| In a message dated 8/28/2001 1:47:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes: la'e zo klama = le si'oklama? le si'o klama be ma <a. Always write ce'u, and never in a filled place. i. ce'u makes sense in li'i as well as du'u and ka.> I am unsure about the claim about {li'i}; what would {li'i ce'u prami} be? I don't see lambdas floating about in experiences. How can you (physically, never mind grammatically) write a {ce'u} in a filled space? But the idea is to reduce the number you have to write, so rule a looks wrong. <b. ka and du'u are interchangeable if there is at least one ce'u. ka expects at least one ce'u, du'u expects 0 or more.> It is more efficient to maintain the status quo ante: {du'u} for no {ce'u}, {ka} for one or more. It is occasionally useful to spell out the other cases, of course, but not as a general rule. <d. si'o implicitly fills up all the places with ce'u. But outside of si'o, all empty places are zo'e.> Well, I don't believe that {si'o} is in this mess, but if it were, thatwould be the way to go, using explicit {zo'e} to get back to fewer {ce'u} <c. In kambroda lujvo, the ce'u is in the first place. I don't know how to lujvoize ka ce'u broda ce'u.> Well, the nice thing about lujvo is that you get to pick what the places are. And there are devices for calling attention to special uses of various places. As a general rule, the convention sounds right though (the simplest case of abbreviation). <2 Reading a. Understand that the older texts may have implicit ce'u floating about, including in places that are already filled! You're on your own, context is your guide.> The working assumption is that old {ka}s meant to have {ce'u} in the first free space and maybe (but rarely) elsewhere. That is the advantage of the suggested abbreviation scheme. Am I still automatically excluded from your purview? (if so will someone else slip this on to xod) |