From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Nov 16 10:32:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 16 Nov 2001 18:32:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 88713 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 18:32:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Nov 2001 18:32:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 18:32:43 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (32.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.32]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fAGIWgd76191 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:32:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011116132744.051fd920@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:33:09 -0500 To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011115124501.052aac30@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 12:36 AM 11/16/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote: >Not a bad answer, but in {du'u xu kau broda} the {xu kau} is to be >replaced with {ja'a} or {na}, and by the usual rule of replacing >like with like, that would mean that {xu} should be in JAhA. Remember that all applications of kau are back-formations, since it was added well after the bulk of the language was complete. But also I don't think that "du'u mi broda xukau le brode" would be replaced by "du'u mi broda ja'a/na[ku] le brode" (and I'd hate to have to say "xuku" with a straight face anyway %^). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org