In a message dated 8/19/2001 3:12:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes: Or 3) Not so -- some {ce'u} may be implicit, and it is up to the Yes, that is a position too and, indeed, probably what we have been mainly working with lo these many years. But it is hideously soft-line and illogical, since it makes every {ka} phrase vague (or ambiguous, depending on how hard-line you are). The problem is that glorking is unreliable at best: witness pc and cowan on {le ka prami}. Of course, people often are vague about just what they mean, but rarely, I think, ambiguous in just this way. I am relieved to have my reflexive (etc.) worries removed. |