From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Nov 13 16:28:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 00:28:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 41739 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 00:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 00:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.153) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 00:28:38 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:28:36 -0800 Received: from 200.69.11.48 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:28:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.48] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:28:36 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2001 00:28:36.0695 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CCB5E70:01C16CA3] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la rab cusku di'e >However, I believe that from usage some selma'o will eventually combine. >What is the grammatical distinction between ZEhA, ZAhO, FAhA, and PU? There are minor distinctions, but I agree with you that there are too many selma'o and many will have to combine eventually. ZAho and TAhE in fact have identical grammar, and their remaining as separate selma'o is just due to their history. >And why does CAhA have different grammar? It is grammatically correct to >say {mi pu ca'a broda} but not {mi ca'a pu broda}. Both are grammatically correct, but the second one parses as {mi ca'aku pu broda}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp