--- Rob Speer <rspeer@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:19:28PM +0200, Yuval Harel wrote:
> > 1) I've noticed people are signing their posts with signatures such as
> > "mu'o mi'e iuv?l". Does that not defy the meaning of {mu'o}? If
> > attitudinals are allowed to be attached to {mu'o} it no longer marks the
> > end of the utterance. When used in speech, it seems that the listener
must
> > infer where the attached attitudinal list ends from context.
>
> An interesting point - perhaps it should be "mi'e rab.spir mu'o". But I
> think that, as non-computers, we understand that someone saying "mu'o"
> at least gets to finish the sentence.
{mu'o} is a COI, not a UI. You don't have a complete parse until you hear
a name or a {do'u} after it. It doesn't by itself mark the end of an
utterance. The construction that it heads marks the end of the utterance.
A different issue is whether it makes sense for {mu'o} to be a COI or
whether it would be better placed in UI, given its function.
mu'o mi'e xorxes