> check your grammar if you use it (I almost never actually
> >> use the parsers, but anyway) and (2) it appears on word lists,
> >> so that people new to the language can at least know it is
> >> a gadri 
> 
> 'tu'o (lo)' is the recognized-by-parsers, listed-in-word-lists version 
> of 'lo'ei' for those who want such a thing but don't want to assign 
> it to 'lo'e', and also I think that it is 100% CLL-compatible 

(Remember, incidentally, that xorxes is not here arguing for official
lo'e = lo'ei.) "tu'o (lo)" can't say what lo'ei can, though arguably
tu'o lo/le might be functionally equivalent to loi'e/lei'e.

--And.