From rob@twcny.rr.com Tue Nov 13 16:52:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 00:52:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 12789 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 00:52:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 00:52:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.177) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 00:52:08 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fAE0q7m18784 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:52:07 -0500 (EST) 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 ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:52:04 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 163oGo-0000Ml-00 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:51:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:51:13 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Message-ID: <20011113195113.B1157@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/1.3.23i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:28:36AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > 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. Hmm. That's incredibly pointless, then. I would consider that to be the same selma'o with two different names. I can't see how anything would be adversely affected if we simply decided that every word listed as being in selma'o TAhE is should be said to be in selma'o ZAhO. > >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}. In jbofi'e, {mi ca'a pu broda} doesn't parse at all. -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri