From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Jan 14 15:05:06 2002
Return-Path: <raganok@intrex.net>
X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 14 Jan 2002 23:05:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 19150 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2002 23:05:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jan 2002 23:05:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2002 23:05:05 -0000
Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net
  (SMTPD32-5.05) id A40A25D500AA; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:04:42 -0500
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] po'u considered harmful
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:05:05 -0500
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFMELHCFAA.raganok@intrex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <3C42F6F6.7050201@reutershealth.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-eGroups-From: "Craig" <raganok@intrex.net>
From: "Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>
Reply-To: <ragnarok@pobox.com>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382
X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl

>> Your criticisms of du have no basis. Likewise, the prevalent idea that
>> _du_ tends to be malglico has no basis.

>What's malglico is to say "mi du lo <selbri>" instead of just
>"mi <selbri>".

In most cases, that is the only problem with it. And in these cases, one
should treat 'po'u' as 'poi du' as that is what it means, and avoid it if
you feel that du should be avoided in that context. Both can be totally
acceptable, but both can be malglico - po'u is just more subtle, and I
wanted to bring to light the fact that it can be problematic.
So at least use poi instead of 'po'u lo'