On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:54:35PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:04:05PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:25:13PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> > >
> > > > Those of you without time/ability to read the Lojban might
> > > > might the topic interesting: xorxes was pointing out four
> > > > places where I used a COI cmavo as though it was UI (i.e.,
> > > > without following it with a name). xorxes expressed his
> > > > desire for COI cmavo to actually grammatically be like UI
> > > > cmavo (which I'm inclined to agree with).
> > >
> > > Well, UI binds to the previous word. Is that what you were
> > > doing? It's certainly grammatical to have COI by itself now,
> > > although you need an explicit "do'u" if the next thing is a name
> > > or sumti.
> >
> > As cowan says, you need a do'u.
> >
> > This is neccesary because otherwise you wouldn't be able to say
> > things like the (extreemly frequent on irc) "coi rodo".
>
> coi itself is the *only* word I've seen get used properly in COI
> that I can recall.
This may be true, but it's certainly not an argument for nuking COI
in favor of UI.
Many people who use lerfu sumti almost never get the boi terminator
right. But this doesn't argue in favor of changing the multi-letter
rule for lerfu anaphor.
Bad usage is just bad usage.
--
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:
pgp00536.pgp
Description: PGP signature