From araizen@newmail.net Sun Apr 01 12:34:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 1 Apr 2001 19:34:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 65574 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2001 19:34:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Apr 2001 19:34:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ei.egroups.com) (10.1.2.114) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Apr 2001 19:34:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.125] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Apr 2001 19:34:06 -0000 Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 19:34:06 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Random lojban questions/annoyances. Message-ID: <9a7vre+rau9@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 925 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.183.212 From: "Adam Raizen" la xorxes cusku die > I reject some cmavo mainly on practical grounds. For > example, some people like to use za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e instead of > the simple nu that covers them all. But in order for me to understand > what they are saying I have to first recognize and then mentally > translate that word into nu, and I usually have no idea what additional > information the word is adding. I have not yet found an example > where I can say that it justifies the whole hassle of having to learn > four more words. I'm not sure I can think of an example that justifies the distinction between "ka" and "nu", either. Does "mi mutce le nu xenru" or "le ka sipna cu nibli le ka nalsanji" mean anything so different than the version with the other abstractor? There may be examples where there is a real distinction, but they seem pretty rare. And yet we all constantly make a distinction between "ka" and "nu". co'o mi'e adam