From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Sep 14 18:08:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 01:08:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 76159 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 00:34:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 00:34:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.169) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 00:34:18 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f8F0YDo11088 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:33:13 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15i3P2-0000Sf-00 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:33:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:33:48 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd) Message-ID: <20010914203348.A1736@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010913210220.00a97f00@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 01:44:33PM -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > > [Flames and counterflames bypassed. I haven't changed my mind; but > whatever.] > > > I put in soi for use in reflexives that seemed like they would be > > excessively verbose otherwise. If you make it work so that reflexives are > > handled, then soi works. I doubt that my particular way of envisioning it > > is that critical to the language (or for that matter my way of envisioning > > much of anything that people find. > > The issue in soi vo'a is not soi, it's vo'a. See Wiki, "Why the Book is > Right and the ma'oste is Wrong" and "Prior usage and discussions of vo'a". Right. Which is why I suggest we at least avoid this problem in the future, by teaching "soi lenei" instead of "soi vo'a". -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri