From phma@oltronics.net Sat Sep 08 19:23:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 9 Sep 2001 02:23:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 14708 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2001 02:23:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Sep 2001 02:23:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.233) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2001 02:23:24 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 472303C476; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Mark on wiki on lerfu Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:13:41 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0109082113412K.05217@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat On Saturday 08 September 2001 19:51, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > Gringe. Can someone remind me of the point of this, please. Why would we > want all these horrors, assigned or not? The maximum effective anaphora is > going to contain maybe half-a-dozen connections tops; beyond that we cannot > either remember or calculate the reference, whence the slogan "Repetition > is also anaphora." It is nice to ahve all these tools available for > choices, but we do not need them to do the work (we don't even need the > fo'V set, rpobably, as witness there heavy use so far.) I think that the ko'a-series cmavo should be assigned in the order ko'a, fo'i, ko'u, fo'a, ko'i, fo'u, ko'e, fo'o, ko'o, fo'e, especially in noisy environments. phma