From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Oct 10 20:52:06 2002
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 11 Oct 2002 03:52:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 19079 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2002 03:52:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Oct 2002 03:52:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Oct 2002 03:52:06 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05)
  id 17zquM-0004f0-00
  for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:56:14 -0700
Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 17zqtp-0004eW-00; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:55:41 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 17zqtk-0004eL-00
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:55:37 -0700
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
  by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g9B3xUGZ071935
  for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:59:30 -0500 (CDT)
  (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
  by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g9B3xUHc071934
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:59:30 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:59:30 -0500
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: ka'enai
Message-ID: <20021011035930.GD70303@allusion.net>
References: <a05111b08b9cbe986c878@[128.250.86.21]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yudcn1FV7Hsu/q59"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a05111b08b9cbe986c878@[128.250.86.21]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 2152
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
X-list: lojban-list
X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
From: Jordan DeLong <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out

--yudcn1FV7Hsu/q59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:51:00PM +1000, Nick Nicholas wrote:
[...]
> Allow me to equivocate.
>=20
> (1) Humans impose patterns on grammars. If you've been told that CAhA=20
> is a tense as much as pu and fa'a; if you've seen that every single=20
> other tense has NAI; if you see no logical reason why you wouldn't=20
> say CAhA NAI, then of course you'll say CAhA NAI. I did.

But CAhA *isn't* actually the same as all other tenses. And neither
is fa'a the same as pu. You can't say "puzifa'abaca'apu". ca'a
*must* be at the end of the string of words in simple-tense-modal.
There are rules about where all the different tense-type words can
go as well.

VA and ZA and ZE'A can't take NAI either. I don't think this was
something which was simply forgotten. But it is nonimportant anyway:
it's better to have an imperfect language than no language at all.
Stability is neccesary.

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku

--yudcn1FV7Hsu/q59
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9pkyiDrrilS51AZ8RAvmDAJ0Q2FnjjSzA9aPkIYn0uw5uAVq5QgCg0dkr
SeIvwZzjOq0qVRLcvjn9w2U=
=AlFr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--yudcn1FV7Hsu/q59--

