From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Aug 26 04:56:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 26 Aug 2001 11:56:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 41272 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2001 11:56:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Aug 2001 11:56:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 11:56:27 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.89.27]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010826115626.LRQB6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:56:26 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] useless selmaho? (was: RE: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:55:38 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >I agree about JOhI, MAhO and NAhU, not deserving of to be learnt, and I > >would add: > > > >FUhA > >BIhE > >PEhO > > Yes, certainly. I missed them. I also missed NUhA. I had NUhA in my list but then deleted it, thinking it a typo for NAhU. O these so memorable cmavo and selmaho... > >But I think NIhE and MOhE (and hence TEhU) are potentially *extremely* > >useful. Had they not existed, I probably would have been agitating for > >them (and persuading noone). > > Maybe just mo'e. What would you use ni'e for? Certainly mo'e is the key one. Besides the Refgram use of ni'e, it would allow for the naming of numbers by means of fuhivla. Stuff like "Planck constant" or whatever. --And.