>> Not eliding those terminators makes even the simplest statements seem
>> horribly complicated. I believe that the best way to teach elidable
>> terminators is to teach them in such constructs as they are NOT elidable. To
>> tell someone "This word means this, but is hardly ever used for this
>> reason", likely tells that person "This isn't important, don't bother
>> remembering it". But to say instead, "This new word here, which means this,
>> is required in the sentence for this reason", seems to myself to have more,
>> um, staying power.
>
> I'm sorry, this is a horrible idea.
> In my experience I know this, and all of the newest teaching material
> reflects this. Teach terminators as if they're required, and don't
> even mention that {cu} exists. It's possible to go for months without
> using {cu}, so why teach it until it's necessary (namely when
> sentences start to sound like "kei ku kei ku kei kui *selbri*")?
>
> Which do you think is easier?
> 1. "Yeah, in this one particular circumstance you need this thing
> called "ku" that you just have to use because you can't use "cu"
> there, but you still have to have something there... cos... I said
> so...
>
> 2. "Well, now here's a cute trick. Right here, we don't actually need
> "ku", because it reads the same either way."
>
> Sometimes you need it for random strange reasons with convoluted
> rules, or you learn that you always need it and sometimes it can be
> left off.
>
> For pedagogical reasons, option 2 has proven time and time again to be
> the better alternative that results in much better diction/word-choice/
> phrasing. Please don't teach or use {cu} until you've gotten well past
> things like abstractions, and even then, don't use it unless it's
> absolutely necessary for the sake of brevity (ex: {.i lo nu mi broda
> be lo brode be lo brodi bei lo brodo be lo brodu cu co'e} instead of
> {.i lo nu mi broda be lo brode be lo brodi ku bei lo brodo be lo brodu
> ku be'o ku be'o ku be'o ku kei ku co'e}).
>