[lojban] Re: le du

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

la xod cusku di'e

> le du means le du zo'e, not le du da, right?

I guess you mean {le du be zo'e/da}. What would be the difference
in this case? Whatever zo'e adds to da is already contemplated 
in {le}, isn't it? 

> le du is null. It's overly verbose, but I can't justify the rejection of
> senseless verbosity on any grounds other than style.

I'm not sure what you mean by null here. It is as verbose as its main
alternative, ko'a, at least if we measure by number of syllables. 
It may have advantages in some cases over ko'a, for example it 
allows an inner quantifier: {le ci du}. In that case you could also 
just say {le ci da}, but then maybe you don't want to waste a 
variable.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com