On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:41:19PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:14:04PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > > > I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that nai is not a
> > > > word that makes sense to be used anywhere, so I'm done.
> > >
> > > You're dropping the context. Is this a case of the principle that
> > > everything in UI must be able to make sense anywhere?
> >
> > Ummm, duh?
> >
> > That's the whole *point* of UI.
>
> Let me belabour the point.
>
> What does {.i ta'u .i li'o} mean? {.i pau paunai}? What about a bu'onai
> without a preceding bu'o? How about {.i xu po'o .i li'o}? UI3a and UI7
> already seem to have restricted (contextual) meanings.
po'o makes sense everywhere; I don't know what ta'u is supposed to
be used as; your use of li'o is semantically wrong since it's not
inside of a quote, but if it were it would be fine; the pau thing
is kinda like saying "I'm *am* going to the store?" in english, but
pau pretty much only makes sense at the beginning of a sentence
anyway (it probably should've been only allowed after I or in a
subclause or something).
Putting a cmavo in UI (like kau or arguably pau) is just plain lazy
if it doesn't actually make sense to be used anywhere.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00467.pgp
Description: PGP signature