From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Aug 29 12:22:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 19:22:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 67286 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 19:22:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 19:22:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 19:22:01 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-44.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.44]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA30994 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:21:59 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15cAu9-0000DF-00 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:21:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:21:36 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u Message-ID: <20010829152136.B740@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 02:09:27PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > unfortunately that doesn't tell us much. If people understood when they > need ce'u and if they never elided it, then you would have seen it. And > in discussions of, say, definitional issues (e.g. "Is daterape rape?") > you'd get a lot of all-ce'us. I think the way to say that would be to say {xu du la'ezo -daterape la'ezo -rape} and avoid ce'u altogether. Just because we've been talking about ce'u a lot doesn't mean you have to use it. In other words, I think la'ezo already does what the ka/du'u/si'o proposal says lesi'o should do. -- Rob Speer