Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 23:46:17 +0000

la and cusku di'e

> > I once offered a salomonic compromise: leave the importingness
> > of ro/no/su'o/me'i[ro] ambiguous, and use roma'u/noma'u/su'oma'u
> > /me'ima'u for the importing quantifiers and roni'u/noni'u/
> > su'oni'u/me'ini'u for the non-importing ones when you want
> > to emphasize the distinction. This means that everyone gets to
> > use their favourite importingness unmarked, and whenever there
> > is a possibility of confusion (hardly ever) there is always
> > the possibility of being precise either way
>
>Do ma'u and ni'u here have the status of mere diacritics,
>serving to distinguish the two kinds of ro?

Yes.

>I think it's better to go with ro & ro'o'o, to spare everyone
>who wants to be precise the effort of having to add the ni'u
>or the ma'u.

Well, I would certainly prefer that, as long as ro is the one
without import.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963