From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Nov 15 05:57:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 15 Nov 2001 13:57:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 81081 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 13:57:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Nov 2001 13:57:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2001 13:57:06 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:32:58 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:09:00 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:08:30 +0000 To: rob , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> Rob Speer 11/14/01 10:11pm >>> #> {xu} really ought to have been=20 #> in JAhA (the ja'a/na selmaho), so this is an example of a misplaced=20 #>cmavo rather than an example of a totally screwed up selmaho system. # #If xu were in JAhA, you would need a different word to question a #specific part of the sentence (a feature of {xu} which is largely #unexplored). If it makes sense to ask a yes/no question about a specific part of the sentence then it also makes sense to affirm or negate a specific part of the sentence. Just as xo behaves like a PA and ma behaves like a KOhA, so xu should behave like a JAhA. --And.